Tax and bonuses in shares
Sorry if you’re
expecting a polemic about the level of bankers’ bonuses. There’s been far too
much of that in my view: I have the old-fashioned view that if the Government
negotiates a contract it’s probably not a good thing for it to renege on it.
What I wanted
to tell you about is the tax treatment of such a bonus, and how smaller
companies can do much better. This is an area in which those poor oppressed
bankers really have been losing out.
The
Government has been keen to see bonuses paid in shares rather than cash, but it
has made no tax concessions to encourage it. An employee receiving free shares
as a bonus is taxed on their value as if they were cash. Listed company shares
are “readily-convertible assets” so the tax has to be paid through the PAYE system,
and national insurance is payable. Mr Hester is not allowed to sell his shares,
so he will have to find over £500,000 out of his net salary to pay the tax on
his £963,000 bonus. On his reported salary of £1.2 million, that will leave him
with about £85,000 net [1].
The taxpayer-controlled bank will have to pay national insurance contributions
of almost £300,000. So in total for 20011-12 Stephen Hester gets £85,000 and
George Osborne gets £1.425 million! RBS does get a corporation tax deduction
for the salary, the value of the shares and employer’s NIC (if RBS makes a
profit) but the Exchequer still gets £785,000 net.
The position
changes, of course, when the shares are eventually sold. If they go down in
value, there is no tax to pay, but no credit for the tax already paid. If they
halved in value, Mr Hester would make a net of tax loss (the tax paid would be
more than the proceeds of sale). If the shares go up, there is no tax on the
first £963,000 (on which he has paid tax already) but the profit will be
chargeable to capital gains tax. But of course the taxpayer loses out through
dilution of the Treasury’s shareholding: if the shares double in value, the
bonus will have cost the shareholders twice as much as if they had paid the
bonus in cash.
Mr Hester
may be able to afford to pay £520,000 of tax and NIC out of other salary and
resources, but most employees are not likely to be grateful for a bonus in shares
they can’t sell, which lands them with a large tax bill they can’t pay. This
makes bonuses in shares very unattractive.
Fortunately
private companies have a much better route available to them. We can thank the
LibDems (in the 1970’s [2]
for starting a range of tax-approved employee share schemes. Best of these now
is the Enterprise Management Incentive (EMI) Scheme [3].
Its tax advantages remain amongst the best of any tax relief. Complete exemption
of gains from tax or NIC and a full corporation tax deduction for the value of
the shares mean the net tax rate is often actually negative!
I have been
setting up EMI schemes for private companies for many years. They are
wonderfully flexible, and can be structured to avoid diluting owners’ equity
until the company is sold. If you would like more details please contact me.
[1]
assuming he uses his allowances and basic rate tax band elsewhere
[2] actually they were still Liberals then
[3] under Schedule 5 of ITEPA 2003
[2] actually they were still Liberals then
[3] under Schedule 5 of ITEPA 2003
Since I posted the above Stephen Hester has bowed to pressure and waived his bonus. Who would now take a job in a state-owned bank?
ReplyDeleteWhen I get shares from my employer they don't vest immediately and no tax is paid until they do. What's different with Stephen Hester?
ReplyDeleteGanesh, I don't know what sort of scheme you are in so I can't comment on it, but bank directors will be way above the limits for tax-advantaged schemes in the UK so they will generally be taxed on the value of the shares they receive. And also if the shares haven't vested, then you haven't got them. Here we were talking about current year pay being paid in shares rather than cash, not about conditional incentives for future performance.
ReplyDelete