§ 1.162-31. The $500,000 deduction limitation for remuneration provided by certain health insurance providers.

(i) B is an applicable individual of corporation Y for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, B begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of Y that is an account balance plan. Under the terms of the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times, and Y will pay B's entire account balance on January 1, 2019. B's account earns five percent interest per year, compounded annually. Y credits $10,000 to B under the plan annually on January 1 for three years beginning on January 1, 2016. Thus, B's account balance is $10,500 ($10,000 + ($10,000 × 5%)) on December 31, 2016; $21,525 ($10,500 + $10,000 + ($20,500 × 5%)) on December 31, 2017; and $33,101 ($21,525 + $10,000 + ($31,525 × 5%)) on December 31, 2018. On January 1, 2019, Y pays B $33,101, the entire account balance. Y attributes payments under its account balance plans using the account balance ratio method described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.

(ii) The increase in B's account balance during 2016 is $10,500 ($10,500 − zero); the increase in B's account balance for 2017 is $11,025 ($21,525 − $10,500); and the increase in B's account balance for 2018 is $11,576 ($33,101 − $21,525). The sum of all the increases is $33,101 ($10,500 + $11,025 + $11,576). Accordingly, for Y's 2016 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .3172 ($10,500/$33,101); for Y's 2017 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .3331 ($11,025/$33,101); and for Y's 2018 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .3497 ($11,576/$33,101).

(iii) With respect to the $33,301 payment made on January 1, 2019, $10,500 ($33,101 × .3172) of DDR is attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2016 taxable year; $11,026 ($33,101 × .3331) of DDR is attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2017 taxable year; and $11,575 ($33,101 × .3497) of DDR is attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2018 taxable year.

(i) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Y attributes remuneration using the principal additions method described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.

(ii) The $10,000 principal addition made on January 1, 2016 and $1,576 of earnings thereon (interest on the 2016 $10,000 principal addition at five percent for three years compounded annually) are attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2016 taxable year; the principal addition of $10,000 on January 1, 2017 and $1,025 of earnings thereon (interest on the 2017 $10,000 principal addition at five percent for two years compounded annually) are attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2017 taxable year; and the principal addition of $10,000 to B's account on January 1, 2018 and $500 of earnings thereon (interest on the 2018 $10,000 principal addition at five percent for one year compounded annually) are attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2018 taxable year. Accordingly, with respect to the $33,301 payment made on January 1, 2019, $11,576 ($10,000 + $1,576) is attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2016 taxable year; $11,025 ($10,000 + $1,025) is attributable to services performed in Y's 2017 taxable year; and $10,500 ($10,000 + $500) is attributable to services performed by B in Y's 2018 taxable year.

(i) J is an applicable individual of corporation Z for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, J begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of Z that is an account balance plan. Under the terms of the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times, and Z will pay J's entire account balance on January 1, 2019. Z credits $10,000 to J under the plan on January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2018. Earnings under the terms of the plan are based on a predetermined actual investment (as defined in § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(e)(2)(i)(B)), which results in J's account balance increasing by five percent in the 2016 taxable year, decreasing by five percent in the 2017 taxable year, and increasing again by five percent in the 2018 taxable year. Therefore, on December 31, 2016, J's account balance is $10,500 ($10,000 + ($10,000 × 5%)); on December 31, 2017, J's account balance is $9,975 ($10,500 − ($10,500 × 5%)); and on December 31, 2018, J's account balance is $20,974 ($9,975 + $10,000 + ($19,975 × 5%)). On January 1, 2019, Z pays J the entire account balance of $20,974.

(ii) The increase in J's account balance for 2016 is $10,500 ($10,500 − zero); the increase in J's account balance for 2017 is zero (because J's account balance decreased by $525 ($9,975 − $10,500)); the increase in J's account balance for 2018 is $10,474 ($20,974 − $10,500, which is the highest account balance in any prior taxable year). The sum of all the increases is $20,974 ($10,500 + $10,474). Thus, for Z's 2016 taxable year the attribution fraction is .5006 ($10,500/$20,974); for Z's 2017 taxable year the attribution fraction is zero because there was a decrease in the account balance for the year; and for Z's 2018 taxable year the attribution fraction is .4994 ($10,474/$20,974).

(iii) Accordingly, with respect to the $20,974 payment made on January 1, 2019, $10,499 ($20,974 × .5006) of DDR is attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2016 taxable year, and $10,474 ($20,973.75 × .4994) of DDR is attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2018 taxable year. No amount is attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2017 taxable year because there was no increase in the account balance for that taxable year.

(i) The facts are the same as in Example 3, except that Z attributes remuneration using the principal additions method described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.

(ii) The $10,000 principal addition made on January 1, 2016 and the $474 of net earnings thereon ($500 of earnings for 2016, $525 of losses for 2017, and $499 of earnings for 2018) are attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2016 taxable year; and the $10,000 principal addition made on January 1, 2018 and the $500 of earnings thereon are attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2018 taxable year. Accordingly, with respect to the $20,974 payment made on January 1, 2019, $10,474 ($10,000 + $474) of DDR is attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2016 taxable year, and $10,500 ($10,000 + $500) of DDR is attributable to services performed by J in Z's 2018 taxable year.

(i) N is an applicable individual of corporation M for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, N begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan sponsored by M that is an account balance plan. Under the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times. The balances in N's account are $110,000 on December 31, 2016; $90,000 on December 31, 2017; $250,000 on December 31, 2018; and $240,000 on December 31, 2019. N ceases providing services to N on December 31, 2019. In accordance with the plan terms, M pays to N $10,000 on September 30, 2017, $150,000 on January 1, 2021, and $100,000 on January 1, 2022. M attributes payments under its account balance plans using the account balance ratio method described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.

(ii) For purposes of attributing the $10,000 payment made on September 30, 2017 to taxable years, the increase in N's account balance for 2016 is $110,000 ($110,000 − zero). N's account balance for 2017 is treated as $100,000 ($90,000 + $10,000 payment on September 30, 2017), but, because the account balance of $100,000 is less than the account balance in an earlier year, the increase in N's account balance for 2017 is zero. The sum of all the increases in N's account balance is $110,000 ($110,000 + $0). Thus, the attribution fraction for 2016 is 1 ($110,000/$110,000), and the attribution fraction for 2017 is zero ($0/$110,000). Accordingly, with respect to the $10,000 payment made on September 30, 2017, the entire $10,000 is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2016 taxable year, and no amount is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2017 taxable year.

(iii) After attributing the September 30, 2017 payment of $10,000 to 2016, N's account balance for 2016 is treated as being $100,000 ($110,000 − $10,000), and the increase for 2016 is likewise treated as $100,000; N's account balance for 2017 decreased; the increase in N's account balance for 2018 is $150,000 ($250,000 − $100,000); and N's account balance for 2018 decreased. The sum of all the increases is $250,000 ($100,000 + $150,000). Thus, the attribution fraction for 2016 is .40 ($100,000/$250,000); the attribution fraction for 2017 is zero ($0/$250,000); the attribution fraction for 2018 is .60 ($150,000/$250,000); and the attribution fraction for 2019 is zero ($0/$250,000).

(iv) Accordingly, with respect to the $150,000 payment made on January 1, 2021, $60,000 ($150,000 × .40) is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2016 taxable year, and $90,000 ($150,000 × .60) is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2018 taxable year. With respect to the $100,000 payment made on January 1, 2022, $40,000 ($100,000 × .40) is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2016 taxable year, and $60,000 ($100,000 × .60) is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2018 taxable year. No amount is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2017 and 2019 taxable years.

