Robert C. and Gail K. Racine - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
               B.   Exception Treating Certain Transfers as the Grant of an           
                    Option                                                            
               An exception to the rule treats certain exercises of options           
          and receipts of shares as the grant of another option instead of            
          the transfer of shares.  Sec. 1.83-3(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.  The           
          exception treats the transaction as another option where the                
          amount paid for the exercise is a debt secured by the shares on             
          which there is no personal liability.  Id.  The determination of            
          whether a transaction should be viewed as a grant of an option              
          rather than a transfer is dependent upon the facts and                      
          circumstances.  Id.  Courts look to such factors as (1) the type            
          of property involved, (2) the extent to which the risk the                  
          property will decline in value has been transferred, and (3) the            
          likelihood that the purchase price will be paid.  Id.                       
               Petitioners argue that their situation is the same as that             
          described in section 1.83-3(a)(7), Example (2), Income Tax Regs.            
          (Example 2), where an employee pays his or her employer for                 
          shares by giving the employer a note for the purchase price on              
          which the employee has no personal liability.  Petitioners                  
          contend that because the employee in Example 2 is treated as                
          having received an option, petitioners should also be treated as            
          having received an option.                                                  
               Petitioners maintain that the key factor involved is whether           
          an employee has his or her own capital at risk.  If there is no             
          capital risk, according to petitioners, the transaction is                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011