The bill adds a new subsection to IRC section 11 that increases the corporate income tax rate for corporations whose CEO (or highest-paid employee) compensation divided by median worker pay exceeds 50 to 1. The surcharge is an addition to the 21 percent corporate rate, implemented as a graduated percentage-point increase from 0.5 to 5 points depending on how large the ratio is.
This approach uses the tax code to create a financial incentive tied to executive-to-median-worker pay gaps. It targets public companies (using the SEC pay-ratio rule as the measurement) and large private companies (those with average gross receipts of $100 million or more) while exempting smaller firms, and it directs Treasury to issue regulations to limit avoidance strategies such as changes in workforce composition or use of contractors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends IRC section 11 to add subsection (e), which increases the 21% corporate tax rate by a penalty expressed in percentage points whenever a corporation’s pay ratio exceeds 50 to 1. The penalty rises in steps (0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 percentage points) as the ratio moves through defined bands.
Who It Affects
Public companies that already disclose a pay ratio under SEC rules and private corporations with average annual gross receipts of at least $100 million will face the new tax calculation; firms with under $100 million in gross receipts are exempt. Compensation committees, tax departments, and corporate counsel will handle compliance; Treasury and IRS will write and enforce implementing rules.
Why It Matters
This is a novel use of the corporate income tax to influence compensation practices rather than to raise revenue alone. It creates new reporting and compliance obligations tied to a non-tax metric (the pay ratio), invites regulatory interpretation for private firms, and opens enforcement and anti-avoidance questions that could reshape pay-setting and corporate structuring.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into IRC section 11 that applies a surcharge to the statutory corporate tax rate when a company’s ratio of the compensation of its CEO (or highest-paid employee) to its median worker exceeds 50 to 1. Instead of a separate excise tax or reporting penalty, the mechanism increases the base 21 percent corporate rate by a penalty expressed in percentage points; the larger the ratio, the larger the point increase.
The statute ties the trigger to a measurement rather than to a specific dollar cap on pay.
For measurement the bill points directly to the SEC pay-ratio rule (17 CFR 229.402(u)(1)(iii)) as the default method. It modifies that rule in two practical ways: first, corporations calculate the ratio using an annualized average of the compensation amounts over the five-year period ending on the last day of the taxable year; second, if the highest compensated employee is not the CEO, the bill uses that employee’s compensation for the numerator.
For corporations that are not SEC filers the bill does not specify an identical formula; instead it requires corporations with average gross receipts of at least $100 million (over the prior three taxable years) to follow a method the Treasury will prescribe by regulation, and it exempts smaller private firms below that $100 million threshold.The surcharge follows a step schedule: a 0.5-percentage-point increase once the ratio is >50:1 up to 100:1, then larger increases for higher bands with a maximum 5-point increase for ratios over 500:1. The bill makes conforming edits to several Code sections to ensure the increased rate is the ‘applicable’ rate for provisions that reference section 11(b).
It takes effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to write regulations “as necessary” to block avoidance—explicitly calling out manipulation of workforce composition (for example, replacing employees with contractors). That instruction gives Treasury broad anti-avoidance authority tied to the pay-ratio measurement and signals that future guidance will determine many operational details, from the exact method for non-SEC filers to treatment of contractors, affiliates, consolidated groups, and international workforces.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds IRC section 11(e), which increases the 21% corporate rate by a penalty in percentage points whenever a corporation’s pay ratio exceeds 50 to 1.
It adopts the SEC pay-ratio rule (17 CFR 229.402(u)(1)(iii)) as the measurement baseline but requires a 5-year annualized average for the compensation inputs and substitutes the highest paid employee’s pay if that person is not the CEO.
Private corporations with average annual gross receipts of at least $100 million must calculate a pay ratio using Treasury-prescribed rules; corporations with average gross receipts under $100 million are exempt from the surcharge.
The surcharge scale is tiered: 0.5 points for >50–100:1, 1 point for >100–200:1, 2 points for >200–300:1, 3 points for >300–400:1, 4 points for >400–500:1, and 5 points for >500:1.
The rule applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, and directs the Treasury to issue anti-avoidance regulations, including guidance to prevent gaming via workforce composition changes (e.g.
shifting employees to contractors).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the “Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act of 2025.” This is purely stylistic but signals Congressional intent to frame the measure around excessive executive pay rather than general corporate tax reform.
Creates the pay-ratio–based corporate tax surcharge
Adds a new subsection to IRC section 11 that increases the corporate tax rate for corporations whose pay ratio exceeds 50:1. The mechanism works by adding a penalty—expressed as percentage points—to the 21% rate that applies under section 11(b). Treating the surcharge as an adjustment to the statutory rate means the raised rate becomes the reference rate for other Code provisions that look to section 11(b). Practically, corporations will need to calculate the pay ratio for each taxable year and apply the adjusted rate when preparing their returns.
