GAAP/Tax Differences In Accounting For Nonqualified Employee Stock Options: The Gathering Storm

Abstract

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The escalating size of compensation packages to senior managers and investor disillusionment resulted in the issuance of FAS 123(R). Under the current rules, the grant date fair value of employee stock options (ESO) are expensed over the vesting period. The two primary methods used to value ESO are the Black-Scholes closed form equation and the lattice model. Several studies suggested an alternative Simple model for valuing ESO that marks the option expense to market in succeeding financial statement dates and allows for the staggered exercise dates of option holders. This approach is easy to understand, would have a low cost of implementation, and offers a superior estimate of the true cash flow effects and economic injury associated with the opportunity cost to shareholders of ESO exercise. Moreover, the Simple model would head off another threat to the legitimacy of the FASB that is unfolding in the U.S. Congress as Senator Carl Levin holds hearings on ESO in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to decide what to do about the multi-billion dollar gap between what companies report to stockholders as ESO expense and what they deduct on their tax returns. In addition, this gap results in highly controversial rules of accounting and reporting for the favorable impact of the deductions in the financial statements.</span></span></p>