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

Journal of Accounting and Economics

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 101-111

  Blacconierea, Walter G ^a   Johnson, Marilyn F ^b   Lewis, Melissa F ^c  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

Management contracting; Section 162(m); Shareholder voting; Stock options; Taxes

Indexed keywords

EID: 56349129586     PISSN: 01654101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Aboody, D., Barth, M., Kasznik, R., 2003. Do firms manage stock-based compensation expense disclosed under SFAS 123? Working Paper, UCLA and Stanford University.
2. Aboody, D., Barth, M., Kasznik, R., 2004. Firms' voluntary recognition of stock-based compensation expense. Journal of Accounting Research 42 (2), 123-150.
3. Balsam, S., Ryan, S., 1996. Response to tax law changes involving the deductibility of executive compensation: A model explaining corporate behavior. Journal of the American Taxation Association 18 (Supplement), 1-12.
4. Balsam, S., Ryan, S., 2006. The effect of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) on the issuance of stock options. Working Paper, Temple University.
5. Bear Stearns, 2004. Companies that Currently Expense or Intend to Expense Stock Options Using the Fair Value Method. Bear Stearns, New York, NY.
6. Bebchuk, L., 2006. Testimony before the United States Senate Finance Committee. Hearings on executive compensation: Backdating to the future/ oversight of current issues regarding executive compensation including backdating of stock options; and tax treatment of executive compensation, retirement and benefits.
7. Bodie, Z., Kaplan, R., Merton, R., 2003. For the last time: Stock options are an expense. Harvard Business Review 81, 63-71.
8. Bushman, R., Indjejikian, R., Smith, A., 1996. CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21 (April), 161-193.
9. Graham, J., Lemmon, M., 1998. Measuring corporate tax rates and tax incentives: A new approach. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 11, 54-65.
10. Guay, W., Kothari, S.P., Sloan, R., 2003. Accounting for employee stock options. American Economic Review 93, 405-409.
11. Harris, D., Livingstone, J., 2002. Federal tax legislation as an implicit contracting cost benchmark: The definition of excessive executive compensation. The Accounting Review 77 (4), 997-1018.
12. Johnson, M., Nabar, S., Porter, S., 2000. Determinants of corporate response to section 162(m). Working Paper, Michigan State University.
13. Landsman, W., Peasnell, L., Pope, P., Yeh, S., 2003. Employee stock option accounting in a residual income valuation framework. Working Paper, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
14. Li, H., Pincus, M., Rego, S., 2008. Market reaction to events surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming.
15. Mercer, W., 1995. Current Issues in Executive Compensation. William M. Mercer Inc., New York, NY.
16. Murphy, K., 1996. Reporting choice and the 1992 proxy disclosure rules. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 11 (3), 497-515.
17. Perry, T., Zenner, M., 2001. Pay for performance? Government regulation and the structure of compensation contracts. Journal of Financial Economics 62 (3), 453-488.
18. Rose, N., Wolfram, C., 2002. Regulating executive pay: Using the tax code to influence Chief Executive Officer Compensation. Journal of Labor Economics 20 (2), S138-S175.
19. Stauffer, R., 1997. A review of section 162(m): Implications for CEO pay. In: CEO Pay: A Comprehensive Look. American Compensation Association, Scottsdale, AZ.
20. Varian, H., 2004. Economic scene: Option rules are changing. The New York Times, 8 April 2004.