Skip to main content
Governance Authority
Category: Executive Compensation

Excise Tax Gross-Up

Also known as: Section 280G Gross-Up, Parachute Payment Gross-Up, Full Gross-Up Provision
Simply put

An excise tax gross-up is a contractual promise by a company to pay an executive an additional amount so that the executive is not left worse off after a special tax on certain change-in-control payments. In the United States, some change-in-control payments (often called 'parachute payments') can trigger an extra tax owed by the executive, and the gross-up covers that tax so the executive keeps the intended value. These provisions have drawn criticism and are generally viewed unfavorably by boards and governance observers.

Formal definition

An excise tax gross-up is a compensation arrangement designed to offset the excise tax imposed under U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 4999 on 'excess parachute payments' as defined under IRC Section 280G, described in the evidence as a 20% additional tax applied to such payments. Under a full gross-up provision, the company makes an additional payment to the executive intended to completely offset the impact of the excise tax, effectively restoring the executive to the after-tax position they would have held absent the tax. In practice, related agreements may impose caps (evidence references caps ranging from $1 million to $35 million) and specify timing of the gross-up payment (one referenced agreement provided for payment on the first day of the seventh month following separation from service, consistent with deferred-compensation timing considerations). Because these provisions can shift a significant tax burden from the executive to the company and carry reputational sensitivity, they are generally disfavored in contemporary governance practice; the scope, availability, and tax treatment described here are specific to the U.S. federal tax framework and may not apply in other jurisdictions.

Why it matters

Excise tax gross-ups sit at the intersection of executive compensation and board accountability, and they carry significant reputational sensitivity. Because a full gross-up shifts the burden of a punitive tax from the executive to the company, the arrangement can substantially increase the total cost of a change-in-control event and expose the board's compensation committee to criticism from investors, proxy advisors, and governance observers. As the evidence notes, providing an excise tax gross-up is sensitive for boards given its poor reputation, and these provisions are generally viewed unfavorably in contemporary governance practice.

The underlying tax mechanic is what makes these provisions consequential. Under the U.S. federal tax framework, the excise tax described in the evidence is a 20% additional tax applied to 'excess parachute payments' under IRC Section 280G, and this tax is characterized as punitive. A gross-up promises to make the executive whole against that tax, which means the company may bear not only the excise tax itself but also the tax on the gross-up payment, compounding the cost. Because the arrangement can restore the executive to their intended after-tax position while leaving shareholders to absorb the incremental expense, alignment between pay outcomes and shareholder interests becomes a central concern for the board.

For governance professionals, the presence or revival of gross-up provisions is a signal worth scrutinizing during contract negotiation, disclosure review, and say-on-pay analysis. The scope described here is specific to the U.S. federal tax framework and may not apply in other jurisdictions; whether a given arrangement is advisable depends on the specific facts, the terms negotiated, and the board's own judgment. This entry does not assess the legality of any provision or predict how it will be received in a particular case.

Who it's relevant to

Board Compensation Committees
Compensation committees hold oversight responsibility for the design and approval of executive pay arrangements, including whether to offer, cap, or eliminate excise tax gross-ups. Because these provisions carry a poor reputation and shift a punitive tax burden onto the company, committees typically weigh reputational sensitivity and shareholder alignment when considering them. This entry is educational and does not substitute for the committee's own judgment or professional advice.
General Counsel and Legal Advisors
Legal teams drafting and negotiating change-in-control and employment agreements need to understand how gross-up provisions interact with the excise tax on excess parachute payments under IRC Section 280G, as well as caps and payment-timing terms such as deferred-compensation schedules. Application depends on specific facts and the U.S. federal tax framework, and the tax analysis generally requires specialist input.
Executive Compensation Consultants
Advisors who benchmark and structure pay packages assess when a full gross-up, a capped gross-up, or no gross-up is appropriate, and how each affects total cost and market perception. The evidence points to a range of cap levels and to renewed attention on these provisions, making current market practice a relevant reference point in advisory work.
Institutional Investors and Proxy Advisors
Investors and proxy advisors reviewing say-on-pay proposals and compensation disclosures often scrutinize gross-up provisions as an indicator of pay-shareholder alignment. Given that these arrangements are generally disfavored in contemporary governance practice, their disclosure can influence voting analysis and engagement priorities.
Tax and Finance Professionals
Corporate tax and finance functions model the cost of gross-ups, including the compounding effect of taxing the gross-up payment itself, and coordinate on the timing of any payment relative to separation from service. Because the excise tax framework described here is specific to U.S. federal law, professionals should confirm treatment for the applicable jurisdiction and facts.

Inside Excise Tax Gross-Up

Golden Parachute Excise Tax (Section 280G/4999)
In the United States, an excise tax gross-up typically arises in connection with the parachute payment rules under Internal Revenue Code Sections 280G and 4999, under which certain compensation contingent on a change in control may trigger an excise tax on the recipient and a corresponding loss of the company's tax deduction. The gross-up is a contractual mechanism, not a legal requirement, and its availability depends on the terms negotiated and the applicable facts.
The Gross-Up Payment Mechanism
A gross-up is an additional payment intended to place the executive in the same after-tax position as if no excise tax had been imposed. Because the gross-up payment is itself typically taxable, it is calculated to cover the original excise tax plus the taxes on the gross-up itself, which can substantially increase the total cost to the company.
Contractual Basis
Gross-up provisions generally appear in employment agreements, change-in-control agreements, or severance arrangements. They are negotiated terms rather than statutory entitlements, and their scope, triggers, and caps depend on the specific contract language.
Alternatives to a Full Gross-Up
Companies often use alternatives such as a 'best-of' or 'net-better' provision (paying the amount that leaves the executive best off after tax) or a 'cutback' that reduces payments below the threshold that triggers the excise tax. These approaches are commonly viewed as less costly to the company than a full gross-up.
Governance and Disclosure Dimension
Excise tax gross-ups are frequently a focus of executive compensation governance, proxy disclosure, and say-on-pay considerations. Many institutional investors and proxy advisors have generally expressed disfavor toward gross-ups, which has influenced their prevalence over time. Specific disclosure obligations depend on applicable securities rules and jurisdiction.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Excise Tax Gross-Up.

