Why do you say that?

Post #32,577 by Silverlock 3/18/02 11:36:17 AM Reply	Why do you say that? I haven't seen the bill in question, but the quote from the article says the bill just wants them to show the cost in the bottom line if it's claimed as a deduction on taxes. Seems reasonable, but IANAE(conomist) so there has to be some strange way of justifying this that would never have occured to me. The focus of their attention is a bill that would require companies to count the cost of employee stock options as an operating expense, just like salaries, if they also take a tax deduction for them. As for this- Not a great solution if your goal is to make these types of compensation packages more prevalent. I assume you take it as a given that this is in fact a worthy goal. I don't know if it is or not, but haven't we been hearing an awful lot about the abuse of this type of compensation? That Enron thingee for example. With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
Post #32,588 by bepatient 3/18/02 12:24:03 PM Reply	The tech sector... ...used these programs as a lure for talent. They, indeed, want these programs to be more prevalent. Making them take the hit as a current expense would eliminate their utility for these companies by making them too expensive. They would, instead, just pay people more (probably...maybe not). You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #32,601 by Yendor 3/18/02 1:39:35 PM Reply	Re: The tech sector... Making them take the hit as a current expense would eliminate their utility for these companies by making them too expensive. They would, instead, just pay people more (probably...maybe not). At no fewer than 3 of my previous companies, I've been the recipient of stock options. And I'm about to pick some up at my current company. My opinion of 'em? They're not worth the paper they're printed on. How much do I have to show for 'em? Exactly zero dollars and zero cents. Therefore, give me more salary. I'm no longer motivated by the stock option racket. I used to be. But that system, as far as I'm concerned, is bunk. I don't see how companies can get a quantifiable tax benefit from giving stock options to employees yet not have it count against income. Doesn't make sense to me. -YendorMike Real programmers use "vi a.out".
Post #32,606 by bepatient 3/18/02 1:51:26 PM Reply	Agreed There should be no tax benefit to these programs...especially when you consider your own situation. The company treats it as a deferred liability...but that liability may never be incurred. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #33,944 by Ashton 3/31/02 6:48:41 PM Reply	But.. is there no "recapture rule" .. as with many/most? other such "deferred" imaginary expenses? And if there isn't any mechanism for such eventual balancing of books via simple arithmetic -?- How could such a rule have been passed by the CPAs of the world? Isn't Dismal's biggest claim as a pseudo science: accountability ? Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!