(i) O is an applicable individual of corporation L for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, O begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan sponsored by L that is an account balance plan. Under the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times. L credits principal additions to O's account each year, and credits earnings based on a predetermined actual investment within the meaning of § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(d)(2)(i)(B). L makes principal additions of $90,000 on June 30, 2016; $140,000 on June 30, 2017; and $180,000 on June 30, 2018. The predetermined actual investment earns five percent for 2016, seven percent for 2017; eight percent for 2018; and nine percent for 2019. Thus, as of December 31, 2018, the earnings with respect to the $90,000 principal addition made on June 30, 2016 are $16,605, for a total of $106,605; and the earnings with respect to the $140,000 principal addition made on June 30, 2017 are $16,492, for a total of $156,492. As of January 1, 2020, the earnings with respect to the $180,000 principal addition made on June 30, 2018 are $24,048, for a total of $204,048. Under the terms of the plan, the principal addition (and earnings thereon) made on June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 are payable on December 31, 2018, and the principal addition (and earnings thereon) made on June 30, 2018 is payable on January 1, 2020. On December 31, 2018, L pays O $263,097 in accordance with the plan terms. On January 1, 2020, L pays O the remaining account balance of $204,048 in accordance with the plan terms.

(ii) The $263,097 payment made on December 31, 2018 is attributed to services performed by O in the 2016 and 2017 taxable years. Of the $263,097 payment, $106,605 is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2016 taxable year because this amount represents the $90,000 principal addition made on June 30, 2016 and earnings thereon. The remaining $156,492 is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2017 taxable year because this amount represents the $140,000 principal addition made on June 30, 2017 and earnings thereon. The $204,048 payment made on January 1, 2020 is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2018 taxable year because this amount represents the $180,000 principal addition made on June 30, 2018 and earnings thereon.

(i) A is an applicable individual of corporation Z for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, A begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of Z that is an account balance plan. Under the terms of the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times. The balances in A's account (including employer contributions and earnings) are $20,000 on December 31, 2016, and $60,000 on December 31, 2017. On December 31, 2017, A ceases providing services to Z. On January 1, 2019, Z makes a discretionary contribution of $30,000 to A's account balance plan. On December 31, 2019, in accordance with the plan terms, Z pays $120,000 to A, which is N's entire account balance. Z attributes payments under its account balance plans using the account balance ratio method described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.

(ii) The increase in A's account balance for 2016 is $20,000; the increase in A's account balance for 2017 is $40,000. The discretionary contribution made on January 1, 2019 of $30,000 is added to the account balance for 2017. Thus, the discretionary contribution of $30,000 on January 1, 2019, is treated as increasing A's account balance for 2017 by $30,000. The increase in A's account balance for 2016 is $20,000, and the increase in A's account balance for 2017 is $70,000 ($40,000 + $30,000). The sum of all the increases is $90,000 ($20,000 + $70,000).

(iii) Thus, the attribution fraction for 2016 is .2222 ($20,000/$90,000); and the attribution fraction for 2017 is .7778 ($70,000/$90,000). Accordingly, with respect to the $120,000 payment made on January 1, 2019, $26,664 ($120,000 × .2222) is attributable to services performed by A in Z's 2016 taxable year, and $93,336 ($120,000 × .7778) is attributable to services performed by A in Z's 2017 taxable year.

(i) C is an applicable individual of corporation X for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, C begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of X that is an account balance plan. Earnings under the terms of the plan are based on a predetermined actual investment (as defined in § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(e)(2)(i)(B)). Under the terms of the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times. X credits a $10,000 principal addition to C under the plan on April 1, 2016, and a $20,000 principal addition to C on April 1, 2017. C ceases providing services to X on December 31, 2017. On January 1, 2019, X credits $30,000 to C's account in recognition of C's past services. The $10,000 principal addition made on April 1, 2016 increases to $15,000 as of December 31, 2019, as a result of earnings. The $20,000 principal addition made on April 1, 2017, increases to $28,000 as of December 31, 2019 as a result of earnings. The January 1, 2019, contribution of $30,000 increases to $33,000 as of December 31, 2019, as a result of earnings. On December 31, 2019, in accordance with the plan terms, X pays C's entire account balance of $76,000. X attributes payments under its account balance plans using the principal additions method described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.

(ii) When the $76,000 payment is made to C on December 31, 2019, the remuneration becomes attributable to service performed by C in prior taxable years. The $10,000 principal addition in 2016 plus earnings thereon of $5,000 are attributable to services performed by C in X's 2016 taxable year, and the $20,000 principal addition in 2017 (plus earnings thereon of $8,000) are attributable to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year. The principal addition of $30,000 plus earnings thereon of $3,000 ($33,000) are also attributable to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year. Thus, $16,500 of the $33,000 is attributed to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year.

(iii) Accordingly, with respect to the $76,000 payment by X to C on December 31, 2019, $15,000 ($10,000 + $5,000) is attributed to services performed by C in X's 2016 taxable year, and $61,000 ($20,000 + $8,000 + $33,000) is attributed to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year.

(i) C is an applicable individual of corporation X for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2015, X grants C a vested right to a $100,000 payment on January 1, 2020. C ceases providing services on December 31, 2019. The payment of $100,000 is made on January 1, 2020. X determines the present value of the payment using an interest rate of five percent for all years.

(ii) The present value of $100,000 payable on January 1, 2020, determined using a five percent interest rate, is $82,270 as of December 31, 2015; $86,384 as of December 31, 2016; $90,703 as of December 31, 2017; $95,238 as of December 31, 2018, and $100,000 as of December 31, 2019. Accordingly, $82,270 is the amount of the increase in the present value of the future payment of $100,000 for X's 2015 taxable year ($82,270 − $0); $4,114 ($86,384 − $82,270) is the increase in the present value of the future payment for X's 2016 taxable year; $4,319 ($90,703 − $86,384) is the increase in the present value of the future payment for X's 2017 taxable year; $4,535 ($95,238 − $90,703) is the increase in the present value of the future payment for X's 2018 taxable year; and $4,762 ($100,000 − $95,238) is the increase in the present value of the future payment for X's 2019 taxable year. The sum of all the increases is $100,000 ($82,270 + $4,114 + $4,319 + $4,535 + $4,762). Thus, the attribution fraction for 2015 is .8227 ($82,270/$100,000); the attribution fraction for 2016 is .0411 ($4,114/$100,000); the attribution fraction for 2017 is .0432 ($4,319/$100,000); the attribution fraction for 2018 is .0454 ($4,535/$100,000); and the attribution fraction for 2019 is .0476 ($4,762/$100,000).

(iii) The $100,000 payment made on January 1, 2020 is multiplied by the attribution fraction for each taxable year, and the result is the amount that is attributable to service performed by C for that taxable year. Accordingly, $82,270 ($100,000 × .8227) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2015 taxable year; $4,114 ($100,000 × .0411) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2016 taxable year; $4,319 ($100,000 × .0432) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year; $4,535 ($100,000 × .0454) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2018 taxable year; and $4,762 ($100,000 × .0476) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2019 taxable year.

(i) The facts are the same as Example 9, except that X grants C a vested right to a $40,000 payment on June 30, 2018 and a vested right to a $60,000 payment on January 1, 2020.

(ii) The present value of the future payments ($40,000 payable on June 30, 2018 and $60,000 payable on January 1, 2020), determined using a five percent interest rate, is $84,758 as of December 31, 2015; $88,996 as of December 31, 2016; $93,446 as of December 31, 2017; and $57,143 as of December 31, 2018. However, for purposes of determining the increase in the present value of the future payments during 2018 (the year of the in-service payment), $57,143 must be increased by $40,000, the amount of the in-service payment, resulting in a present value of future payments as of December 31, 2018, of $97,143 solely for purposes of attributing the $40,000 in-service payment. Accordingly, $84,758 is the amount of the increase in the present value of the future payments for X's 2015 taxable year, $4,238 ($88,896 − $84,758) is the increase in the present value of the future payments for X's 2016 taxable year, $4,450 ($93,446 − $88,996) is the increase in the present value of the future payments for X's 2017 taxable year, and $3,697 ($97,143 − $93,446) is the increase in the present value of the future payments for X's 2018 taxable year. The sum of all the increases is $97,143 ($84,758 + $4,238 + $4,450 + $3,697). Thus, the attribution fraction for 2015 is .8725 ($84,758/$97,143); the attribution fraction for 2016 is .0436 ($4,238/$97,143); the attribution fraction for 2017 is .0458 ($4,450/$97,143); and the attribution fraction for 2018 is .0381 ($3,697/$97,143).

