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 (119896)	6/5/2002 11:57:08 AM
From: rkral	Respond to of 152472

Restored my conclusions re Levin/McCain S.1940 bill ... ... and other conclusions re employee stock options. The confidence has returned. Gone down the Carl Levin etal. S.1940 road .. as far as I'm going to go .. unless something potentially important surfaces. Levin's Analysis is brief because S.1940 itself is brief (3 pages or so). While the word "grant" isn't used, I'm assuming that "property transferred" (no tax code definitions found) includes both a stock option and a stock certificate. Obviously, the stock option transfer occurs on the grant date, and the stock certificate transfer occurs on the exercise date. My assumptive conclusion is based on: (1) numerous S.1940 opposition web sites that discuss why-nots relative to the tax benefit due to exercise (the stock certificate transfer), (2) seemingly fewer S.1940 opposition web sites that discuss Black-Scholes and FASB SFAS 123 (the stock option transfer), (3) Warren Buffet's article (mentioned in earlier post), and (4) my belief that a stock option IS property. I first looked for conclusive proof in the tax code. My 2nd peek ever. Geez! What a convoluted referential mess! It makes technical specifications look easy. A lifetime I haven't got. Sorry. That's pretty shaky .. but that's all I got. JMHO Ron