Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Backdated Options

By John B. Gamble, Jr.
April 30, 2007

On Feb. 8, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') made an usual offer to employers: on very short notice ' by Feb. 28, 2007, employers could inform the IRS of their intent to pay the back taxes and penalties owed by (non-insider) employees who exercised stock options with 'an exercise price of less than fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant in 2006.' See IRS Announcement 2007-18 ('Corporate Resolution Program For Employees Other Than Insiders For Additional 2006 Taxes Arising Under '409A due to the Exercise of Stock Options') ('Announcement 2007-18' or 'Program'). Under this Program, companies with backdated options programs were 'allowed' to calculate and pay, by June 30, 2007, on behalf of their employees who exercised such options, a 20% penalty tax, and an additional 1% interest on underpayments, owed by such employees under ' 409A of the Internal Revenue Code ('IRC').

If your company is taking the IRS up on the offer, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you can pay taxes that your employees, not the company, really owe. The amounts you pay on your employees' behalf will be included in the employees' gross incomes for 2007, as they would have been if the IRS Announcement 2007-18 had not been issued. And you will have openly alerted the IRS, and possibly the Securities and Exchange Commission, to the fact that your stock options program has historically included (if it does not still include) backdated or 'in the money' options. And certainly you will have saved the IRS a lot of paperwork by calculating what is owed by each employee who exercised such options last year. I hope for your sake that this does not result in a time-consuming and troublesome audit or other investigation of the entire company's backdating practices.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.