(iii) Accordingly, with respect to the $40,000 payment made on June 30, 2018, $34,900 ($40,000 × .8725) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2015 taxable year; $1,744 ($40,000 × .0436) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2016 taxable year; $1,832 ($40,000 × .0458) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year; and $1,524 ($40,000 × .0381) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2018 taxable year.

(iv) For purposes of attributing the $60,000 payment made on January 1, 2020, the present value of the future payments for each taxable year that ends prior to the taxable year in which the $40,000 in-service payment is paid is reduced by the present value of the future payment to which the applicable individual had a legally binding right to be paid on the date the $40,000 in-service is paid (based on the applicable factors and plan provisions as of the measurement date in each such taxable year). The present value of that future payment is $35,396 as of December 31, 2015; $37,166 as of December 31, 2016; and $39,024 as of December 31, 2017. Therefore, for purposes of attributing the $60,000 payment on January 1, 2020, the present value of future payments as of December 31, 2015, is $49,362 ($84,758 − $35,396); the present value of future payments as of December 31, 2016, is $51,830 ($88,996 − $37,166); the present value of future payments as of December 31, 2017, is $54,422 ($93,446 − $39,024). The present value of future payments as of December 31, 2018, is $57,143. Accordingly, $49,362 is the increase in the present value of the future payment of $60,000 for X's 2015 taxable year; $2,468 ($51,830 − $49,362) is the increase in the present value of the future payment for X's 2016 taxable year; $2,592 ($54,422 − $51,830) is the increase in the future value of the payment for X's 2017 taxable year; $2,721 ($57,143 − $54,422) is the increase in the future value of the payments for X's 2018 taxable year; and $2,857 ($60,000 − $57,143) is the increase in the future value of the payment for X's 2019 taxable year. The sum of all the increases is $60,000 ($49,362 + $2,468 + $2,592 + $2,721 + $2,857). Thus, the attribution fraction for 2015 is .8227 ($49,362/$60,000); the attribution fraction for 2016 is .0411 ($2,468/$60,000); the attribution fraction for 2017 is .0432 ($2,592/$60,000); the attribution fraction for 2018 is .0454 ($2,721/$60,000); and the attribution fraction for 2019 is .0476 ($2,857/$60,000).

(v) Accordingly, with respect to the $60,000 payment made on January 1, 2020, $49,362 ($60,000 × .8227) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2015 taxable year; $2,468 ($60,000 × .0411) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2016 taxable year; $2,592($60,000 × .0432) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2017 taxable year; $2,721 ($60,000 × .0454) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2018 taxable year; and $2,857 ($60,000 × .0476) is attributable to services performed by C in X's 2019 taxable year.

(i) D is an applicable individual of W for all relevant taxable years. D becomes a participant in a nonaccount balance plan sponsored by R on January 1, 2018. The plan provides W with the vested right to receive a five annual installments each equal to $20,000 times the full years of service that D completes. The first payment is to be made on the later of December 31, 2027, or on the December 31 of the first year in which D is no longer a service provider. D has a break in service in 2020 and does not accrue an additional benefit during 2020. D ceases to be a service provider on December 31, 2022, after having completed four years of service, entitling D to five annual payments equal to $80,000 per year commencing on December 31, 2027. W determines the present value of amounts to be paid under the plan using an interest rate of five percent for 2018 and 2019, and seven percent for 2021, 2022, and 2023. W uses the formula benefit ratio method described in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section.

(ii) Under the plan formula, in 2018, E accrued the right to a $20,000 annual payment for five years, and E accrued an additional $20,000 in annual payments in 2019, 2021, and 2022, resulting in the right to receive an annual payment of $80,000 commencing on December 31, 2027. Thus, the attribution fraction is .25 for 2018 ($20,000/$80,000), .25 for 2019 ($20,000/$80,000), .25 for 2021 ($20,000/$80,000), and .25 for 2022 ($20,000/$80,000). The attribution fraction for 2020 is zero because no additional formula benefit accrued during that year.

(iii) The attribution fraction for each disqualified taxable year is multiplied by each payment and the result is attributed to that taxable year. Accordingly, with respect to each $80,000 payment, $20,000 ($80,000 × .25) is attributable to services performed by D in W's 2018 taxable year; $20,000 ($80,000 × .25) is attributable to services performed by D in W's 2019 taxable year; $20,000 ($80,000 × .25) is attributable to services performed by D in W's 2021 taxable year; and $20,000 ($80,000 × .25) is attributable to services performed by D in W's 2022 taxable year. No amount is attributable to services performed by D in W's 2020 taxable year.

(i) E is an applicable individual of corporation V for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, V grants E an option to purchase 100 shares of V common stock at an exercise price of $50 per share (the fair market value of V common stock on the date of grant). The stock option is not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. On December 31, 2017, E ceases to be a service provider of V or any member of V's aggregated group. On January 1, 2019, E resumes providing services for V and again becomes both a service provider and an applicable individual of V. On December 31, 2020, when the fair market value of V common stock is $196 per share, E exercises the stock option. The remuneration resulting from the stock option exercise is $14,600 (($196 — $50) × 100).

(ii) The $14,600 is attributed pro rata over the 1,460 days from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 and from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020 (365 days per year for the 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020 taxable years), so that $10 ($14,600 divided by 1,460) is attributed to each calendar day in this period, and $3,650 (365 days × $10) of remuneration is attributed to services performed by E in each of V's 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2020 taxable years.

(i) The facts are the same as Example 14, except that the stock option is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture that lapses on December 31, 2017, and is not transferable until that date, and V chooses to attribute remuneration resulting from the exercise of stock options that are subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture over the period beginning on the date of grant and ending on the date the substantial risk of forfeiture lapses, as permitted under paragraph (d)(5)(i)(B) of this section.

(ii) The $14,600 is attributed pro rata over the 730 days from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 (365 days per year for the 2016 and 2017 taxable years), so that $20 ($14,600 divided by 730) is attributed to each calendar day in this period, and $7,300 (365 days × $20) is attributed to services performed by E in each of V's 2016 and 2017 taxable years.

(i) F is an applicable individual of corporation U for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2017, U grants to F 1000 shares of restricted U common stock. Under the terms of the grant, the shares will be forfeited if F voluntarily terminates employment before December 31, 2019 (so that the shares are subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture through that date) and are nontransferable until the substantial risk of forfeiture lapses. F does not make an election under section 83(b) and continues in employment with U through December 31, 2019, at which time F's rights in the stock become substantially vested within the meaning of § 1.83-3(b) and the fair market value of a share of the stock is $109.50. The remuneration resulting from the vesting of the restricted stock is $109,500 ($109.50 × 1000).

(ii) The $109,500 of remuneration is attributed to services performed by F over the 1,095 days between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 (365 days per year for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxable years), so that $100 ($109,500 divided by 1,095) is attributed to each calendar day in this period, and remuneration of $36,500 (365 days × $100) is attributed to services performed by F in each of U's 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxable years.

(i) G is an applicable individual of corporation T for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2018, T grants to G 1000 RSUs. Under the terms of the grant, T will pay G an amount on December 31, 2020 equal to the fair market value of 1000 shares of T common stock on that date, but only if G continues to provide substantial services to T (so that the RSU is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture) through December 31, 2020. G remains employed by T through December 31, 2020, at which time the fair market value of a share of the stock is $219, and T pays G $219,000 ($219 × 1000).

