Example.
(i) Facts. Corporation M, an S corporation under section 1361, establishes Plan P as an ESOP in 2006, with a calendar plan year. Plan P is a qualified plan that includes terms providing that a prohibited allocation will not occur during a nonallocation year in accordance with section 409(p). On December 31, 2006, all of the 1,000 outstanding shares of stock of Corporation M, with a fair market value of $30 per share, are contributed to Plan P and allocated among accounts established within Plan P for the benefit of Corporation M's three employees, individuals A, B, and C, based on their compensation for 2006. As a result, on December 31, 2006, participant A's account includes 800 of the shares ($24,000); participant B's account includes 140 of the shares ($4,200); and participant C's account includes the remaining 60 shares ($1,800). The plan year 2006 is a nonallocation year, participants A and B are disqualified persons on December 31, 2006, and a prohibited allocation occurs for A and B on December 31, 2006.
(ii) Conclusion. On December 31, 2006, participants A and B each have a deemed distribution as a result of the prohibited allocation, resulting in income of $24,000 for participant A and $4,200 for participant B. Corporation M owes an excise tax under section 4979A, based on an amount involved of $28,200. Plan P ceases to be an ESOP on the date of the prohibited allocation (December 31, 2006) and also fails to satisfy the qualification requirements of section 401(a) on that date due to the failure to comply with the provisions requiring compliance with section 409(p). As a result of having an ineligible shareholder under section 1361(b)(1)(B), Corporation M ceases to be an S corporation under section 1361 on December 31, 2006.
Example 1.
(i) Facts. An S corporation has 800 outstanding shares, of which 100 are owned by individual O and 700 are held in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) during 2006, including 200 shares held in the ESOP account of O, 65 shares held in the ESOP account of participant P, 65 shares held in the ESOP account of participant Q who is P's spouse, and 14 shares held in the ESOP account of R, who is the daughter of P and Q. There are no unallocated suspense account shares in the ESOP. The S corporation has no synthetic equity.
(ii) Conclusion. Under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, O is a disqualified person during 2006 because O's account in the ESOP holds at least 10% of the shares owned by the ESOP (200 is 28.6% of 700). During 2006, neither P, Q, nor R is a disqualified person under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, because each of their accounts holds less than 10% of the shares owned by the ESOP. However, each of P, Q, and R is a disqualified person under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section because P and members of P's family own at least 20% of the deemed-owned ESOP shares (144 (the sum of 65, 65 and 14) is 20.6% of 700). As a result, disqualified persons own at least 50% of the outstanding shares of the S corporation during 2006 (O's 100 directly owned shares, O's 200 deemed-owned shares, P's 65 deemed-owned shares, Q's 65 deemed-owned shares, and R's 14 deemed-owned shares are 55.5% of 800).
Example 2.
(i) Facts. An S corporation has shares that are owned by an ESOP and various individuals. Individuals S and T are married and have a son, U. Individuals V and W are married and have a daughter, X. Individuals U and X are married. Individual V has a brother Y. Their percentages of the deemed-owned ESOP shares of the S corporation are as follows: T has 6%; U has 7%; and V has 8%. Neither S, W, X, nor Y has any deemed-owned ESOP shares and the S corporation has no synthetic equity. However, individual S and individual Y each own directly a number of shares of the outstanding shares of the S corporation.
(ii) Conclusion. In this example, individual U is a disqualified person under paragraph (d)(1) of this section (because U's family consists of S, T, U, V, W, and X, and, in the aggregate, those persons own more than 20% of the deemed-owned ESOP shares) and individual X is also a disqualified person under paragraph (d)(1) of this section (because T's family consists of S, T, U, V, W, and X, and, in the aggregate, those persons own more than 20% of the deemed-owned ESOP shares). Further, individuals T and V are each a disqualified person under paragraph (d)(2) of this section because each is a member of a family that includes one or more disqualified persons and each has deemed-owned ESOP shares. However, individuals S, W, and Y are not disqualified persons under this paragraph (d). For example, S does not own more than 10% of the deemed-owned ESOP shares, and S's family, which consists of S, T, U, and X, owns, in the aggregate, only 13% of the deemed-owned ESOP shares (X's parents are not members of S's family because the family members of a person do not include the parents-in-law of the person's descendants). Further, note that, for purposes of determining whether the ESOP has a nonallocation year under paragraph (c) of this section, the shares directly owned by S and Y would be taken into account as shares owned by disqualified persons under the attribution rules in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
Example 1. Relating to determination of disqualified persons and nonallocation year if there is no synthetic equity.
