Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Merger of two companies is change in ownership or control for one but not the other for golden parachute purposes

Article Abstract:

The IRS has ruled that, in a merger of two companies, one of the two underwent a change of ownership for golden parachute purposes, but not the other. A stock-for-asset exchange caused the company offering its stock to undergo a change of ownership, as it had transferred over 50% of its control to a new company. The combined stock of the companies in the hands of the other company, however, did not leave the new company with a majority share of power, and therefore no change of ownership had occured for this second company, even though it had given up all of its assets.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
Analysis, Acquisitions and mergers

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Sale of wholly-owned subsidiary is not a change in ownership or control triggering the golden parachute rules even where parent corporation is sold within same calendar year

Article Abstract:

The IRS in Letter Ruling 9847011 determined that employee compensation linked to ownership changes of the employer business did not fall within IRC section 280G and IRS regulation section 1.280G-1, Q & A-22(b). Section 280G treats such compensation as taxable and denies employers the deduction for compensation paid. The ruling concerned the sale in the same calendar year of a subsidiary and subsequently of its parent.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1999
United States, Employee Benefits & Services, Laws, regulations and rules, Affiliated corporations, Human resource management, Influence, Contracts, Employee benefits, Business sale

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Present value of annuity determined for purposes of golden parachute rules

Article Abstract:

A parachute payment is taxable if the aggregate present value of the compensation made in relation to the change of control of the employer is equal to or greater than three times a certain base amount. The present value of the annuity is calculated on the date of the change of control. The Applicable Federal Rate 120% of the long-term rate during the month in which the change of control of the employer occurred.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1992
Methods, Taxation, Accounting and auditing, Annuities, Present value

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Golden parachutes
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Trapped income of a RIC. Sale of subsidiary did not constitute a change in ownership or control for purposes of the golden parachute rules under Section 280G
  • Abstracts: Labor-management cooperation: a critical view. Age discrimination in employment: the over qualified older worker
  • Abstracts: Tax-exempt entities, notional principal contracts, and the unrelated business income tax. Developments in the law - nonprofit corporations
  • Abstracts: Antitrust - McCarran-Ferguson immunity - Ninth Circuit finds reinsurers potentially liable for involvement in developing standardized policies
  • Abstracts: California underground regulations. Administrative law in the 21st century. 'A Civil Action' holds up a mirror to David vs. Goliath litigation
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.