(ii) The $219,000 in remuneration is attributed to services performed by G over the 1,095 days beginning on January 1, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2020 (365 days per year for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxable years), so that $200 ($219,000/1,095) is attributed to each calendar day in this period, and $73,000 (365 days × $200) is attributed to service performed by G in each of T's 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxable years.

(i) H is an applicable individual of corporation S. On January 1, 2015, H and S enter into an employment contract providing that S will make two payments of $150,000 each to H if H has an involuntary separation from service. Under the terms of the contract, the first payment is due on January 1 following the involuntary separation from service, and the second payment is due on January 1 of the following year. On December 31, 2016, H has an involuntary separation from service. S pays H $150,000 on January 1, 2017 and $150,000 on January 1, 2018.

(ii) Pursuant to paragraph (d)(6) of this section, involuntary separation pay may be attributed to services performed by H in the taxable year of S in which the involuntary separation from service occurs. Alternatively, involuntary separation pay may be attributed to services performed by H on a daily pro rata basis beginning on the date H obtains a legally binding right to the involuntary separation pay and ending on the date of the involuntary separation from service. The entire $300,000 amount, including both $150,000 payments, must be attributed using the same method. Therefore, the entire $300,000 amount (comprised of two $150,000 payments) may be attributed to services performed by H in S's 2016 taxable year, which is the taxable year in which the involuntary separation from service occurs. Alternatively, each $150,000 payment may be attributed on a daily pro rata basis to the period beginning on January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2016, so that $410.96 (($150,000 × 2)/(365 × 2)) is attributed to each day of S's 2015 and 2016 taxable years. Accordingly, $150,000 is attributed to services performed by H in each of S's 2015 and 2016 taxable years.

(i) I is an applicable individual of corporation R. On January 1, 2018, I enters into an agreement with R under which R will reimburse I's country club dues for two years following I's separation from service. On December 31, 2020, I ceases to be a service provider of R. I pays $50,000 in country club dues on January 1, 2021 and $50,000 on January 2, 2022. Pursuant to the agreement, R reimburses I $50,000 for the country club dues in 2021 and $50,000 in 2022.

(ii) $100,000 is attributed to services performed in R's 2020 taxable year, the taxable year in which I ceases to be a service provider.

(i) J is an applicable individual of corporation Q for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, J begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that is an account balance plan. Under the terms of the plan, Q will pay J's account balance on January 1, 2021, but only if J continues to provide substantial services to Q through December 31, 2018 (so that the amount credited to J's account is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture through that date). Q credits $10,000 to J's account annually for five years on January 1 of each year beginning on January 1, 2016. The account earns interest at a fixed rate of five percent per year, compounded annually, which solely for the purposes of this example, is assumed to be a reasonable rate of interest. Q attributes increases in account balances under the plan using the principal additions method described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.

(ii) Earnings on a principal addition are attributed to the same disqualified taxable year of Q to which the principal addition is attributed; therefore, the amount initially attributable to Q's 2016 taxable year is $12,763 (the $10,000 principal addition in 2016 at five percent interest for five years); the amount initially attributable to Q's 2017 taxable year is $12,155 (the $10,000 principal addition in 2017 at five percent interest for four years); the amount initially attributable to Q's 2018 taxable year is $11,576 (the $10,000 principal addition in 2018 at five percent interest for three years); the amount attributable to Q's 2019 taxable year is $11,025 (the $10,000 principal addition in 2019 at five percent interest for two years); and the amount attributable to Q's 2020 taxable year is $10,500 (the $10,000 principal addition in 2020 at five percent interest for one year).

(iii) Remuneration that is attributable to two or more taxable years of Q during which it is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture must be reattributed on a daily pro rata basis to the period beginning on the date that J obtains a legally binding right to the remuneration and ending on the date that the substantial risk of forfeiture lapses. Therefore, $36,494 ($12,763 + $12,155 + $11,576) is reattributed on a daily pro rata basis over the period beginning on January 1, 2016, and ending on December 31, 2018. Thus, $12,165 is attributed to services performed by J in each of Q's 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxable years.

(i) L is an applicable individual of corporation O. During O's 2015 taxable year, O pays L $550,000 in salary, which is AIR, and grants L a right to $50,000 of DDR payable upon L's separation from service from O. L has a separation from service in 2020, at which time O pays L the $50,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by L in O's 2015 taxable year.

(ii) The $500,000 deduction limitation for 2015 is applied first to L's $550,000 of AIR for 2015. Because the $550,000 of AIR in 2015 is greater than the deduction limit, O may deduct only $500,000 of the AIR for 2015, and $50,000 of the $550,000 of AIR is not deductible for any taxable year. The deduction limit for remuneration attributable to services provided by L in O's 2015 taxable year is then reduced to zero. Because the $50,000 in DDR attributable to services performed by L in 2015 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero, that $50,000 is not deductible for any taxable year.

(i) M is an applicable individual of corporation N. During N's 2016 taxable year, N pays M $300,000 in salary, which is AIR, and grants M a right to $220,000 of DDR payable on a fixed schedule beginning upon M's separation from service. The $220,000 is attributable to services provided by M in N's 2016 taxable year. M ceases providing services on December 31, 2016. In 2020, N pays M $120,000 of DDR that is attributable to services performed in N's 2016 taxable year. In 2021, N pays M the remaining $100,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by M in N's 2016 taxable year.

(ii) The $500,000 deduction limitation for 2016 is applied first to M's $300,000 of AIR for 2016. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, N may deduct the entire $300,000 of AIR paid in 2016. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to $200,000 because the limitation is reduced by the amount of AIR ($500,000 − $300,000). The reduced deduction limit is then applied to M's $120,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by M in N's 2016 taxable year that is paid in 2020. Because the reduced deduction limit of $200,000 is greater than the $120,000 of DDR, N may deduct the entire $120,000 of DDR paid in 2020. The $200,000 deduction limit is reduced to $80,000 by the $120,000 in DDR because the limit is reduced by the amount of DDR to which the deduction limit applied ($200,000 − $120,000). The reduced deduction limit of $80,000 is then applied to the remaining $100,000 payment of DDR attributable to services performed by M in N's 2016 taxable year. Because the $100,000 payment by N for 2021 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of $80,000, N may deduct only $80,000 of the payment for the 2021 taxable year, and $20,000 of the $100,000 payment is not deductible by N for any taxable year.

(i) N is an applicable individual of corporation M for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2015, N begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan sponsored by M that is an account balance plan. Under the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times. The balances in N's account (including earnings) are $50,000 on December 31, 2015, $100,000 on December 31, 2016, and $200,000 on December 31, 2017. N's AIR from M is $425,000 for 2015, $450,000 for 2016, and $500,000 for 2017. On January 1, 2018, in accordance with the plan terms, M pays $200,000 to N, which is a payment of N's entire account balance under the plan. M uses the account balance ratio method to attribute amounts to services performed in taxable years.

(ii) To determine the extent to which M is entitled to a deduction for any portion of the $200,000 payment under the plan, the payment must first be attributed to services performed by N in M's taxable years in accordance with the attribution rules set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. The increase in N's account balance during 2015 is $50,000 ($50,000 − zero); the increase in N's account balance for 2016 is $50,000 ($100,000 − $50,000); and the increase in N's account balance for 2017 is $100,000 ($200,000 − $100,000). The sum of all the increases is $200,000 ($50,000 + $50,000 + $100,000). Accordingly, for N's 2015 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .25 ($50,000/$200,000); for N's 2016, taxable year, the attribution fraction is .25 ($50,000/$200,000); and for N's 2017 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .50 ($100,000/$200,000).

