9 ms·
The original point of ISOs was to offer to employees the opportunity to take an economic risk with stock options (by exercising and paying for the stock at the
by grellas 10y ago
The original point of ISOs was to offer to employees the opportunity to take an economic risk with stock options (by exercising and paying for the stock at the bargain price) while avoiding the tax risk (by generally not recognizing ordinary income from that exercise and being taxed only at the time the stock was sold, and then only as a capital gains tax).
AMT has since emerged to devour the value of this benefit. By having to include the value of the spread (difference between exercise price and fair market value of the stock on date of exercise) as AMT income and pay tax on it at 28%-type rates, an employee can incur great tax risk in exercising options - especially for a venture that is in advanced rounds of funding but for which there is still no public market for trading of the shares. Even secondary markets for closely held stock are much restricted given the restrictions on transfer routinely written into the stock option documentation these days.
So why not just pass a law saying that the value of the spread is exempt from AMT? Of course, that would do exactly what is needed.
The problem is that AMT, which began in the late 60s as a "millionaire's tax", has since grown to be an integral part of how the federal government finances its affairs and is thus, in its perverse sort of way, a sacred cow untouchable without seriously disturbing the current political balance that is extant today.
And so this half-measure that helps a bit, not by eliminating the tax risk but only by deferring it and also for only some but not all potentially affected employees.
So, if you incur a several hundred thousand dollar tax hit because you choose to exercise your options under this measure, and then your venture goes bust for some reason, it appears you still will have to pay the tax down the road - thus, tax disasters are still possible with this measure. Of course, in optimum cases (and likely even in most cases), employees can benefit from this measure because they don't have to pay tax up front but only after enough time lapses by which they can realize the economic value of the stock.
This "tax breather" is a positive step and will make this helpful for a great many people. Not a complete answer but perhaps the best the politicians can do in today's political climate. It would be good if it passes.
Edit: text of the bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5719/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5719... (Note: it is a deferral only - if the value evaporates, you still owe the tax).
- ynniv 10y agoIf one receives options before they are valuable, then there is a high valuation during which assets are illiquid and one defers taxes, then the value collapses as the company folds, are you still stuck with a huge tax bill? If so nothing has been fixed. There's no point in patting politicians on the back if there is a simple fix and instead they passed a complicated partial fix.
- throwaway2016a 10y agoI'm at a startup and haven't exercised for this exact reason I was hoping this was to fix that. It's unclear to me that if I defer it and the company goes out of business before then, does that mean I pay no taxes? And if the price goes up do I pay capital gains or income tax on the difference in value between now and what it went up to? What about the difference between now and my excise price.
- mateo411 10y agoIf you never exercise you don't pay taxes. I think if you hold the shares longer than 2 years, then you pay capital gains. If you hold them less than 2 years, then you pay income tax.
- kspaans 10y agoIn my unprofessional opinion you need to know at least two things to get an idea of whether or not you will owe taxes when you exercise: 1) the strike price you pay to exercise your options, 2) the current fair market value (FMV) of the stock You will only run into this AMT trap if there is a difference between 1 and 2. This could happen if you were granted options a long time ago and your company has since raised new rounds which increased the valuation. This is when the IRS eyes your exercized options as 'income' unlike the normal case with ISOs where the strike price and FMV are pretty close. EDIT: see this excellent post elsewhere in this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12565340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12565340
- bluetwo 10y agoThank you for this clarification. I was wondering how holding these options would screw the average employee, since I didn't think the value was taxable, but the impact on the AMT is the piece I was missing. I've got to think that once we start making loopholes in the AMT there will be no stopping it, and it'll quickly turn back into the regular tax code.