(i) Facts. Corporation X is a calendar year S corporation that maintains an ESOP. X has a single class of common stock, of which there are a total of 1,200 shares outstanding. X has no synthetic equity. In 2006, individual A, who is not an employee of X (and is not related to any employee of X), owns 100 shares directly, B, who is an employee of X, owns 100 shares directly, and the remaining 1,000 shares are owned by an ESOP maintained by X for its employees. The ESOP's 1,000 shares are allocated to the accounts of individuals who are employees of X (none of whom are related), as set forth in columns 1 and 2 in the following table:
1Shareholders 2 Deemed-owned ESOP shares (total of 1,000) 3 Percentage deemed-owned ESOP shares 4 Disqualified person B 330 33 Yes. C 145 14.5 Yes. D 75 7.5 No. E 30 3 No. F 20 2 No. Other participants 1 400 (2) No. (ii) Conclusion with respect to disqualified persons. As shown in column 4 in the table contained in paragraph (i) of Example 1, individuals B and C are disqualified persons for 2006 under paragraph (d)(1) of this section because each owns at least 10% of X's deemed-owned ESOP shares. However, the synthetic equity shares owned by any person do not affect the calculation for any other person's ownership of shares.
(iii) Conclusion with respect to nonallocation year. 2006 is not a nonallocation year under section 409(p) because disqualified persons do not own at least 50% of X's outstanding shares (the 100 shares owned directly by B, B's 330 deemed-owned ESOP shares, plus C's 145 deemed-owned ESOP shares equal only 47.9% of the 1,200 outstanding shares of X).
Example 2. Relating to determination of disqualified persons and nonallocation year if there is synthetic equity.
(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that, as shown in column 4 of the table in this Example 2, individuals E and F have options to acquire 110 and 130 shares, respectively, of the common stock of X from X:
1Shareholder 2Deemed-owned ESOP shares (total of 1,000) 3Percentage deemed-owned ESOP shares 4Options (240) 5Shareholder percentage of deemed-owned ESOP plus synthetic equity shares 6Disqualified person B 330 33 Yes (col. 3). C 145 14.5 Yes (col. 3). D 75 7.5 No. E 30 3 110 11.1% ([30+ 91.7] divided by 1,091.7) Yes (col. 5). F 20 2 130 11.6% ([20 +108.3] divided by 1,108.3) Yes (col. 5). Other participants 1 400 (2) No. (ii) Conclusion with respect to disqualified persons. Individual E's synthetic equity shares are counted in determining whether E is a disqualified person for 2006, and individual F's synthetic equity shares are counted in determining whether F is a disqualified person for 2006. Applying the rule of paragraph (f)(4)(iv) of this section, E's option to acquire 110 shares of the S corporation converts under paragraph (f)(4)(iv) of this section, into 91.7 shares of synthetic equity (110 times the ratio of the 1,000 deemed-owned ESOP shares to the sum of the 1,000 deemed-owned ESOP shares plus the 200 shares held outside the ESOP by A and B). Similarly, F's option to acquire 130 shares of the S corporation converts into 108.3 shares of synthetic equity (130 times the ratio of the 1,000 deemed-owned ESOP shares to the sum of the 1,000 deemed-owned ESOP shares plus the 200 shares held outside the ESOP by A and B). However, the synthetic equity shares owned by any person do not affect the calculation for any other person's ownership of shares. Accordingly, as shown in column 6 in the table contained in paragraph (i) of Example 2, individuals B, C, E, and F are disqualified persons for 2006.