(iii) With respect to the $200,000 payment made on January 1, 2018, $50,000 ($200,000 × .25) of DDR is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2015 taxable year; $50,000 ($200,000 × .25) of DDR is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2016 taxable year; and $100,000 ($200,000 × .50) of DDR is attributable to services performed by N in M's 2017 taxable year.

(iv) The $500,000 deduction limitation for 2015 is applied first to N's $425,000 of AIR for 2015. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, M may deduct the entire $425,000 of AIR paid in 2015. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to $75,000 by the amount of AIR against which it is applied ($500,000 − $425,000). The reduced deduction limit is then applied to N's $50,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by N in M's 2015 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $50,000 does not exceed the reduced deduction limit of $75,000, all $50,000 of the DDR attributable to services performed by N in M's 2015 taxable year is deductible for 2018, the year of payment. The deduction limit for remuneration attributable to services performed by N in 2015 is then reduced to $25,000 ($75,000 − $50,000), and this reduced limit is applied to any future payment of DDR attributable to services performed by N in 2015. With respect to M's 2016 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limit for 2016 is applied first to N's $450,000 of AIR for 2016. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, M may deduct the entire $450,000 of AIR paid in 2016. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to $50,000 by the AIR ($500,000 − $450,000). The reduced deduction limit is then applied to N's $50,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by N in M's 2016 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $50,000 does not exceed the reduced deduction limit of $50,000, all $50,000 of the DDR attributed to M's 2016 taxable year is deductible for 2018, the year of payment. The deduction limit for remuneration attributable to services performed by N in 2016 is then reduced to zero, and this reduced limit is applied to any future payment of DDR attributable to services performed by N in 2016. With respect to M's 2017 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limit for 2017 is applied first to N's $500,000 of AIR for 2017. Because the deduction limit is not greater than the AIR, M may deduct the entire $500,000 of AIR paid in 2017. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to zero by the amount of the AIR against which it is applied ($500,000 − $500,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to N's $100,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by N in M's 2017 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $100,000 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero, the $100,000 of the DDR attributed to services performed by N in M's 2017 taxable year is not deductible for the year of payment (or any other taxable year). As a result, $100,000 of the $200,000 payment ($50,000 + $50,000 + $0) is deductible by M for M's 2018 taxable year, and the remaining $100,000 is not deductible by M for any taxable year.

(i) O is an applicable individual of corporation L for all relevant taxable years. On January 1, 2016, O begins participating in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan sponsored by L that is an account balance plan. Under the plan, all amounts are fully vested at all times. L makes contributions to O's account each year and credits earnings based on a predetermined actual investment within the meaning of § 31.3121(v)(2)-1(d)(2)(i)(B). The closing balances in O's account (including contributions, earnings, and distributions made during the year) are $100,000 on December 31, 2016, $250,000 on December 31, 2017, and $50,000 on December 31, 2018. O's AIR from L is $500,000 for 2016, $300,000 for 2017, and $450,000 for 2018. On December 31, 2018, L pays O $400,000 in accordance with the plan terms. On December 31, 2019, O's account balance is $200,000, reflecting additional credits of $125,000 made during the year and earnings on the account. O's AIR from L is $200,000 for 2019. O ceases providing services to L on December 31, 2019. On January 1, 2020, L pays O $200,000 in accordance with the plan terms. L uses the account balance ratio method to attribute amounts to services performed in taxable years.

(ii) To determine the extent to which L is entitled to a deduction for any portion of either of the payments under the plan, O's payments under the plan must first be attributed to services performed by O in L's taxable years in accordance with the attribution rules set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. For purposes of attributing the $400,000 payment made on December 31, 2018 to a taxable year, the increase in O's account balance during 2016 is $100,000 ($100,000 − zero); the increase in O's account balance for 2017 is $150,000 ($250,000 − $100,000); and the increase in O's account balance for 2018 is $200,000 ($50,000 − $250,000 + $400,000 (payment on December 31, 2018)). The sum of all the increases is $450,000 ($100,000 + $150,000 + $200,000). Thus, for L's 2016 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .2222 ($100,000/$450,000); for L's 2017 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .3333 ($150,000/$450,000); and for L's 2018 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .4444 ($200,000/$450,000). Accordingly, with respect to the $400,000 payment made on December 31, 2019, $88,889 ($400,000 × .2222) is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2016 taxable year; $133,333 ($400,000 × .3333) is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2017 taxable year; and $177,778 ($400,000 × .4444) is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2018 taxable year.

(iii) The portion of the $400,000 payment attributed to services performed in a disqualified taxable year under paragraph (d) of this section that exceeds the deduction limit for that disqualified taxable year, as reduced through the date of payment, is not deductible in any taxable year. The $500,000 deduction limit for 2016 is applied first to O's $500,000 of AIR for 2016. Because the deduction limit is equal to the $500,000 of AIR, L may deduct the entire $500,000 of AIR paid in 2016. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to zero by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $500,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $88,889 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2016 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $88,889 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero, the $88,889 of DDR attributed to 2016 is not deductible for L's 2018 taxable year or any other taxable year. With respect to L's 2017 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limitation for 2017 is applied first to O's $300,000 of AIR for 2017. Because the $500,000 deduction limit is greater than the $300,000 of AIR, L may deduct the entire $300,000 of AIR paid in 2017. The $500,000 deduction limit is reduced to $200,000 by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $300,000). The reduced deduction limit is then applied to O's $133,333 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2017 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $133,333 does not exceed that reduced deduction limit of $200,000, the $133,333 is deductible for 2018. The deduction limit for remuneration attributable to services performed by O in 2017 is then reduced to $66,667 ($200,000 − $133,333), and this reduced limit is applied to any future payment of DDR attributable to services performed by O in 2017. With respect to L's 2018 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limit for 2018 is applied first to O's $450,000 of AIR for 2018. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, L may deduct the entire $450,000 of AIR paid in 2017. The $500,000 deduction limit is reduced to $50,000 by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $450,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $177,778 attributable to services performed by O in L's 2018 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because the $177,778 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of $50,000, $50,000 of DDR is deductible for L's 2018 taxable year, and $127,778 of the $177,778 is not deductible for L's 2018 taxable year or any other taxable year. As a result, $183,333 of the $400,000 payment ($0 + $133,333 + $50,000) is deductible by L for L's 2018 taxable year, and the remaining $216,667 is not deductible by L for any taxable year.

(iv) For purposes of attributing amounts paid or made available from the plan in future taxable years, the following adjustments are made to O's account balances to reflect the in-service payment of $400,000 in 2018. O's account balance as of December 31, 2016 is reduced by the $88,889 attributable to 2016; and for 2017 is reduced by the sum of the $133,333 attributable to 2017 and the $88,889 attributable to 2016. Therefore, after attributing the $400,000 payment, O's adjusted closing account balance as of December 31, 2016, is $11,111 ($100,000 − $88,889), and as of December 31, 2017, is $27,778 ($250,000 − $133,333 − $88,889).

(v) For purposes of attributing the $200,000 payment made on January 1, 2020, to services performed in the taxable years of S, the increase in O's account balance during 2016 is $11,111 ($11,111 − $0); the increase in O's account balance for 2017 is $16,667 ($27,778 − $11,111); the increase in O's account balance for 2018 is $22,222 ($50,000 − $27,778), and the increase in O's account balance for 2019 is $150,000 ($200,000 − $50,000). The sum of all such increases is $200,000 ($11,111 + $16,667 + $22,222 + $150,000). Thus, for O's 2016 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .0556 ($11,111/$200,000); for O's 2017, taxable year, the attribution fraction is .0833 ($16,667/$200,000); for O's 2018 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .1111 ($22,222/$200,000); for O's 2019 taxable year, the attribution fraction is .7500 ($150,000/$200,000). Accordingly, with respect to the $200,000 payment made on January 1, 2020, $11,111 ($200,000 × .0556) of DDR is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2016 taxable year; $16,667 ($200,000 × .0833) of DDR is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2017 taxable year; $22,222 ($200,000 × .1111) of DDR is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2018 taxable year; and $150,000 ($200,000 × .7500) of DDR is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2019 taxable year.

