SB1576 (Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act) rewrites key terms in Internal Revenue Code section 162(m) so that the denial of deduction for excessive compensation can apply to any “individual” who performs services for a taxpayer — not just labeled “employees.” The bill also widens the scope of what counts as a publicly held corporation by using a three‑year lookback on reporting under Exchange Act section 15(d), and it authorizes Treasury to issue anti‑avoidance rules targeting compensation routed through pass‑throughs and affiliates.
For tax and compliance teams this is a structural change: it shifts the denial-of-deduction regime from a narrow set of covered employees to a far larger universe of service providers, introduces a multi‑year reporting trigger that can sweep in companies that recently stopped public reporting, and gives the IRS explicit regulatory authority to close routing loopholes. The practical result will be broader withholding of corporate tax deductions for high remuneration and new documentation and reporting obligations for firms that pay large sums to nonemployee individuals or intermediaries.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends IRC section 162(m) to replace references to “employees” and “covered employees” with “individuals” and “covered individuals,” and it revises the definition of a publicly held corporation to include entities that filed under Exchange Act section 15(d) at any time during the prior three taxable years. It also adds an explicit regulatory grant allowing Treasury to require reporting and to prevent avoidance through pass‑throughs.
Who It Affects
Public companies and private firms that pay large amounts to executives, consultants, contractors, or other individuals; entities that route compensation through partnerships or other pass‑through entities; corporate tax and payroll compliance teams; and the IRS/ Treasury for enforcement and guidance development.
Why It Matters
This converts a deduction limit that historically targeted a narrow set of top executives into a tool that can reach a much broader set of paid service providers and intermediaries. That change alters tax planning incentives, could increase corporate tax liabilities where high pay is common, and places a greater reporting and rulemaking burden on regulators and taxpayers alike.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1576 changes the language of section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code to expand who can be treated as subject to the deduction limit for excessive remuneration. Where the statute previously referred to “employees” and “covered employees,” the bill substitutes “individual” and “covered individual.” The immediate effect is conceptual: the tax treatment is no longer tied to statutory employee status, which opens the door for the rule to apply to consultants, contractors, advisers, and others who perform services for a company, whether directly or through intermediaries.
On who counts as a covered individual, the bill adds two routes into coverage. First, it reaches any individual who performs services for the taxpayer for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
Second, it preserves a backward‑looking hook that captures individuals who were the principal executive or financial officer in prior years (2017–2024) or those who, by SEC reporting rules, ranked among the three highest compensated officers in those prior years. The combination creates both a forward‑looking broad capture of service providers and a transitional cohort of previously‑reported top officers.The bill also alters how a corporation is treated as “publicly held” for these rules.
Instead of relying solely on current public reporting status, it treats a corporation as publicly held if it filed reports under Exchange Act section 15(d) at any time during the three‑taxable‑year period ending with the taxable year in question. That lookback pulls in companies that recently delisted or otherwise stopped periodic reporting but had reported within the previous three years.Finally, SB1576 gives the Secretary of the Treasury explicit authority to write regulations to implement these changes, including rules on reporting and measures to prevent taxpayers from dodging the statute by routing compensation through pass‑through entities or affiliates.
The bill takes effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, leaving the Treasury and taxpayers to work out guidance and compliance processes for the expanded scope.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the words “employee” and “covered employee” in IRC 162(m) with “individual” and “covered individual,” expanding statutory scope beyond traditional employees.
A “covered individual” now includes any individual who performs services (directly or indirectly) for the taxpayer for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
The statute keeps a backward‑looking capture: it still treats as covered those who were the principal executive or financial officer (or ranked among the top three compensated officers under SEC reporting) in taxable years after 2016 and before 2025.
The definition of a publicly held corporation is changed to include entities that filed Exchange Act section 15(d) reports at any time during the three‑taxable‑year period ending with the taxable year, widening the pool of companies subject to 162(m).
The bill adds an express regulatory grant allowing Treasury to require reporting and to prescribe anti‑avoidance rules targeting compensation funneled through pass‑throughs or other entities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act
A one‑line provision that names the bill. This is the administrative header only; it does not change tax law mechanics but signals the legislative focus on limiting tax deductions for very large compensation payments.
