OUR BLOG

  • From the team at myStockOptions.com and myNQDC.com, this blog has commentaries on equity compensation and NQ deferred comp, tips on the related tax and financial planning, updates about new stuff at our websites, and sometimes the lighter side of the topics we cover. We do our best to keep the writing lively.


    Copyright © 2010–2018 myStockPlan.com, Inc.


« Tax Reform Developments: Making Provisions For Individuals Permanent; Capital Gains Indexing | Main | What To Know About Tax Reform And What To Expect From The 'Tax Reform 2.0' Proposals »

02 July 2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bruce:

In your article above on Wisconsin v. U.S. you state:

"While initially it appears that the application of the decision is narrow and applies only to employee stock options (also perhaps RSUs and other types of stock compensation) at railroad companies, the implications are broader."

Do you mean that in present equity compensation plans recently created by companies that are not Railroad Companies, the exercise of ESOs is not a taxable event"?

Nice commentary, Bruce. Technical cases like this don't usually result in SCOTUS splits along ideological lines, so this one is, as you say, a prime example of the difference in approach between two philosophies of jurisprudence. Gorsuch certainly had the better textual and rhetorical points, and there was certainly no facial ambiguity in the statutes, but Breyer is presenting what used to be the consensus view that the idiots in Congress couldn't possibly have meant the two statutes to be treated differently, so it's up to the courts to fix their mistakes.

John, the decision makes no change in the taxation of stock options for those not "working on the railroad." Even for those that do, it just concerns the equivalent of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA), which is the RRTA tax for those in the railroad industry. What I mean by the "implications are broader" is that the decision highlights the divide in the Supreme Court over how to interpret statutes and also shows what the justices know about stock options.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)