(vi) The portion of the DDR attributed to a disqualified taxable year under paragraph (d) of this section that exceeds the deduction limit for that disqualified taxable year, as reduced, is not deductible for any taxable year. For L's 2016 taxable year, the deduction limit is reduced to zero by the $500,000 of AIR for that year. Because $11,111 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero, $11,111 of the DDR is not deductible for L's 2020 taxable year or any other taxable year. For L's 2017 taxable year, the deduction limit is reduced to $200,000 by the $300,000 of AIR for that year and further reduced to $66,667 by the $133,333 of DDR previously attributed to 2017. Because $16,667 does not exceed the $66,667 deduction limit, the $16,667 of DDR is deductible for L's 2020 taxable year, the year of payment. The deduction limit for remuneration attributable to services performed by O in 2017 is then reduced to $50,000 ($66,667 − $16,667), and this reduced limit is applied to any future payment attributable to services performed by O in 2017. For L's 2018 taxable year, the deduction limit is reduced to zero by the $450,000 of AIR for that year and the $50,000 of DDR previously attributed to 2018. Because $22,222 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero for 2018, the $22,222 of DDR is not deductible for L's 2020 taxable year or any other taxable year. For L's 2019 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limit for 2019 is applied first to O's $200,000 of AIR for 2019. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, L may deduct the entire $200,000 of AIR paid in 2019. The $500,000 deduction limit is reduced to $300,000 by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $200,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $150,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2019 taxable year that is paid in 2020. Because $150,000 does not exceed the $300,000 limit, the $150,000 of DDR is deductible for L's 2020 taxable year, the year of payment. The deduction limit for remuneration attributable to services performed by O in 2019 is then reduced to $150,000 ($500,000 − $200,000 − $150,000), and this reduced limit is applied to any future payment attributable to services performed by O in 2019. As a result, $166,667 of the $200,000 payment ($0 + $16,667 + $0 + $150,000) is deductible by L for L's 2020 taxable year, the year of payment, and the remaining $33,333 is not deductible by L for any taxable year.

(i) The facts are the same as set forth in Example 4, paragraph (i), except that L uses the principal additions method for attributing remuneration from an account balance plan; principal additions under the plan are $100,000 in 2016, $125,000 in 2017, $150,000 in 2018, and $125,000 in 2019; as of the December 31, 2018 initial date of payment, earnings on the 2016, 2017, and 2018 principal additions are $40,000, $30,000, and $5,000 respectively. Under the terms of the plan, the $400,000 payment made on December 31, 2018, is from principal additions in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and earnings thereon, and the $200,000 payment made on January 1, 2020, is from principal additions in 2018 and 2019, and earnings thereon.

(ii) To determine the extent to which L is entitled to a deduction for any portion of either payment under the plan, the payments to O under the plan must first be attributed to services performed by O in F's taxable years in accordance with the attribution rules set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. Under the rules in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, the $400,000 payment on January 1, 2019, is attributed to services performed by O in the taxable year to which the payment relates under the terms of the plan. DDR including principal additions and earnings thereon are attributed to services performed by O in a taxable year of L when the $400,000 payment is made to O on December 31, 2018. Under the terms of the plan, the $400,000 payment made on December 31, 2018 is attributed to services performed by O in L's 2016 taxable year in the amount of $140,000, and is attributed to services performed by O in L's 2017 taxable year in the amount of $155,000, and the remaining $105,000 ($400,000 − $140,000 − $155,000) is attributed to services performed by O in L's 2018 taxable year.

(iii) The portion of the DDR attributable to services performed in a disqualified taxable year under paragraph (d) of this section that exceeds the deduction limit for that disqualified taxable year, as reduced, is not deductible for any taxable year. The $500,000 deduction limitation for 2016 is applied first to O's $500,000 of AIR for 2016. Because the deduction limit is equal to the $500,000 of AIR, L may deduct the entire $500,000 of AIR paid in 2016. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to zero by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $500,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $140,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2016 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $140,000 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero, the $140,000 is not deductible for L's 2018 taxable year (the year of payment), or any other taxable year. For L's 2017 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limit for 2017 is applied first to O's $300,000 of AIR for 2017. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, L may deduct the entire $300,000 of AIR paid in 2017. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to $200,000 by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $300,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $155,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2017 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $155,000 does not exceed the reduced deduction limit of $200,000, the $155,000 payment is deductible for 2018. For L's 2018 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limitation for 2018 is applied first to O's $450,000 of AIR for 2018. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, L may deduct the entire $450,000 of AIR paid in 2018. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to $50,000 by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $450,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $105,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2018 taxable year that is paid in 2018. Because $105,000 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of $50,000, $55,000 of the $105,000 attributable to L's 2018 taxable year is not deductible for 2018 (the year of payment), or any other taxable year. As a result, $205,000 of the $400,000 payment ($0 + $155,000 + $50,000) is deductible by L for L's 2018 taxable year (the year of payment) and the remaining $195,000 is not deductible by L for any taxable year.

(iv) Earnings through January 1, 2020 on the principal addition for L's 2018 taxable year ($50,000) that was not paid as part of the December 31, 2018 payment are $5,000. Earnings through January 1, 2020 on the $125,000 credited to O's account on January 1, 2019 are $20,000. On December 31, 2018, after the $400,000 payment is applied to 2016, 2017, and 2018, the account balance for 2016 and 2017 is reduced to zero, and the account balance for 2018 is reduced to $50,000 ($150,000 + $5,000 (earnings) − $105,000). Under the terms of the plan, the $200,000 payment made on January 1, 2020, is attributable to services performed by O in L's 2018 and 2019 taxable years. Therefore, the $200,000 payment on January 1, 2020 is attributed to services performed by O in L's taxable years as follows: $55,000 ($50,000 + $5,000) to 2018 and $145,000 ($125,000 + $20,000) to 2019.

(v) The portion of the DDR attributed to a disqualified taxable year under paragraph (d) of this section that exceeds the deduction limit for that disqualified taxable year, as reduced, is not deductible for any taxable year. For L's 2018 taxable year, the deduction limit is reduced to zero by the $450,000 of AIR for that year and the payment of $50,000 of DDR attributable to that year. Because $55,000 exceeds the reduced deduction limit of zero, the $55,000 is not deductible for 2020, the year of payment (or any other taxable year). With respect to L's 2019 taxable year, the $500,000 deduction limit for 2019 is applied first to O's $200,000 of AIR for 2019. Because the deduction limit is greater than the AIR, L may deduct the entire $200,000 of AIR paid in 2019. The $500,000 deduction limit is then reduced to $300,000 by the amount of the AIR ($500,000 − $200,000). The reduced deduction limit is applied to O's $145,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by O in L's 2019 taxable year that is paid in 2020. Because $145,000 does not exceed the $300,000 reduced limit, the $145,000 is deductible for 2020 (the year of payment). As a result, $145,000 of the $200,000 payment ($0 + $145,000) is deductible for L's 2020 taxable year, and the remaining $55,000 is not deductible by L for any taxable year.

(i) Corporations I, J, and K are members of the same aggregated group under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. At separate times during 2016, C is an employee of, and performs services for, I, J, and K. C's total AIR for 2016 is $1,500,000, which consists of $750,000 of AIR for services performed to K; $450,000 of AIR for services provided to J; and $300,000 of AIR for services to I.

