Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

When a company pays a former employee to refrain from competing or soliciting clients, the payment sits at a crossroads of tax rules that determine whether it is treated as ordinary income, capital gain, or a specially designated form of compensation. The Internal Revenue Code provides specific guidance on noncompete payments, severance packages, and related consideration, with varying implications depending on who is paying, the purpose of the payment, and the timing. For employers, the critical question is deductibility and withholding. For employees, the key concern centers on how the payment is taxed when received and in subsequent years. Understanding the taxonomy helps prevent surprises at tax time.

The classification often hinges on whether the payment is made in connection with the termination of employment or as consideration for a covenant not to compete. In many jurisdictions, severance can be treated as wages subject to payroll taxes and withholding, while certain restraint payments might be treated as illusory sequences of compensation. Taxpayers should examine the payment’s origin, whether it compensates for services already performed or for future restrictions, and how the agreement is drafted. Clear labeling within the agreement and consistent accounting treatment help avoid mismatches between tax reporting and the underlying economic reality.

A well-structured noncompete and severance arrangement can be designed to minimize tax leakage by aligning the payment with an ordinary income framework when appropriate, while preserving legitimate deductions. From the employer's standpoint, documenting the business necessity of the noncompete and the severance’s purpose helps justify its tax treatment. Employees benefit from transparent terms that show how payments will be reported, anticipated withholding, and any implications for social security and Medicare. The drafting process should prioritize precision, avoiding ambiguous terms that could trigger audits or adjustments in tax liabilities. Proper structuring reduces risk and uncertainty on both sides.

Practical structuring steps begin during negotiations and continue through the drafting phase. Begin by specifying the payment’s purpose, timing, and the relationship to ongoing restrictions. Include explicit references to the noncompete, nonsolicit, or confidentiality aspects that justify the consideration. Establish whether payments accelerate or defer income recognition and how severance interacts with accrued benefits. Consider potential state-law considerations that could influence withholding, reporting, and the treatment of noncompete payments. Finally, insert clear, consistent tax disclaimers and ensure the agreement’s terms align with corporate policy and the surrounding compensation framework.

For employers, an important lever is the allocation of the payment as wages, bonuses, or separate consideration. Classifying it as wages with appropriate payroll withholdings protects the company from later challenges, while preserving the employee’s ability to rely on standard withholding. In some cases, a separate, lump-sum payment designated as a settlement of restrictive covenants may be treated differently for tax purposes, potentially reducing overall tax exposure. Employers should consult with tax professionals to determine the most defensible approach, considering both the timing of the payment and the intended use of the restricted rights.

Employees should scrutinize the agreement’s language to understand how each component will be taxed over time. If severance is paid in installments, consider how installment taxation interacts with any preexisting retirement or benefit plans. Clarify whether the severance portion is subject to different withholding rates or special tax considerations such as nonqualified deferred compensation rules. The risk of misclassification can create unnecessary tax burdens, penalties, or missed opportunities for favorable treatment under existing laws. A thoughtful review helps ensure the employee leverages the full value of the severance package.

Beyond basic classification, the tax treatment can be influenced by whether a noncompete payment is a one-time transfer or part of a broader compensation arrangement. Consider whether the payment is contingent on continued compliance for a defined period or if it is fully earned upon signing. Contingent arrangements may trigger different tax timing or reporting requirements. The parties should also analyze whether the payment relates to performance, settlement of disputes, or a negotiated exit agreement. Each scenario changes the tax landscape and the appropriate documentation, increasing the importance of precise drafting.

In addition to federal rules, state and local taxes can shape the outcome. Some jurisdictions impose withholding differently on severance than on ordinary wages, while others look to the character of the payment for their definitions. Multistate employers face additional challenges in allocating income and withholding to the correct jurisdictions. To minimize risk, agreements should include explicit choices about applicable law, governing jurisdiction for dispute resolution, and the tax treatment selected by both sides. Coordination with payroll, legal, and human resources teams helps ensure consistent practice across the organization.

For taxation purposes, deductions matter. Employers generally deduct noncompete and severance payments as ordinary business expenses if properly characterized and documented. The timing of deductions, the method of accounting, and the alignment with recognized income recognition principles are all critical. If a payment is not properly deductible, the employer may face higher tax costs and potential penalties. Employees should receive clear statements showing the year of recognition, the amount withheld, and any applicable adjustments. Clear tax treatment minimizes disputes and supports a smoother transition for the departing employee.

Documentation is a cornerstone of favorable tax outcomes. The parties should maintain a comprehensive file establishing the business purpose for each payment, the exact covenants involved, and the expected effect on the employer’s books. Where feasible, use independent appraisals or market comparisons to justify the severance level and the noncompete consideration. A well-supported rationale strengthens the case for the chosen tax treatment if challenged. Additionally, preserve all correspondence and drafts that reveal the evolution of the agreement’s terms for audit purposes.

Looking ahead, good practices include periodic reviews of noncompete and severance terms in light of evolving tax guidance and case law. Companies that revisit and update their templates can avoid drift between policy and actual practice, thereby maintaining consistency in tax treatment. Employees should stay informed about any changes that may affect future tax liabilities, especially if they anticipate receiving similar payments elsewhere. Training for managers and HR teams on the tax implications of these agreements supports better decision making, reduces miscommunication, and helps both sides pursue a fair and compliant outcome.

Finally, consider engagement with tax counsel during drafting and before signing to validate the selected treatment and to anticipate possible IRS scrutiny. Counsel can help ensure the agreement aligns with current law, supports defensible deductions, and protects against unintended consequences. They can also assist with negotiation strategies to preserve favorable treatment, such as structuring installment payments or specifying contingent terms. A proactive, legally informed approach yields durable, tax-efficient agreements that serve both the departing employee and the employer’s long-term goals.