Replaces ‘employee’ terminology with ‘individual’ and broadens covered person definition
This subsection performs the core textual edits in IRC 162(m): it systematically substitutes “applicable remuneration” for “applicable employee remuneration” and swaps “covered employee”/“employee” language for “covered individual”/“individual.” The separate new definition of “covered individual” has two limbs: a forward‑looking limb that reaches any person performing services for taxable years beginning after Dec 31, 2024, and a transitional limb that continues to capture certain officers and the three highest compensated officers as reported to shareholders in prior years. Practically, that creates a far larger universe of pay recipients whose compensation can trigger the deduction denial.
Three‑year Exchange Act 15(d) lookback to determine public status
This amendment changes the subsection that defines a publicly held corporation by inserting a three‑taxable‑year lookback tied to filing under Exchange Act section 15(d). A company that filed such reports at any time within that three‑year window will count as publicly held for the taxable year. The result: companies that recently stopped reporting can still be subject to 162(m)’s rules for up to three years after reporting ceased, affecting delisted firms, spinouts, and certain private companies that previously filed under 15(d).
Grants Treasury explicit rulemaking power and removes obsolete subparagraph
This provision adds a new paragraph authorizing the Secretary to issue guidance, reporting rules, and anti‑avoidance regulations, explicitly citing the need to prevent compensation shifting through pass‑throughs and related entities. The bill also makes conforming heading edits and removes paragraph (6)(H) as a housekeeping step. The net effect is to give the IRS broader toolkit to define scope and enforcement mechanics, and to anticipate rulemaking targeted at entity‑level workarounds.
Applies changes to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024
All amendments take effect for taxable years starting after December 31, 2024. That timing creates an immediate compliance horizon for 2025 tax years and puts pressure on Treasury to issue implementing guidance fairly quickly to reduce disputes and uncertainty for returns and tax provision calculations.
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
- U.S. Treasury: By expanding the set of payments that are non‑deductible, the federal government stands to collect more tax revenue where high compensation would otherwise reduce corporate taxable income.
- Companies with lower executive pay relative to peers: Firms that keep pay below the relevant thresholds gain a competitive advantage because their tax-deductible compensation cost remains intact while high‑pay competitors face higher after‑tax costs.
- Public and shareholder advocates focused on executive pay: Advocacy groups and investor coalitions seeking to reduce subsidized multimillion‑dollar payouts gain a statutory tool that discourages excessive compensation through tax consequences.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public companies and private firms paying large sums to nonemployee service providers: Firms that compensate consultants, contractors, or executives through nonemployee arrangements may lose deductions and face higher tax bills unless they restructure pay below statutory limits.
- Tax, legal, and payroll compliance teams: Expanded scope and the potential for pass‑through targeting will increase compliance work—tracking payments to a broader set of individuals, documenting service relationships, and applying complex aggregation rules.
- Entities that use pass‑through structures or affiliates to compensate individuals: Partnerships, LLCs, and other intermediaries that receive payments which are then passed through to individuals may be targeted by new anti‑avoidance rules and lose the deductibility they previously expected.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: reducing a tax‑subsidy for very large compensation payments by expanding reach of the deduction denial, versus avoiding an overbroad rule that captures routine commercial payments and imposes heavy compliance costs; striking the right boundary—targeting multimillion‑dollar pay while leaving ordinary service payments untouched—will fall largely to Treasury rulemaking and raises hard line‑drawing questions.
The bill is a textual expansion rather than a numeric change to 162(m)’s underlying caps, but that textual change has outsized practical consequences because it severs the rule from conventional employee status. That raises immediate implementation questions: how will Treasury and the IRS define “performs services (directly or indirectly)”?
Will common commercial arrangements—consulting contracts, professional services paid through partnerships, deferred compensation paid via affiliates—be treated the same as payroll wages? The statute authorizes regulations to prevent avoidance, but the success of those regulations will depend on clear bright lines to limit litigation and administrative burden.
The three‑year 15(d) lookback also creates transitional complexity. Companies that recently delisted or spun off business units could unexpectedly trigger 162(m) for years after going private.
That generates tax accounting volatility and could influence corporate decisions about delisting or restructuring. Finally, giving Treasury broad anti‑avoidance authority invites a tension between preventing aggressive tax planning and preserving legitimate commercial flexibility: overly aggressive regs could sweep in ordinary vendor payments, while narrow rules risk leaving planning gaps that defeat the statute’s purpose.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.