Tag Archives: Dodd/Frank

A Fall Return to Our Comment of the Week (or So) Blog Posts

Now that summer vacation is over, and we’ve gotten through a very busy September with lots of SECI programs, we are ready to resume our comment of the week blog posts.

One topic in the news, thanks to all the political campaigning underway, is taxes. As the candidates discuss their plans to reform the tax code, we thought it would make sense to explore in a bit more depth Corp Fin’s comments about tax issues. As you likely know this has been a “frequent comment” hot topic for a while.

Here is a first comment, and a frequent theme in comments, international taxes. As you’ll see, the staff frequently asks for more detail about reconciling items. All of this of course to help readers understand the likelihood of such rates being sustainable.

2. We note from your disclosure in Note 9 that there is a significant reconciling item in the effective income tax reconciliation due to differences between foreign and United States statutory rates, which are primarily attributable to your Luxembourg holding company structure and tax rulings received from Luxembourg tax authorities. Please tell us the nature of the items included in the reconciling line item titled “differences between foreign and U.S. statutory rates.” Also, please provide us with the pre-tax income, statutory rate, and effective tax rate in Luxembourg for all periods presented. Additionally, please tell us the nature of the factors that are driving the changes in this line item from year to year, including the nature of any significant tax rulings.

This second comment in the tax arena is about tax benefits, and even mixes international issues along with the recoverability issue. You can almost hear the next comment asking about “positive and negative” evidence.

  1. Please tell us the facts and circumstances associated with the extraterritorial income tax benefit recognized in each of 2014 and 2013, including the basis for the amount recognized and changes therein. Also, tell us the nature of the reserve applied against such benefits and the amount of the reserve for each year.

Notice how this comment combines domestic versus foreign tax issues along with the theme of disaggregation:

  1. Please revise to disclose the components of income before income taxes as either domestic or foreign. See guidance in Rule 4-08(h) of Regulation S-X. Also, we note that in your reconciliation between the federal statutory rate and the effective income tax rate disclosed in Note L, foreign and state income taxes are combined in one line item. Please note that if either of these items (foreign income taxes or state income taxes) affect the statutory tax rate by more than 5% (either positively or negatively) they should be separately presented on the reconciliation.

And, in this last comment, the significant question of the repatriating the earnings of foreign operations is murky and the staff asks for clarification in disclosure.

  1. You disclose in note 15 that the income tax provision in fiscal 2014 includes $33.7 million of U.S. income and applicable foreign withholding taxes on dividends of $473.7 million due to repatriating foreign subsidiaries earnings to the U.S. parent entity to fund the share repurchase program. You also disclose you have not provided for U.S. and foreign withholding taxes on $471 million of accumulated undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries at February 1, 2015 because you intend to reinvest these earnings for the foreseeable future. It is not clear from your present disclosures how management overcame the presumption that all undistributed earnings of subsidiaries will be transferred to the parent and therefore require the accrual of an income tax payable as outlined in ASC 740-30-25-3. Please tell us how you have determined that you have both the ability and intent to indefinitely prevent accumulated undistributed foreign earnings from being repatriated without tax consequences. See ASC 740-30-25-17 and 25-18. In doing so, tell us the following:
    • Explain the specific evidence (e.g. experience of the entity, definite future plans and past remittances, etc.) to substantiate the parent’s assertion of the indefinite postponement of remittances from foreign subsidiaries;
    • Identify the entities and periods where the parent claims permanent reinvestment;
    • Tell us why you have not disclosed that the remittance of undistributed earnings is postponed indefinitely as opposed to the foreseeable future, which is the point used in ASC 740-30-25-19 to describe when it is apparent that a temporary difference reverses and a deferred tax liability is required to be recognized; and
    • Tell us how your decision to repatriate the $473.7 million of funds during 2014 in order to fund your share repurchase program was considered as part of your determination that the $471 million of accumulated undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries referenced above continue to be permanently reinvested as of February 1, 2015.


Taxes! Well, for now, we will forgo any jokes about how inevitable they are. We do know that tax comments asking for more clarity in disclosure will continue!


As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Pay Ratio Final Rule and What to Do?

 As you doubtless have heard, the SEC, in a split vote, approved the Dodd/Frank mandated “Pay Ratio Rule” on August 5. And yes, there is a lot of politics and a lot of discussion going on about the rule.

Companies will, after the discussion is over, have to deal with all the challenges of actually implementing the rule! To help, we have already scheduled a program, “SEC’s Pay Ratio Rule:  What Companies Need to do to Prepare”, which will be webcast on October 15, 2015. You can get the details about the program at:


As always, your thoughts and comments, even the political ones, are welcome!

A Bit of Perspective about Clawbacks in the News

If you are involved in SEC reporting, you have likely been hearing about clawbacks of executive compensation. The SEC, as required by Dodd/Frank, has proposed a new rule about clawbacks. You can see the SEC’s press release about the proposed rule at:


The press release also has a good summary of the proposal and a link to the text of the proposed rule. (The link is near the top of the press release on the right side of the page.)

This rule proposal has created a fair amount of commentary and discussion, as anyone would expect.

That said, courtesy of Section 304 of SOX, clawbacks have been in play before this proposed rule. And this SOX provision has some teeth. Diebold Corporation, in the wake of a settled accounting fraud enforcement action, was required to clawback compensation from its CEO. Here is an interesting quote from the press release announcing the various enforcements:

“The complaint does not allege that (the CEO) engaged in the fraud.”

You can read the release at:


So, what is the reason that Dodd/Frank requires more rule making about clawbacks? One of the principal differences concerning clawbacks between Dodd/Frank and SOX is that SOX requires clawbacks when a restatement arises from accounting fraud.

Dodd/Frank moves things to a higher level because it will require clawbacks for any material restatement, regardless of cause. So even an unintentional error will trigger a clawback requirement.

In a sense, this is a bit like the SOX whistleblower hotline compared to the Dodd/Frank whistleblower hotline. SOX requires an anonymous hotline to the audit committee, Dodd/Frank goes a step further and created the anonymous hotline directly to the SEC.

As always, your thoughts and reactions are welcome!