New Tax Laws: Maximizing Deductions After Elimination of Compensatory Deductions Under Section 162(m)


As was discussed in last month’s newsletter, the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”) amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the performance-based exception to the $1mm deduction limit under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“Section 162(m)”). This article discusses some alternatives for attempting to maximize deductions on executive compensation.

Business Point

Even though (i) the performance-based exception to the $1mm deduction limitation has been repealed and (ii) the $1mm deduction limitation now applies to covered employees for life (i.e., once a covered employee, always a covered employee), it is important to remember that $1mm per year is still fully deductible. To maximize deductions, companies will want to think about whether it makes sense to spread compensation payments out over several years, particularly for periods following termination of employment or retirement, to reduce the likelihood that the $1mm limit is exceeded in any given year (or at least to minimize any excess).

Technical Points

The definition of “covered employee” for purposes of the $1mm deduction limitation has been expanded. Previously, a “covered employee” generally included only the CEO and the next three highest paid officers (other than the CFO), determined as of the last day of the year. Under the TCJA, “covered employee” now includes the CEO, the CFO and the three highest paid officers other than the CEO and the CFO. In addition, the TCJA now requires that once an individual becomes a “covered employee” for Section 162(m) purposes, that individual remains a covered employee with respect to that company for life, even after termination of his or her employment. Consequently, amounts paid by the company to a former officer who was a covered employee (and thus would continue to be a covered employee) are subject to the $1mm deduction limitation.

The following are among some of the ways companies might seek to minimize the amount of compensation that is not deductible under Section 162(m):1


1. The following does not take into account, among other things, the potential impact of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code or the views of proxy advisory firms.


Copyright © 2025, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
National Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 24