(iii) Conclusion with respect to nonallocation year. The 100 shares owned directly by B, B's 330 deemed-owned ESOP shares, C's 145 deemed-owned ESOP shares, E's 30 deemed-owned ESOP shares, E's 91.7 synthetic equity shares, F's 20 deemed-owned ESOP shares, plus F's 108.3 synthetic equity shares total 825, which equals 58.9% of 1,400, which is the sum of the 1,200 outstanding shares of X and the 200 shares of synthetic equity shares of X held by disqualified persons. Thus, 2006 is a nonallocation year for X's ESOP under section 409(p) because disqualified persons own at least 50% of the total shares of outstanding stock of X and the total synthetic equity shares of X held by disqualified persons. In addition, independent of the preceding conclusion, 2006 would be a nonallocation year because disqualified persons own at least 50% of X's outstanding shares because the 100 shares owned directly by B, B's 330 deemed-owned ESOP shares, C's 145 deemed-owned ESOP shares, E's 30 deemed-owned ESOP shares, plus F's 20 deemed-owned ESOP shares equal 52.1% of the 1,200 outstanding shares of X.
Example 3. Relating to determination of number of shares of synthetic equity.
(i) Facts. Corporation Y is a calendar year S corporation that maintains an ESOP. Y has a single class of common stock, of which there are a total of 1,000 shares outstanding, all of which are owned by the ESOP. Y has no synthetic equity, except for four grants of nonqualified deferred compensation that are made to an individual during the period from 2005 through 2011, as set forth in column 2 in the following table. The ESOP provides for the special rules in paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section to determine the number of shares of synthetic equity owned by that individual with a determination date of January 1 and the triennial rule redetermining value, as shown in columns 4 and 5:
1 Determination date 2 Present value of nonqualified deferred compensation on determination date 3 Share value on determination date 4 New shares of synthetic equity on determination date 5 Aggregate number of synthetic equity shares on determination date January 1, 2005 A grant is made on January 1, 2005, with a present value of $1,000. An additional grant of nonqualified deferred compensation with a present value of $775 is made on March 1, 2005 $10 per share 100 100 January 1, 2006 An additional grant is made on December 31, 2005, which has a present value of $800 on January 1, 2006. The March 1, 2005, grant has a present value on January 1, 2006, of $800 $8 per share 200 300 January 1, 2007 No new grants made $12 per share 300 January 1, 2008 An additional grant is made on December 31, 2007, which has a present value of $3,000 on January 1, 2008. The grants made during 2005 through 2007 have an aggregate present value on January 1, 2008, of $3,750 $15 per share 200 450 January 1, 2009 No new grants are made $11 per share 450 January 1, 2010 No new grants are made $22 per share 450 January 1, 2011 No new grants are made. The grants made during 2005 through 2008 have an aggregate present value on January 1, 2011, of $7,600 $20 per share 380 (ii) Conclusion. The grant made on January 1, 2005, is treated as 100 shares until the determination date in 2008. The grant made on March 1, 2005, is not taken into account until the 2006 determination date and its present value on that date, along with the then present value of the grant made on December 31, 2005, is treated as a number of shares that are based on the $8 per share value on the 2006 determination date, with the resulting number of shares continuing to apply until the determination date in 2008. On the January 1, 2008, determination date, the grant made on the preceding day is taken into account at its present value of $3,000 on January 1, 2008 and the $15 per share value on that date with the resulting number of shares (200) continuing to apply until the next determination date. In addition, on the January 1, 2008, determination date, the number of shares determined under other grants made between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, must be revalued. Accordingly, the aggregate value of all nonqualified deferred compensation granted during that period is determined to be $3750 on January 1, 2008, and the corresponding number of shares of synthetic equity based on the $15 per share value is determined to be 250 shares on the 2008 determination date, with the resulting aggregate number of shares (450) continuing to apply until the determination date in 2011. On the January 1, 2011, determination date, the aggregate value of all nonqualified deferred compensation is determined to be $7,600 and the corresponding number of shares of synthetic equity based on the $20 per share value on the 2011 determination date is determined to be 380 shares (with the resulting number of shares continuing to apply until the day before the determination date in 2014, assuming no further grants are made).