Options and Taxes: Is a "Facebook" tax next?

Facebook is in the news and I will do my usual pre-IPO valuation and posting in a few days on the company but I want to focus in on an interesting story in this morning's New York Times about option exercise and taxation (at both the individual and corporate levels).

The story itself focuses on two tax issues. The first is that Mark Zuckerberg is planning to exercise about $ 5 billion of options ahead of the offering, resulting in a tax bill of roughly $ 2 billion for him, about $1.5 billion in federal taxes and $ 500 million in California taxes.  The second is that Facebook will be claiming a tax deduction of roughly the same value, which will shelter them from taxes this year and allow them to claim tax refunds of about $ 500 million from prior years. All of this has some in Congress in full "indignation" mode, with Senator Carl Levin saying "“When profitable corporations can use the stock option tax deduction to pay zero corporate income taxes for years on end, average taxpayers are forced to pick up the tax burden,” he said. “It isn’t right, and we can’t afford it.” Before we embark on another tax policy change predicated on a sample of one (Facebook), it is worth examining the broader question of how employee options get taxed, especially at the corporate level.

At the moment, if you are a company that grants options to its employees, the accounting laws require you to value those options as options (rather than at exercise value) and expense them when you grant them (though you can amortize these expenses over a period of time). Thus, what you see reported as operating or net income for a company today is after employee options have been expensed. This, of course, is a sharp reversal of accounting policy prior to 2006, when firms had to show only the exercise value of the options at the time of the grant. Since at the time of the grant, employee options were usually at the money (strike price = stock price), this effectively meant that option grants had no effect on earnings when they were granted. However, if and when the options were exercised, companies were required to show the difference between the stock price and the strike price as an expense. 

To illustrate the difference, assume that you grant 100 million options with a strike price of $10, when the stock price is also $ 10, in 2008. Let's also assume that the options get exercised 2 years later when the stock price is $ 40. With pre-2006 accounting, you would not have shown an option expense in 2008 but you would have shown an expense of $ 3 billion [$40 - $10) (100)] in 2010. In the post-2006 time period, the company would have had to show an option expense in 2008, with the expense computed by valuing the options at the time. (For instance, an at-the-money option with five years to expiration on a stock with a price of $ 10 and a standard deviation of 40% would have a value of $3.36. Carrying this through, the company would have to record an expense of $336 million in 2008 and revisit this expense in subsequent years, as stock prices go up or down.  If you want to, you can try your hand at valuing options with the attached spreadsheet).
[Update: I have been taken to task by the accountants among my readers for being simplistic (and wrong) on the accounting rules, since they are far more complex than what I have described in this example. I confess to the crime but I feel no remorse. I think that I am being truer to the underlying accounting principle of matching expenses up to revenues than the current accounting rules claim to be. My point is that accounting has moved grudgingly to accept the fact that options have to be expensed when they are granted and not when they are exercised, though the accounting obsessions with smoothing and back filling finds their way into the rules. In fact, more on that in my next post]

So, what does this have to do with today's story? While the accounting treatment of options changed in 2006, the tax treatment did not. In effect, the tax authorities still use the pre-2006 convention, not allowing companies to expense options when they are granted but only when they are exercised. This creates a disconnect between accounting earnings and tax earnings, which can make valuation more difficult. But is it a loophole? Seems like it, if you only consider Facebook, which will save a billion dollars in taxes because its options will be exercised at a time when its stock price is sky high. But let's add to this sample of one. Take a company like Cisco, which has granted hundreds of millions of options over the last decade. Since the stock has stagnated over the period, many of these options are now under water and will either end up un-exercised or exercised for far less than the value at the time of the grant. If Cisco had been able to deduct these options at the time they were granted (at option value), they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars, which they may now will lose forever, if these options remain under water. In the aggregate, with the current tax treatment of options, the government collects less in taxes from Facebook and more in taxes from Cisco.  

Do I think that the tax rules on options should be changed? Perhaps, but it is not because the tax law is unfair or because I think it creates a loophole. As I see it, here are the three choices:

1. Continue with the existing policy of taxing options when they are exercised. The net effect is that the most successful companies (at least in terms of creating market value) will get bigger tax deductions from option expensing than the least successful companies.
2. Change tax law to match accounting law and allow companies to expense options in the year that they grant them. It will smooth out tax collections, level the playing field across companies and create more consistency. But here is the follow up question that gives me a little pause:  Should employees who receive the options then have to show them as income in the year that they receive them? If you are being consistent, the answer is yes, but where will they come up with the cash to pay the taxes? After all, employee options are not liquid and the employee while wealthy (in terms of options) may be cash poor.
3. If you follow Senator Levin's logic that this is a loophole, and you try to craft legislation, I am not sure where it leads you. Should we ban the expensing of options by companies? I would accept that, if you stop taxing employees who receive these options. (If that had been in place this year, Facebook would have to pay about a billion more in taxes but the government would be collecting two billions less in taxes from Zuckerberg...)

As someone interested in valuation, I have wrestled with options and their effect on value for a while. I think that options are mishandled in many valuations, with flawed arguments (Options are non cash expenses...) and perilous short cuts (treasury stock and fully diluted value approaches) overwhelming common sense. In fact, I wrote a paper on the topic that you can download by clicking here.