(ii) Because I, J, and K are members of the same aggregated group, the AIR otherwise deductible by them is aggregated for purposes of applying the deduction limitation. Further, because the aggregate AIR otherwise deductible by I, J, and K for 2016 exceeds the deduction limitation for C for that taxable year, the deduction limit is prorated and allocated to the members of the aggregated group in proportion to the AIR otherwise deductible by each member of the aggregated group for that taxable year. Therefore, the deduction limit that applies to the AIR otherwise deductible by K is $250,000 ($500,000 × ($750,000/$1,500,000)); the deduction limit that applies to the AIR otherwise deductible by J is $150,000 ($500,000 × ($450,000/$1,500,000)); and the deduction limit that applies to AIR otherwise deductible by I is $100,000 ($500,000 × ($300,000/$1,500,000)). For the 2016 taxable year, K may not deduct $500,000 of the $750,000 of AIR paid to C ($750,000 − $250,000); J may not deduct $300,000 of the $450,000 of AIR paid to C ($450,000 − $150,000); and I may not deduct $200,000 of the $300,000 of AIR paid to C ($300,000 − $100,000).

(i) The facts are the same as Example 1, except that C's total AIR for 2016 is $400,000, which consists of $75,000 for services provided to K; $150,000 for services provided to J; and $175,000 for services provided to I. In addition, C becomes entitled to $60,000 of DDR attributable to services provided to K in 2016, which is payable (and paid) on April 1, 2018, and $75,000 of DDR attributable to services provided to J in 2016, which is payable (and paid) on April 1, 2019.

(ii) Because C's total AIR of $400,000 for 2016 for services provided to K, J, and I do not exceed the $500,000 limitation, K, J, and I may deduct $75,000, $150,000, and $175,000, respectively, for 2016. The deduction limit is then reduced to $100,000 by the total AIR deductible by all members of the aggregated group ($500,000 − $400,000). The deduction limit, as reduced, is then applied to any DDR attributable to services provided by C in 2016 in the first subsequent taxable year that DDR becomes deductible. The first year that DDR for 2016 becomes deductible is 2018, due to the $60,000 payment made on April 1, 2018. Because the $60,000 of DDR otherwise deductible by K does not exceed the 2016 $100,000 deduction limit, K may deduct the entire $60,000 for its 2018 taxable year. The $100,000 deduction limit is then reduced by the $60,000 of DDR deductible by K for 2018, and the reduced deduction limit of $40,000 ($100,000 − $60,000) is applied to the $75,000 of DDR that is otherwise deductible for 2019. Because the DDR of $75,000 otherwise deductible by J exceeds the reduced deduction limit of $40,000, J may deduct only $40,000, and the remaining $35,000 ($75,000 − $40,000) is not deductible by J for that taxable year or any other taxable year.

(i) The facts are the same as Example 2, except that C's DDR of $75,000 attributable to services performed by C in J's 2016 taxable year is payable (and paid) on July 1, 2018.

(ii) The results are the same as Example 2, except that the reduced deduction limit of $100,000 is prorated between K and J in proportion to the DDR otherwise deductible by them for 2018. Accordingly, $44,444 of the remaining deduction limit is allocated to K ($100,000 × ($60,000/$135,000)), and $55,556 of the remaining deduction limit is allocated to J ($100,000 × ($75,000/$135,000)). Because the $60,000 of DDR otherwise deductible by K exceeds the $44,444 deduction limit applied to that remuneration, K may deduct only $44,444 of the $60,000 payment, and $15,556 may not be deducted by K for the 2018 taxable year or any other taxable year. Similarly, because the $75,000 of DDR otherwise deductible by J exceeds the $55,556 deduction limit applied to that remuneration, J may deduct only $55,556 of the $75,000 payment, and $19,444 may not be deducted by J for that taxable year or any other taxable year.

(i) Corporation J merges with and into corporation H on June 30, 2015, such that H is the surviving entity. As a result of the merger, J's taxable year ends on June 30, 2015. For its taxable year ending June 30, 2015, J is a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider. For all taxable years before the taxable year of the merger, H is not a covered health insurance provider.

(ii) Corporation J is a covered health insurance provider for its short taxable year ending June 30, 2015. As a result of the merger, H becomes a covered health insurance provider for its 2015 taxable year, but Corporation H is not a covered health insurance provider for its 2015 taxable year by reason of the transition period relief in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. However, applicable individuals of J continue to be subject to the deduction limit under section 162(m)(6) for amounts that become otherwise deductible in the 2015 taxable year and DDR that is attributable to services performed by applicable individuals of J, and H is a covered health insurance provider for all subsequent taxable years for which it is a covered health insurance provider under paragraph (b)(4) of this section.

(i) On January 1, 2016, corporations D, E, and F are members of a controlled group within the meaning of section 414(b). F is a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider under paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this section. D and E are not health insurance issuers (but are covered health insurance providers pursuant to paragraphs (b)(4)(i)(C) and (D) of this section). D is the parent entity of the DEF aggregated group. F's taxable year ends on September 30. P is an applicable individual of F for all taxable years. On May 1, 2016, a controlled group within the meaning of section 414(b) consisting of corporations C and B purchases all of the stock of corporation F, resulting in a controlled group within the meaning of section 414(b) consisting of corporations C, B, and F. The amount of premiums received by F from providing minimum essential coverage during the portion of its taxable year when it was a member of the DEF aggregated group constitute more than two percent of the gross revenues of the aggregated group for the taxable year of D (the parent entity) ending on December 31, 2016, and the taxable years of E and F ending with or within D's taxable year (December 31, 2016 and May 1, 2016 respectively). C and B are not health insurance issuers. C is the parent entity of the CBF aggregated group. The CBF aggregated group is also a consolidated group within the meaning of § 1.1502-1(h). Thus, F's taxable year ends on May 1, 2016 by reason of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(1), and F becomes part of the CBF consolidated group for the taxable year ending December 31, 2016.

(ii) D and E are covered health insurance providers for the taxable year ending December 31, 2016, and the de minimis exception does not apply because the amount of premiums received by F from providing minimum essential coverage during the short taxable year that it was a member of the DEF aggregated group are more than two percent of the gross revenues of the aggregated group for the taxable years during which the members would otherwise be a covered health insurance providers under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section. Accordingly, D and E are subject to the deduction limitation under section 162(m)(6) for their taxable years ending December 31, 2016. C and B are not covered health insurance providers for their taxable year ending December 31, 2016, by reason of the transition period relief of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.

(iii) As a result of leaving the aggregated group, F has a new taxable year beginning on May 2, 2016 and ending on December 31, 2016. F is a covered health insurance provider within the meaning of paragraph (b)(4) of this section for its new taxable year ending on December 31, 2016 (even though C and B are not covered health insurance providers for their taxable years ending December 31, 2016) unless the CBF aggregated group qualifies for the de minimis exception for that taxable year.

(iv) P is an applicable individual whose remuneration from F is subject to the deduction limitation under section 162(m)(6) for F's short taxable year ending May 1, 2016 and F's taxable year ending December 31, 2016. In addition, any remuneration provided to P by C or B at any time for services provided by P from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 is also subject to the deduction limitation under section 162(m)(6), even though C and B are not covered health insurance providers for their taxable years ending December 31, 2016 by reason of the transition period relief of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. Remuneration to which P had the legally binding right on or before the date of the transaction is subject to the deduction limitation when that remuneration becomes otherwise deductible.

(i) The same facts as Example 2, except that E is a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider under paragraph (b)(4) of this section and thus receives premiums from providing minimum essential coverage (instead of F), and F is not a health insurance issuer.

(ii) F is a covered health insurance provider for its short taxable year ending May 1, 2016. However, because F is not a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider and there are no other health insurance issuers in the BCF aggregated group, F is not a covered health insurance provider for its short, post-acquisition taxable year ending December 31, 2016.

(iii) With respect to P, remuneration to which P had the legally binding right on or before the date of the transaction is subject to the deduction limitation. However, remuneration to which P obtains the legally binding right after the date of the corporate transaction is not subject to the deduction limitation.

