Anthony J. Kadillak - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          have vested in petitioner before he was terminated.  All ISOs               
          were granted to petitioner pursuant to a lapse restriction which            
          required petitioner to be employed by Ariba for 1 year for 25               
          percent of the shares to vest and another 3 years for the                   
          remaining 75 percent to vest.  Once the stock petitioner acquired           
          upon the exercise of option No. 117 had vested, petitioner was              
          not required to return the shares under any condition.                      
               Because the condition under which petitioner was required to           
          return the stock was not permanent, i.e., it was a lapse                    
          restriction, it was not certain that petitioner’s services would            
          be terminated before the stock vested.  See sec. 1.83-3(a)(7),              
          Example (1) and (3), Income Tax Regs.18  The Ariba stock was not            
          transferred on the date of exercise under a condition that was              

               18 Example (1). On Jan. 3, 1971, X corporation sells for               
          $500 to S, a salesman of X, 10 shares of stock in X corporation             
          with a fair market value of $1,000.  The stock is nontransferable           
          and subject to return to the corporation (for $500) if S’s sales            
          do not reach a certain level by Dec. 31, 1971.  Disregarding the            
          restriction concerning S’s sales (since the restriction is a                
          lapse restriction), S’s interest in the stock is that of a                  
          beneficial owner, and therefore a transfer occurs on Jan. 3,                
          1971.                                                                       
               In contrast to petitioner and the taxpayer in Example (1),             
          the taxpayer described in Example (3), sec. 1.83-3(a)(7), Income            
          Tax Regs., exemplifies a situation where the taxpayer’s stock is            
          subject to a nonlapse restriction, requiring the taxpayer to                
          return the stock upon termination of employment (which is always            
          certain to occur) and without the option to acquire ownership of            
          the stock before termination.  Thus, in Example (3) the stock               
          will be returned “upon the happening of an event that is certain            
          to occur” because termination is certain to occur, and the                  
          taxpayer will never have the opportunity to keep the shares after           
          termination.                                                                





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011