Case 1: Bonus payments in the context of a share deal
Peter Gründer is the CEO of SwissCo and the majority shareholder of HoldCo, both headquartered in Zurich. Peter and the German co-shareholder X-AG are planning to sell all shares of HoldCo.
Two C-level executives at SwissCo—namely, the CFO and CMO—are to receive a bonus upon the successful completion of the sale.
Accordingly, a bonus agreement is drafted with the following wording:
“In the event of an exit, the company shall pay a one-time bonus of CHF 100,000 in accordance with this agreement. […]
The bonus is a gross amount: taxes and social security contributions (employee’s share only) are to be borne by the employee. Taxes and contributions will be withheld from the bonus to the extent necessary or permissible and remitted.
The bonus is due one month after the exit.”
Social security assessment of the bonus payment?
Would the assessment change from a social security perspective if Peter Gründer serves as CEO of the German OpCo and is also a resident abroad?
- If the bonus-eligible employees receive wages from third-party “employers” based abroad, do they become employees without an employer subject to social security contributions (ANobAG) for the purposes of the bonus payment?
- How should the settlement be handled?
- Which compensation fund would be responsible (place of residence vs. registered office of SwissCo)?
- Could the bonus payment be processed through another Swiss subsidiary of X-AG?
- Alternatives?
The wording in the relevant bonus agreement is amended as follows:
“In the event of an exit, the company shall pay a one-time bonus in accordance with this agreement. […]
The bonus is a gross-gross amount*:* taxes and social security contributions (employer and employee shares) are included in the bonus, as determined in accordance with this agreement. Taxes and contributions will be withheld and remitted to the extent necessary or permissible.
The bonus is due one month after the exit.”
Social security assessment of the agreement?
The two C-level employees of SwissCo, i.e., the CFO and the CMO, are to remain entitled to a bonus upon the successful completion of the sale.
However, the bonus agreement is drafted with the following “new” wording:
“In the event of an exit, the company shall pay a bonus of CHF 100,000 in accordance with this agreement. […]
The bonus is a gross amount: taxes and social security contributions (employee’s share only) are to be borne by the employee. Taxes and contributions will be withheld from the bonus to the extent necessary or permissible and remitted.
The bonus is paid out in installments and is contingent upon the employment relationship remaining in effect at the time of payment.”
Social security law assessment?
Case 2: Compensation for compliance with a non-compete clause
For the initial facts, see “Case 1: Bonus payments in the context of a share deal”
The sale of the shares in HoldCo by Peter Gründer and X-AG is successfully completed.
Peter Gründer, as well as the CFO and CMO, can reinvest in the buyer company as part of a (re-)investment.
In the shareholders’ agreement that Peter enters into with the buyers, a two-year non-compete clause is agreed upon in the event of his departure as CEO. The same applies to the two C-level executives, i.e., the CFO and CMO.
Social security law assessment of the non-compete clause?
Case 3: Reclassification of tax-exempt capital gains as wages
For the initial facts, see “Case 1: Bonus Payments in the Context of a Share Deal”
The sale is successfully completed. Peter Gründer “reports” his tax-exempt capital gain on his personal tax return.
Peter Gründer continues to work as CEO of SwissCo after the sale.
During the tax assessment, the responsible tax commissioner raises the following issues with Peter Gründer:
- The salary received by Peter Gründer is not set at market rates, and accordingly, part of the capital gain realized must be reclassified as taxable salary.
- His work activities and his role as a member of the board of directors at HoldCo were not compensated separately. This lack of compensation was offset by a higher capital gain. Accordingly, the capital gain should be reclassified as taxable salary.
- Assessment under tax and social security law?
- How does the social security authority handle an income tax offset?
Case 1: Classification as an employee stock option
For the initial facts, see “Case 1: Bonus Payments in the Context of a Share Deal”
In addition to Peter Gründer and X-AG, the following minority shareholders are involved:
- Board members who have no other employment relationship with the group
- C-level employees who received their shares through the conversion of a convertible loan
- External experts under contract who are paid in shares as part of their consulting activities
- “Contractors” registered as self-employed who work exclusively for SwissCo as sales representatives (but could in principle take on other clients)
- Persons under Section 4 who were subsequently hired as formal employees (but received their shares as part of their self-employed work)
- The wife of Peter Gründer, who received shares as a gift on February 14, 2024
- Two law students who received shares as compensation for their temporary work at sales fairs during the semester break (without a formal employment contract)
- Peter Gründer’s son, who works in the business, as compensation for his sister’s advance inheritance
- From a social security law perspective, are these employee shares?
- Is there a possibility of a different assessment by the compensation fund?
Case 2: Impact upon sale
For the initial facts, see “Case 1: Bonus Payments in Connection with a Share Deal”
HoldCo is sold to a third-party investor as planned, with the purchase agreement closing on January 30, 2024.
In the canton where SwissCo is headquartered, Zurich, there is a tax ruling for the employee stock ownership plan. The Zurich Tax Office has confirmed a formula-based valuation (formula: EBITDA x multiple).
The two C-level executives also sold their shares as part of the transaction. At the time of the sale, both managers held 5% of HoldCo’s shares each and acquired them based on the formula:
- The CFO, who resides in Zurich, has held his shares since 2018.
- The CMO, who resides in St. Gallen, acquired his shares in 2023.
- Both managers hold the same number of shares (5% each) and acquired them based on the ESOP at an EBITDA x multiple formula value.- Formula value at the time of sale: CHF 30 million
- Sales proceeds for each C-level executive: CHF 50 million
- How are the C-level employees taxed upon the sale of the shares?
- How is this situation handled in practice under social security law?
- Responsibilities and Process:1. When is the deadline for reporting social security contributions?
2. Which compensation fund is responsible?
Both the CFO and the CMO acquired their shares in 2020 at the same time and at the same purchase price (i.e., not at the formula value) as the third-party investor, X-AG, entered the company.
- The CFO, who resides in Zurich
- The CMO, who resides in St. Gallen
The sale in 2024 takes place at a market value that clearly exceeds the formula value.
In the canton where SwissCo is headquartered, Zurich, there is a tax ruling confirming the formula value approach.
In a ruling regarding the CMO’s investment in 2020, the tax authority of the Canton of St. Gallen confirmed that while employee shares exist, it accepts a market value transaction.
- Can SwissCo take into account the tax ruling of the Canton of St. Gallen for the CMO, i.e., no declaration of excess profit?
- Does it make a difference for the assessment of Question 1 if no ruling was obtained in the Canton of Zurich?
- If no ruling is available for Zurich, can the assessment for the CFO also be based on the Canton of St. Gallen’s ruling (since a market value was also confirmed there for DBG)?
Case 3: Reinvestment
For the initial facts, see “Case 1: Bonus Payments in Connection with a Share Deal”
HoldCo is sold to a third-party investor (Y-AG) as planned. Peter Gründer and the management of SwissCo are given the opportunity to acquire a stake in Y-AG.
The buyback is conducted at “the same prices” as Y-AG.
- How is this situation handled in practice under social security law?
- Would anything change if the management acquired a stake in Y-AG via a foreign pooling vehicle (e.g., a Jersey LP)?