Sec stock option backdating
US software firm Mercury Interactive recently admitted to granting improperly backdated options to senior officials, as part of an ongoing investigation into such activity by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Over the years, lawmakers have tweaked the tax code to limit disfavored forms of executive compensation, while regulators have increased the amount of disclosure companies must make. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) has introduced the Income Equity Act of 2011 (H. 382), which would amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit deductions for excessive compensation for any full-time employee; compensation is defined as “excessive” if it exceeds either $500,000 or 25 times the compensation of the lowest-paid employee, whichever is larger.
The objective of this study is to examine the impact of a prior limitation on deductibility of compensation, Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).
With respect to reducing excessive, non-performance-based compensation, many consider Section 162(m) a failure, including Christopher Cox, the then-chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who went so far as to suggest it belonged “in the museum of unintended consequences.” Sen. These sophisticated folks are working with Swiss-watch-like devices to game this Swiss-cheese-like rule.
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the then-chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, was even more direct, saying: 162(m) is broken. Since Section 162(m) passed nearly 20 years ago, both academic and practitioner research has shown a dramatic increase in executive compensation, with little evidence that it is more closely tied to performance than before.
The topic of executive compensation has long been of interest to academics, the popular press, and politicians.
With the continued increase in executive compensation and resultant increase in pay disparity between those executives and the average worker, this issue is once again coming to the forefront of the public policy debate.In contrast to much of the debate today on the need of the federal government to raise tax revenue, the primary goal of Section 162(m), which limited tax deductions for executive compensation, was not to raise revenue but to reduce excessive, non-performance-based compensation—in other words, to do something about excessive compensation that 1992 presidential candidate William Jefferson Clinton campaigned against.This paper will review the effectiveness of that provision in achieving its goals, and provide information on how much revenue it has raised or lost due to deductions for executive compensation. Companies have found it easy to get around the law. And it seems to have encouraged the options industry.The information in respect of these cases has been made available in the e filing window of the PAN holder (after log in) at the portal https://in.The PAN holder can view the information using the link 'Cash Transactions 2016' under 'Compliance' section of the portal.In the same vein, to save time, contract drafters (and reviewers) can consider incorporating selected Common Draft sections, or even entire contract drafts, by reference and specifying any desired variations or modifications — this could be thought of as "drafting by exception" or even as like INCOTERMS on steroids.* * For clarity: The Common Draft project is not sponsored, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with the International Chamber of Commerce, which produces the INCOTERMS® 2010 rules. That's because doing so can result in destruction of the disclosing party's trade-secret rights in its confidential information after the end of the confidentiality period. An obligation to return or destroy Confidential Information might not be practical if (for example) Confidential Information is embodied in a deliverable (for example, custom-developed computer software, or a physical object) that the receiving party will have the right to keep on using; this might be the case in a services agreement.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating