Paul A. Tanner, Sr. and Beverly N. Tanner - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          Petitioner further argues that the stock purchased from the                 
          option exercise was nontransferable and subject to a substantial            
          risk of forfeiture because petitioner was subject to section                
          16(b) for a period of 2 years under the lockup agreement.                   
               Respondent argues that, upon exercise of the stock option,             
          petitioner recognized compensation income under section 83.                 
          Respondent counters that the shares were not subject to section             
          83(c)(3) when petitioner exercised the option on September 7,               
          1994, because the section 16(b) limitation had expired.                     
          Respondent contends that the 6-month period in which petitioner             
          was prohibited from selling the securities under section 16(b)              
          began when the option was granted, not exercised.  Respondent               
          argues that, under a 1991 amendment to section 16(b), any                   
          acquisition of an option involves a “purchase” for section 16(b)            
          purposes, and section 16(b) liability is triggered by either a              
          “purchase and sale” or a “sale and purchase”.   Because the                 
          option was granted on July 9, 1993, respondent contends that the            
          6-month period of section 16(b) liability would have expired by             
          the time petitioner exercised the stock option (i.e., September             
          7, 1994).  Therefore, respondent argues that the section 83(c)(3)           
          exception does not apply and that exercise was subject to                   
          taxation under section 83(a).                                               
               Respondent further argues that petitioner and Polyphase may            
          not extend the statutory 6-month period of section 16(b)                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011