Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 6 MIN READ

The buyback excise tax is dead. Read it anyway.

A 1% tax sitting inside a bill Manchin killed, plus an SEC proposal that is very much alive

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
6 min read Updated
Contents 6 sections
  1. What the dead bill actually said
  2. What the tax does, in operational terms
  3. Second-order effects the drafters priced in, and some they did not
  4. The SEC has not gone home
  5. What to tell the client who asks about both
  6. Sources

he stock buyback excise tax does not exist. A 1% version of it sat in Section 138101 of the Build Back Better Act, which the House passed on November 19, 2021, and which Senator Manchin finished off on Fox News Sunday a month later. Read the provision anyway. The people who drafted it run the Senate Finance Committee, and they are not going to abandon a line item the Joint Committee on Taxation scored at roughly $124 billion over ten years.

This is for lawyers who incorporate for a living. The tax will come back under a different vehicle, and treasurers have already run the math.

What the dead bill actually said

Section 138101 of H.R. 5376 would have added a new Chapter 37 to the Internal Revenue Code with one operative section numbered § 4501. A 1% non-deductible excise on the fair market value of stock repurchased during the taxable year by a "covered corporation," meaning a domestic corporation whose stock is traded on an established securities market. The base is net of new issuances that year (the netting rule), so a company that bought back $1 billion and issued $400 million through an employee plan would owe 1% on $600 million, or $6 million.

The exceptions, in the order an incorporator reaches for them: § 368(a) reorganizations in which no shareholder gain or loss is recognized; stock contributed to a qualified employer plan, ESOP, or similar vehicle; a $1 million de minimis floor per taxable year; repurchases treated as dividends under subchapter C; securities dealer purchases in the ordinary course; and RICs and REITs entirely.

The House version bit repurchases after December 31, 2021. The Senate Finance Committee draft of December 11, 2021 pushed the effective date back a year, to repurchases after December 31, 2022. That was the version Senate Democrats were trying to land when Manchin walked. The bill is legally inert. The framework is not.

What the tax does, in operational terms

Call it a 1% frictional drag on treasury decisions that used to sit at zero. S&P Dow Jones Indices reported Q3 2021 buybacks at a record $234.6 billion, with the full-year likely to clear the $806.4 billion record from 2018. At 1% the implied annual liability runs nine or ten figures across the index; the $124 billion JCT estimate over ten years is a real line item.

For companies that return capital through buybacks as policy (megacaps, banks after stress-test capital returns, mature industrials), the 1% is small enough that the buyback still beats a dividend for tax-sensitive holders (qualified rate 20% plus 3.8% NIIT). For opportunistic repurchasers, the tax is a planning nuisance offset through sharper use of the netting rule.

For incorporators, the relevant line is that § 4501 reaches only "covered corporations," i.e., publicly traded domestic corporations. A private Delaware C-corp redeeming founder stock under an SPA is not in scope. A Delaware holding company whose subsidiaries traffic in their own shares is not in scope unless the holding company itself is public. The bill does reach certain foreign-parented structures through specified-affiliate rules, which matters for inversion-residue clients and for SPAC trusts.

Second-order effects the drafters priced in, and some they did not

The netting rule is the cleanest tell that the drafters cared about compensation. A tech company whose equity comp runs 5% of market cap annually can net most option-exercise and RSU-vesting issuances against buyback volume, which is why the S&P 500 rank and file gets off lighter than the optics suggest.

The reorganization carve-out is why the bill does not blow up M&A. Cash consideration in a § 368(a) reorganization that would otherwise look like a repurchase is excluded. A straight cash acquisition of a public target, by contrast, is not a § 368(a) transaction at the target level, and the target's shares do get bought back in the merger. The text as drafted would reach at least some of those transactions. The M&A tax desks flagged this in November and the concern did not make it into the Senate draft. Expect restructuring around the form of merger consideration if the provision is revived as written.

The dividend substitution effect is the one the drafters did not fully price. A 1% excise will not flip capital return policy wholesale, but the marginal buyback (the one weighed at the Q4 board meeting against a special dividend) gets pushed toward the dividend.

SPACs are where this gets interesting. A SPAC's redemption mechanic looks identical to a buyback under § 4501, and the JCT score almost certainly did not contemplate how many trust accounts will be unwinding through redemption in 2022 and 2023. If the tax is revived in anything like House form, every SPAC sponsor needs a redemption-timing strategy. The M&A tax desks are already running that hypothetical.

The SEC has not gone home

The tax side is dormant. The disclosure side is live. On December 15, 2021, the SEC issued Release No. 34-93783, proposing Share Repurchase Disclosure Modernization. The rule would create Form SR, filed via EDGAR by the end of the first business day following any repurchase, showing date, class, total shares, average price, and allocation between open-market, Rule 10b-18 safe harbor, and Rule 10b5-1(c) plan purchases. Item 703 of Regulation S-K would be amended to require, in periodic reports, the program's rationale and sizing criteria, the company's insider trading policies during repurchase windows, and a checkbox for officer or director trades within ten business days of a program announcement.

The comment period runs 45 days from Federal Register publication, meaning the record closes in early spring. Rule 10b-18 itself (17 CFR 240.10b-18) is not being amended; the proposal sits on top of the 2003 regime. The four 10b-18 conditions (one broker per day, timing restrictions on opening and last-minutes trades, a price ceiling at the highest independent bid or last independent transaction, and a 25% of average daily trading volume cap) are what public-company clients already manage. The SEC is not changing them; it is shining a light on how they are used.

If you are advising a public issuer in Q1 2022, the questions are about disclosure compliance under 34-93783, not about an excise tax that does not exist. Build the Form SR pipeline assuming mid-year adoption and revisit the tax analysis when a reconciliation vehicle re-emerges.

What to tell the client who asks about both

The excise tax is a dead provision in a dead bill, but the drafting is the template for the next version. The netting rule, the reorganization carve-out, the $1 million de minimis, and the dealer exception are the baseline terms anyone reviving the tax will start from, and the revenue estimate is attached to them.

The SEC disclosure proposal does not require Congress and is on a rulemaking clock that closes this quarter. A public company is far more likely to be subject to Form SR in 2022 than to § 4501.

Private-company clients forming this week in Delaware or Wyoming are untouched. Neither the dead excise tax nor the proposed disclosure rule reaches private C-corps or LLCs. The mechanics of forming a corporation that later goes public are the same whether or not it eventually owes 1% on its buybacks; the Delaware 2016 formation guide is still the baseline.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.