Uses SEC pay-ratio rule with a 5-year averaging tweak
For companies subject to SEC Rule 229.402(u)(1)(iii), the bill adopts that definition but requires corporations to determine the numerator and denominator using an annualized average of the compensation amounts over the five-year period ending on the taxable year’s last day. It also instructs companies to use the highest compensated employee’s pay where that person is not the principal executive officer. The 5-year averaging will smooth year-to-year volatility but imposes an arithmetic change that can materially alter reported ratios versus a single-year snapshot.
Large private corporations must follow Treasury method; smaller ones exempt
The bill requires corporations that are not SEC filers but that have average annual gross receipts of $100 million or more (measured over the prior three taxable years) to calculate and report a pay ratio by a method Treasury will prescribe by regulation. Corporations with average gross receipts below $100 million are exempt from the surcharge. That creates a jurisdictional and compliance boundary based on gross-receipts size rather than corporate form.
Graduated percentage-point increases keyed to ratio bands
Specifies the exact surcharge amounts: 0.5 percentage points for ratios >50–100:1; 1 point for >100–200:1; 2 points for >200–300:1; 3 points for >300–400:1; 4 points for >400–500:1; and 5 points for >500:1. Because the surcharge is expressed in percentage points added to the statutory rate, the incremental tax liability equals the corporation’s taxable income multiplied by the added percentage points.
Ensures other Code provisions reference the adjusted rate
Makes conforming edits across multiple Code sections (for example, rules that reference section 11(b)) so that those provisions use the ‘applicable’ corporate rate after application of the new subsection 11(e). That consistency matters for provisions that compute limits, credits, or withholding that flow from the corporate rate.
Effective date and anti-avoidance rulemaking
Applies the amendments to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. Directs the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations 'as necessary' to prevent avoidance, explicitly mentioning workforce composition changes (including using contractors). This grants broad delegated authority that will shape the practical reach of the statute and the compliance burden on affected firms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Median workers at affected firms — If firms respond by raising median compensation rather than lowering CEO pay, median employees will see direct benefit; the law creates a financial incentive for companies to narrow their pay gap.
- Federal Treasury — Companies that do not alter pay structures will pay higher corporate tax revenue at the marginal penalty rates, increasing receipts tied to firms with large pay ratios.
- ESG-focused investors and proxy advisors — The statute strengthens the leverage those investors use to press for narrower pay gaps, by turning excessive ratios into quantifiable tax exposure that can factor into engagement and voting strategies.
- Labor advocates and unions — The new tax-backed incentive can be a bargaining lever during collective bargaining and public campaigns, since it raises the cost of retaining very large pay disparities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Corporations with high pay ratios — Public companies and large private firms (≥ $100M gross receipts) face higher tax bills or the operational cost of changing compensation structures and reporting.
- Shareholders — The surcharge effectively reduces after-tax corporate earnings and may lower dividends or share value if companies absorb the cost rather than alter executive pay.
- Corporate tax, HR and compliance teams — These departments will incur ongoing costs to calculate five-year averaged ratios, document methodologies for non-SEC filers, and respond to Treasury guidance and potential audits.
- Treasury and IRS — The agencies will need to draft complex regulations, develop audit procedures for a non-tax metric, and allocate enforcement resources; those administrative costs are implicit but material.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether using a tax surcharge to deter excessive executive-to-median-worker pay effectively advances equity without imposing outsized compliance burdens or encouraging circumvention; the measure forces a trade-off between a direct fiscal incentive to change pay practices and the administrative complexity, measurement disputes, and distributional side effects that such a tax-driven approach creates.
The bill ties a tax outcome to a non-tax metric (the SEC pay-ratio rule), which transfers significant design and implementation responsibility to Treasury rulemaking. The SEC rule was designed for disclosure, not for taxation; several choices embedded in the SEC approach—such as how to annualize equity grants, treat pensions or deferred compensation, or map the workforce geographically—will materially affect tax liability.
The statute’s 5-year averaging reduces volatility but can lock in lagged disparities or blunt the effect of rapid improvements in median pay.
The statutory directive to block avoidance (for instance, by replacing employees with contractors) is broad but legally and operationally fuzzy. Treasury will face difficult line-drawing decisions: how to treat contractors vs. W-2 employees, how consolidated groups should measure ratios across subsidiaries, and how to handle non-U.S. employees or firms operating through pass-through entities.
Firms will test those boundaries, and challenges could prompt litigation over whether Treasury exceeded its delegated authority. Finally, because the surcharge is relatively modest in percentage-point terms at lower bands, the corporate behavioral response could take many forms—reducing dividends, shifting forms of compensation, reorganizing legal entities, or pursuing tax planning—any of which would shift the economic incidence away from CEOs and potentially onto shareholders or other stakeholders.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.