Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hueyone who wrote (119872)	6/4/2002 3:57:44 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 152472

... how most companies are handling stock options on their tax returns. *** I'm trying to get a grasp of that myself. My objective is to actually see, better yet get a copy of, a federal corporate income tax return with NQSO option grants and exercises. I've got two CPA friends .. so will try there .. but doubt either will actually let me see a return. Hi Ron or any accountants: * I guess from that salutation, you already know I'm NOT and accountant .. but in case you don't, I'm not. I'm a former lowly communications engineer who occasionally was the recipient of NQSOs. I am under the impression that the "Tax Benefit from Exercise of Stock Options", that we often see in companies' operating cash flow statements on the 10Qs, is a different item from the compensation expense related to the option grant event. * Of course, I agree with that. That's a paraphrase of your quote of my post. Ron

To: hueyone who wrote (119872)	6/4/2002 5:20:34 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Cancelled my conclusions re Levin/McCain S.1940 bill ... ... and plan to review conclusions re employee stock options. My confidence in my understanding of this option stuff is now shaken, since I ran across "Section-by-Section Analysis of S. 1940 Ending the Double Standard for Stock Options Act", on Senator Carl Levin's web site. levin.senate.gov The S.1940 Analysis does not use the word "grant", so I'm no longer sure S.1940 addresses the option grant expense, the 'SFAS 123 expense' .. but the Buffett article implies a Levin/McCain bill does address that issue. I trust what Mr. Buffett says, so I suspect the S.1940 Analysis could go a bit further than it does. I'll be drilling deeper until the understanding has returned. There wouldn't be more than one Levin/McCain bill re options, would there? <g> Ron