Demystifying Phantom Stock: How It Works and the Best Way to Structure a Plan
Despite the ghostly name, phantom stock is not quite as mysterious as it sounds. In essence, phantom stock is a deferred compensation plan that gives an employee a stake in a company's success without conferring an actual ownership interest in the company.
February 04, 2019 at 12:56 PM
6 minute read
Despite the ghostly name, phantom stock is not quite as mysterious as it sounds. In essence, phantom stock is a deferred compensation plan that gives an employee a stake in a company's success without conferring an actual ownership interest in the company.
Phantom stock provides an employee a benefit measured by, and tied to, the value of an employer's common stock. Easy, right? What makes it a “phantom” is that, unlike actual stock that conveys a piece of equity ownership in a company, phantom stock does not bestow any actual equity ownership in the company. An employee is granted units of phantom stock shares and the phantom stock plan would provide that each phantom stock unit has an equal value to each share of the company's common stock.
Once demystified, we will see phantom stock plans are not so spooky and are useful for the right employees at the right companies.
|How Does Phantom Stock Work?
As mentioned, the value of phantom stock is the same as a company's common stock. A properly drafted phantom stock plan will indicate how many shares of phantom stock or a percentage interest that is to be granted to the employee. Phantom stock shares or the percentage interest can be granted to the employee upfront or over a period of time. Additionally, phantom stock shares can either vest immediately or in accordance with a vesting schedule as determined by the company.
Phantom stock value can be determined by a number of different ways, including appraisal, written formula or stated stipulation. The appropriate approach for valuation should take into account any and all adjustments the parties deem to be appropriate (for example, exclusion of certain gains or losses, or additions for dividends paid to shareholders). Year-to-year fluctuation of phantom stock value occurs when the value of the company changes. This means, just like a regular stock, if it's been a good year for the company, there will be good phantom stock value; bad year, the value drops.
The phantom stock plan should also clearly outline triggering events for valuation, meaning, those events that entitle an employee to receive the benefits under the plan. Another key consideration is the determination point as to the value of the phantom stock shares. More often than not, it is common for a valuation to be triggered upon the termination of an employee. However, it is also possible for a valuation to be determined upon a certain number of years or even a fixed date in time. After a triggering event, the company needs to decide when the value of the phantom stock is to be determined—on the triggering event date or perhaps forward or backward to the closes quarter or end-year date. This should be specified in the plan.
Finally, a phantom stock plan needs to discuss how the employee receives value from the phantom stock. Ideally, a properly structured plan will describe the following:
- When the payments will commence (thus, triggering a valuation).
- How the payments will be disbursed to the employee (i.e., lump sum or installments over a period of time).
- If the benefit is being paid in installments, how will interest, if any, be handled. This will take into consideration the company's cash flow and valuation of phantom stock when structuring the plan and provisions.
Why Would a Company Offer Phantom Stock?
An employer may not want to make an employee an actual equity shareholder in the business, as this could unintentionally provide them with voting rights or other unanticipated minority ownership rights. Furthermore, when dealing with actual equity shares in a company there is the chance that additional documentation or agreements are necessary, such as shareholder agreements, thus requiring additional complexity and potential fees. Additionally, what would happen to the employee's actual equity stock in the company upon departure of that employee? These are considerations that you don't have to worry about with phantom stock.
While phantom stock plans come with fewer complications, there are still laws to which they are subject, notably portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). These may include limiting phantom stock offerings to management or highly compensated employees and notifying the Department of Labor within 120 days of adopting the plan. Court rulings, however, can facilitate exceptions to ERISA in some circumstances.
|What About Tax Considerations?
Due to the nature of phantom stock plans being a form of deferred compensation, such plans must comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. Assuming the plan is compliant with this section, deferred compensation attributable to such phantom stock will not be subject to income tax until it is actually paid to the employee. Once taxable to the employee, the company is generally able to deduct the corresponding amount. It is important to note that the value of the phantom stock paid to the employee is taxed as ordinary income and does not implicate any type of capital gains taxation. Compliance with IRC Section 409A is key, and any violation could potentially cause penalties relating to the income prior to the employee's receipt.
From a payroll standpoint, deferred compensation counts as wages in the latter part of the year in which the related services are performed or the year in which the deferred compensation becomes vested. As the shares of phantom stock vest, the value of such shares can be included as wages and subject to Medicare taxes and FICA taxes—notwithstanding the fact that these amounts are not subject to income tax, as discussed above, until the amounts are actually paid to the employee.
While taking into account that the proper tax considerations may be among the more complicated aspects to implementing phantom stock plans, on the whole, they are less complex than offering common stock while acting in a similar fashion. Add in the factor that phantom stock gives employees a stake in the company without making them shareholders who have equity ownership, and they may make sense for companies looking to provide an employee with a benefit tied directly to the performance of the company.
An attorney experienced in business matters can help a company determine if offering a phantom stock plans is the right decision, craft a properly structured phantom stock plan and reveal that these types of benefits aren't as mystifying as they might seem at first.
Maxwell Briskman Stanfield is also an attorney at Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. He focuses his practice on corporate, business, financial and commercial real estate law. Stanfield can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250