In QinetiQ US Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner
, No. 15-2193 (4th Cir. 2017), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s earlier ruling that stock acquired by an employee was not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture within the meaning of Section 83; as a result, the employer was not entitled to a tax deduction when the stock vested.
In 2002, an individual, Thomas Hume, formed Dominion Technology Resources, Inc. (DTRI), an S corporation that later converted to a C corporation. That same year, another individual, Julian Chin, joined DTRI by becoming an employee, signing an employment agreement and purchasing voting and nonvoting shares of stock. Hume also executed an employment agreement, and both Hume and Chin executed shareholder agreements with DTRI. Those agreements provided that DTRI would have the option to repurchase the shares at an agreement value upon death, disability or termination of employment without cause. In the event of voluntary resignation by the employee, DTRI had the right to purchase the shares at 5% of the agreement value for every year of the departing employee’s employment up to a maximum of 100% after 20 years of employment. In the event an employee voluntarily terminated employment and competed with DTRI, or if the employee was terminated for cause, DTRI had the option to purchase the shares at 5 % of the agreement value for every year of employment up to 25% of the agreement value.
In 2008, QinetiQ US Holdings, Inc. (QinetiQ), entered into negotiations to purchase DTRI. Immediately before the transaction closed, Hume and Chin executed an agreement waiving DTRI’s rights to purchase the partially vested stock. QinetiQ included in both Hume and Chin’s wages, subject to income tax and FICA tax withholding, the 2008 transaction date fair market value of the shares issued in 2002, and QinetiQ claimed a deduction under Section 83(h) for the fair market value of the shares. Hume and Chin filed personal income tax returns for the 2008 tax year claiming as wages the 2008 value of their respective shares issued in 2002.
The Tax Court held that the shares issued in 2002 were not “transferred in connection with the performance of services” within the meaning of Section 83, and the shares were not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture from 2002 through the transaction date in 2008. The Fourth Circuit did not address whether the shares issued to Hume and Chin in 2002 were transferred in connection with the performance of services. Instead, the appeals court focused on whether the shares were subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. To the extent they were not, the tax deduction, if any, under Section 83 would have been allowed to DTRI in 2002, which is closed under the statute of limitations.
Property is not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture to the extent that the employer is required to pay the fair market value of the property to the employee upon the return of the property under Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.83-3(c)(1). In addition, property is not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture if “at the time of the transfer the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the forfeiture condition is unlikely to be enforced,” under Treas. Reg. § 1.83-3(c)(1). The Fourth Circuit also said that “conditions imposed at the time of transfer that require the return of property ‘if the employee accepts a job with a competing firm,’ will not be sufficient to constitute a substantial risk of forfeiture,” citing Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.83-3(c)(2).
The Fourth Circuit dismissed any notion that the noncompete provision in the shareholder agreement resulted in a substantial risk of forfeiture. In addition, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Tax Court that the likelihood of forfeiture due to involuntary resignation did not amount to a substantial risk. According to the courts, Hume would have been unlikely to enforce the shareholder restrictions on the stock in the event of Chin’s voluntary departure. The courts reached this conclusion because of Chin’s role as an initial investor in DTRI, Chin’s very close working relationship with Hume and Chin’s vital role within DTRI as the executive vice president, chief operating officer and a 49.75% shareholder in voting stock. As a result, the Fourth Circuit ruled that QinetiQ was not entitled to a tax deduction in 2008 related to the stock issued in 2002.
The Fourth Circuit did not directly address QinetiQ’s tax deduction for the stock issued to Hume in 2002, but it is possible the same conclusion would apply to Hume’s stock because he was the controlling shareholder of the DTRI. In addition, the Fourth Circuit did not address the compensation income recognized by Hume and Chin in 2008.
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 521 1565
Senior Manager, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 521 1526
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.