Does an excise tax gross-up mean the executive personally bears the cost of the golden parachute excise tax?
No, that is the opposite of what a gross-up does. A gross-up shifts the economic burden of the excise tax away from the executive and onto the company. Under a gross-up arrangement, the company typically pays the executive an additional amount sufficient to cover the excise tax on excess parachute payments, plus the taxes on the gross-up payment itself, so that the executive is left in roughly the same after-tax position as if the excise tax had not applied. The provisions and applicability of any such excise tax vary by jurisdiction and depend on the specific facts of a change-in-control arrangement. This entry is educational and not tax, legal, or compliance advice.
Are excise tax gross-ups a legally required feature of executive compensation arrangements?
No. A gross-up is a contractual arrangement negotiated between a company and an executive, not a legal mandate. Nothing generally requires a company to provide one, and many companies have moved away from offering them in response to investor and proxy adviser concerns. Where an underlying excise tax on excess parachute payments applies, that tax is a legal matter, but whether the company agrees to reimburse the executive for it through a gross-up is a matter of negotiated policy and drafting. Practices and market norms differ by jurisdiction, sector, and entity type, and this entry does not substitute for professional advice.
Who within the organization typically approves an excise tax gross-up provision?
Decisions on executive compensation terms, including any gross-up, generally fall within the remit of the board's compensation or remuneration committee rather than management, consistent with the committee's oversight of executive pay. Management and outside advisers typically prepare the analysis and draft the provisions, but the committee ordinarily exercises the approval and oversight role. The precise allocation of responsibility depends on the company's governing documents, committee charters, and applicable listing or regulatory requirements, which vary by jurisdiction and entity type.
What disclosure considerations arise when a company maintains a gross-up provision?
In many jurisdictions, material terms of executive compensation arrangements, including gross-up provisions and their estimated potential cost on a change in control, may be subject to disclosure requirements in periodic filings or proxy materials. The specific content, format, and triggers for disclosure depend on the applicable securities and listing rules where the entity is regulated. Governance teams typically coordinate with legal, tax, and financial reporting functions to confirm what must be disclosed. Because requirements differ by jurisdiction and entity type, confirm the applicable rules rather than assuming a uniform standard.
How might a company estimate the potential cost of a gross-up for planning purposes?
Estimating the potential cost generally involves modeling the payments that could become due on a hypothetical change in control, determining the portion that could be treated as excess parachute payments under the applicable tax rules, calculating the associated excise tax, and then calculating the additional gross-up amount needed to cover both that excise tax and the taxes on the gross-up itself. These calculations are fact-specific and typically require input from qualified tax advisers. This entry describes the concept only and does not provide the computational details, which depend on the governing law and the individual's circumstances.
What alternatives to a full gross-up do companies consider?
Companies that wish to address excise tax exposure without a full gross-up sometimes consider alternatives such as a modified or 'best-of-net' approach, under which payments are either reduced to below the applicable threshold or paid in full, whichever leaves the executive better off after tax, or a cap that limits payments to avoid triggering the excise tax altogether. The suitability of any alternative depends on the specific arrangement, the applicable tax rules, and the company's compensation philosophy, and should be evaluated with qualified tax and legal advisers. This entry is educational and not tax, legal, or compliance advice.

Common misconceptions

An excise tax gross-up is a legal requirement that companies must provide when a change-in-control triggers the excise tax.
A gross-up is a voluntary, contractual arrangement, not a statutory obligation. The underlying excise tax may be imposed by law under certain U.S. provisions, but whether the company reimburses the executive for that tax is a matter of negotiated contract terms and varies by entity and jurisdiction.
The gross-up simply reimburses the executive for the amount of the excise tax.
Because the gross-up payment is itself generally taxable, a full gross-up is typically calculated to cover the excise tax plus the additional taxes on the reimbursement, which can make the total company cost significantly larger than the initial excise tax amount.
Deciding whether to include a gross-up is purely a management or human resources matter.
Executive compensation arrangements of this kind typically fall within the oversight of the board's compensation committee, while management supports design and implementation. The committee generally owns the governance decision, informed by disclosure implications and investor expectations, rather than management acting alone.

Best practices

Engage qualified tax and compensation advisors to model the potential excise tax exposure and the full grossed-up cost under the applicable facts before committing to any gross-up provision.
Have the board's compensation committee, rather than management alone, review and approve any excise tax gross-up or its alternatives, and document the rationale for the approach chosen.
Evaluate less costly alternatives such as 'best-of'/'net-better' provisions or cutbacks, and compare their after-tax outcomes and company cost against a full gross-up.
Consider prevailing investor and proxy advisor views on gross-ups when designing new or amended arrangements, given the potential impact on say-on-pay and broader governance perceptions.
Ensure that any gross-up terms are drafted with precise triggers, scope, and caps, and coordinate with counsel on applicable disclosure obligations under the relevant securities rules.
Periodically review existing agreements to assess whether legacy gross-up provisions remain consistent with current governance policy, market practice, and the company's compensation philosophy.