(i) Corporations N, O, and P are members of an aggregated group as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. N is a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this section, but neither O nor P is a health insurance issuer. P is the parent entity of the aggregated group. On April 1, 2016, O ceases to be a member of the NOP aggregated group as the result of a corporate transaction. O's taxable year does not end as a result of the corporate transaction.

(ii) Because O was a member of the NOP aggregated group during a portion of its taxable year, O is a covered health insurance provider for its taxable year ending December 31, 2016.

(i) Corporations V, W, and X are members of an aggregated group as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. V is a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this section, but neither W nor X is a health insurance issuer. W is the parent entity of the aggregated group. V's taxable year ends on December 31; W's taxable year ends on June 30; and X's taxable year ends on September 30. For its taxable year ending June 30, 2017, W has $100x in gross revenue. For its taxable year ending September 30, 2016, X has $60x in gross revenue. For its taxable year ending December 31, 2016, V receives $4x of premiums from providing minimum essential coverage and has no other revenue. As of September 30, 2016, V ceases to be a member of the VWX aggregated group. V's taxable year does not end on September 30, 2016 as a result of the transaction. Of the $4x that that V receives for providing minimum essential coverage during its taxable year ending December 31, 2016, $3x is received during the period from January 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016. As a result of the corporate transaction, V's taxable year ends on September 30, 2016. The de minimis exception of paragraph (b)(4)(v)(A) of this section did not apply to the members of the VWX aggregated group for their immediately preceding taxable years ending December 31, 2015, June 30, 2016, and September 30, 2015, respectively.

(ii) For purposes of applying the de minimis exception to an aggregated group for a taxable year during which a person leaves or joins the aggregated group, only the premiums and revenues of the person for the portion of its taxable year during which it was a member of the aggregated group are taken into account. The premiums from providing minimum essential coverage received by the VWX aggregated group for W's taxable year ending June 30, 2017 are $3x. The revenues of the V, W, and X aggregated group for W's taxable year ending June 30, 2017 are $163x. Accordingly, the premiums received by the members of the aggregated group from providing minimum essential coverage are less than two percent of the gross revenues of the aggregated group ($3x is less than $3.26x (two percent of $163x)). Therefore, V, W and X are not covered health insurance providers for their taxable years ending December 31, 2016, June 30, 2017, and September 30, 2016, respectively.

(i) The facts are the same as Example 5, except that F received $4x of premiums during the period from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016, and the members of the VWX aggregated group were not covered health insurance providers for their taxable years ending December 31, 2015, June 30, 2016, and September 30, 2015, respectively (their immediately preceding taxable years) solely by reason of the de minimis exception of paragraph (b)(4)(v)(A) of this section.

(ii) The premiums from providing minimum essential coverage received by the VWX aggregated group for W's taxable year ending June 30, 2017 are $4x. The revenues of the VWX aggregated group for W's taxable year ending June 30, 2017 are $164x. Accordingly, the premiums received by the members of the aggregated group from providing minimum essential coverage are greater than two percent of the gross revenues of the aggregated group ($4x is greater than $3.28x (two percent of $164x)). Therefore, V, W, and X do not qualify for the de minimis exception for their taxable years ending December 31, 2016, June 30, 2017, and September 30, 2016, respectively. However, V, W, and X are not covered health insurance providers for these taxable years by reason of the de minimis exception one year transition period described in paragraph (b)(4)(v)(B) of this section.

(i) Corporation N is a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider. Corporation O is also a health insurance issuer that is a covered health insurance provider. Both N and O have taxable years ending December 31. N uses the account balance ratio method to attribute remuneration that becomes otherwise deductible under its account balance plans. O uses the principal additions method to attribute amounts that become otherwise deductible under its account balance plans. On June 30, 2016, O purchases all of the stock of N.

(ii) For the taxable year of N and O ending December 31, 2016, N may continue to attribute amounts that become deductible under its account balance plans using the account balance ratio method, and O can continue to attribute amounts that become otherwise deductible under its account balance plan using the principal additions method, even though they are members of the same aggregated group, pursuant to the transition period relief described in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. In all subsequent taxable years, N and O must use the same method to attribute amounts that become otherwise deductible under their account balance plans. Either N or O may change the method that it uses to attribute amounts under its account balance plans to be consistent with the attribution method used by the other.

(i) The facts are the same as Example 7. In addition, B is an applicable individual of N before the corporate transaction and is a participant in an account balance plan of N. On December 31, 2015, N made a payment to B, and N used the account balance ratio method described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section to attribute the payment to services performed by B in taxable years of N.

(ii) Because N used the account balance ratio method described in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section to attribute an amount that became otherwise deductible under the plan before the corporate transaction, N must continue to use the account balance ratio method for attributing amounts to which B had a legally binding right as of the corporate transaction, whenever those amounts become otherwise deductible.

(i) Q is an applicable individual of corporation Z. Z's 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxable years are disqualified taxable years. Z's 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxable years are not disqualified taxable years. However, Z's 2016 taxable year and all subsequent taxable years are disqualified taxable years. Q receives $200,000 of AIR from Z for 2012, and becomes entitled to $800,000 of DDR that is attributable to services performed by Q in 2012. Z pays Q $350,000 of the DDR in 2015, and the remaining $450,000 of the DDR in 2016. These payments are otherwise deductible by Z in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

(ii) DDR attributable to services performed by Q in Z's 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxable years that is otherwise deductible in Z's 2013, 2014, or 2015 taxable years is not subject to the deduction limitation under section 162(m)(6) by reason of the transition rule under paragraph (i)(1) of this section. However, DDR attributable to services performed in Z's 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxable years that is otherwise deductible in a later taxable year that is a disqualified taxable year (in this case, Z's 2016 and subsequent taxable years) is subject to the deduction limitation under section 162(m)(6). Accordingly, the deduction limitation with respect to AIR and DDR attributable to services performed by Q in 2012 is determined by reducing the $500,000 deduction limit by the $200,000 of AIR paid to Q by Z for 2012 ($500,000 − $200,000). Under the transition rule of paragraph (i)(1) of this section, no portion of the reduced deduction limit of $300,000 for the 2012 taxable year is applied against the $350,000 payment made in 2015, and accordingly, the deduction limit is not reduced by the amount of that payment. The reduced deduction limit is then applied to Q's $450,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by Q in 2012 that is paid to Q and becomes otherwise deductible in 2016. Because the reduced deduction limit of $300,000 is less than the $450,000 otherwise deductible by Z in 2016, Z may deduct only $300,000 of the DDR, and $150,000 of the $450,000 payment is not deductible by Z in that taxable year or any taxable year.

(i) R is an applicable individual of corporation Y, which is a covered health insurance provider for all relevant taxable years. During 2010, Y pays R $400,000 in salary and grants R a right to $200,000 in DDR payable on a fixed schedule in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Pursuant to the fixed schedule, Y pays R $50,000 of DDR in 2011, $50,000 of DDR in 2012, and the remaining $100,000 of DDR in 2013.

(ii) Because the deduction limitation for DDR under section 162(m)(6)(A)(ii) is effective for DDR that is attributable to services performed by an applicable individual during any disqualified taxable year beginning after December 31, 2009 that would otherwise be deductible in a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, only the DDR paid by Y in 2013 is subject to the deduction limitation. However, the limitation is applied as if section 162(m)(6) and paragraph (c)(2) of this section were effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009 and before January 1, 2013. Accordingly, the deduction limitation with respect to remuneration for services performed by R in 2010 is determined by reducing the $500,000 deduction limit by the $400,000 of AIR paid to R for 2010 ($500,000 −$400,000). The reduced deduction limit of $100,000 is further reduced to zero by the $50,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by R in Y's 2010 taxable year that is deductible in each of 2011 and 2012 (($100,000 − $50,000 − $50,000). Because the deduction limit is reduced to zero, none of the $100,000 of DDR attributable to services performed by R in Y's 2010 taxable year and paid to R in 2013 is deductible.