The role of tax regulation and compensation contracts in the decision to voluntarily expense employee stock options

Walter G. Blacconiere, Marilyn F. Johnson and Melissa F. Lewis

Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2008, vol. 46, issue 1, pages 101-111

Abstract: We show that firms with executive bonuses that qualify for deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) were less likely to expense stock option compensation (SOC) in 2002. Additionally, the more likely it is that a qualified firm will incur re-contracting costs, the less likely it is that the firm will expense SOC. CEOs of qualified firms that also expense SOC receive smaller bonuses than CEOs of expensing firms that are not qualified under 162(m), and the lower 162(m) bonuses are not offset by higher SOC. Our results suggest that 162(m) tax incentives are an important determinant of the decision to expense SOC.

Keywords: Management; contracting; Taxes; Stock; options; Shareholder; voting; Section; 162(m) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V87 ... f1e3000619bb292ecb99
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:46:y:2008:i:1:p:101-111

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Accounting and Economics is edited by J. L. Zimmerman, S. P. Kothari, T. Z. Lys and R. L. Watts

More articles in Journal of Accounting and Economics from Elsevier
Series data maintained by Heidi Boesdal ().