This paper contrasts the post-tax returns of backdated at-the-money options to currently-dated in-the-money options (with the same strike price as the backdated options) and demonstrates that a Canadian executive can earn a significantly larger after-tax return from backdated options compared to a US executive.
Both sets of motivations arise from the quantitative and qualitative benefits, costs, and risks of issuing and receiving backdated options. Certain AMT may be carried forward and applied to reduce the general tax payable in subsequent years (to the extent that the general tax exceeds the tentative alternative minimum tax liability for the subsequent year).
Most of the research to date has focused on supply side factors (e.g., accounting treatment, securities regulations, and corporate taxation), while there has been little discussion of demand side factors.
Additionally, companies can use backdating to produce greater executive incomes without having to report higher expenses to their shareholders, which can lower company earnings and/or cause the company to fall short of earnings predictions and public expectations.
Corporations, however, have defended the practice of stock option backdating with their legal right to issue options that are already in the money as they see fit, as well as the frequent occurrence in which a lengthy approval process is required.
Because the backdated options’ strike price is lower than the market price on the actual grant date, the recipient has received something of greater monetary value (even if the options have not yet vested) than a correctly dated at-the-money option. Companies could reward executives with cash compensation or additional properly dated and priced incentive awards, including options, rather than engage in dubious backdating practices. It is clear that there must be reasons other than greed that have led so many to backdate executive options. Academics, regulators, and practitioners alike have tried to gain a better understanding of these incentives and the roles they have played in the backdating scandal; however, there is as of yet no consensus regarding the causes of backdating. This is problematic because policy, legislative, or regulatory changes are unlikely to be effective if the root causes are unknown. In 2008, the long-term capital gain rate for individuals in the lowest two tax brackets (currently 5% and 15%) was further reduced to zero.
Untangling the causes of backdating will remain elusive unless each factor is considered in detail using evidence from different regimes. III 2009) (allowing carry forward for a credit for the prior year’s minimum tax liability that resulted from certain timing differences). D (illustrating in Example 4 the effect of AMT); see generally Francine J. 337 (2002) (providing a detailed discussion of the AMT and its application to ISOs). These reduced rates are currently effective until the end of 2012. 111-312, 124 Stat 3296 (extending reduced rates from the end of 2010 until the end of 2012).
The information below was written by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group.
Standard backdating An initial claim can be backdated if the circumstances entitling the person to tax credits have subsisted for the period of the backdating.
I am sure that from time to time we have all come across the vexed question of backdating documents.
A client or, in the case of an in house lawyer colleague (who for the purposes of this article will also be considered a client), asks you to prepare a document and then your heart sinks as he says “oh and it has to be dated” and gives a date which has already passed.
In certain circumstances tax credits claims can be backdated.