To: Hardly B. Solipsist who wrote (5985 ) 6/10/2002 9:34:00 AM From: hueyone Read Replies (1) | Respond to So saying "why did LE get paid so much last year when the company didn't do well" is a little misleading. Do you know when the options that Siebel sold were granted? keep in mind that the accounting change you appear to want would have underreported the expense levin.senate.gov Snip: It's time to end the stock option double standard. The Levin-McCain-Fitzgerald-Durbin-Dayton bill would not legislate accounting standards for stock options or directly require companies to expense stock option pay, but it would require companies to treat stock options on their tax returns the exact same way they treat them on their financial statements. In other words, a company's stock option tax deduction would have to mirror the stock option expense shown on the company's books. If there is no stock option expense on the company books, there can be no expense on the company tax return. If a company declares a stock option expense on its books, then the company can deduct exactly the same amount in the same year on its tax return. The bill would require companies to tell Uncle Sam and their stockholders the same thing – whether employee stock options are an expense and, if so, how much of an expense against company earnings. Enron has already shown how much damage, if not corrected, that the existing stock option double standard can inflict on company bookkeeping, investor confidence and tax fairness.
