Opções de stock de divórcio não apresentadas

Opções de estoque de divórcio não apresentadas
Mais de 100 títulos superiores.
Muitas vezes, as partes enfrentam problemas difíceis relacionados à divisão de propriedade. Uma das questões de liquidação de propriedade mais vulneráveis ​​é dividir os ativos conjugais que ainda não foram adquiridos.
Os tribunais de apelação de Minnesota têm lutado com este problema com freqüência no passado. Como resultado, já não há dúvida de que mesmo os direitos de propriedade não retomados, sejam opções de ações ou pensões, são considerados conjugais e podem ser divididos como parte de um processo de divórcio.
No caso de Salstrom v. Salstrom em 1987, os tribunais de Minnesota abordaram especificamente a questão das opções de compra não devolvidas. Nesse caso, o Tribunal observou que as opções sobre ações que podem ser exercidas após a data do divórcio são semelhantes aos planos de pensão adquiridos e concluiu que essas opções "são um recurso econômico adquirido durante o casamento constituindo um bem matrimonial". Também é reconhecido que as opções de ações não adotadas têm aspectos conjugais e não matrimoniais que devem ser distribuídos. Existe um valor conjugal para as opções, uma vez que as opções foram concedidas durante o casamento. Há também um elemento não conjugal, uma vez que é provável que eles se apossem depois que o casamento foi dissolvido e são obtidos, em parte, pelo trabalho continuado do cônjuge do empregado após o divórcio.
Para determinar o valor conjugal relativo e os valores não-conjugais das opções de compra de ações, os tribunais de Minnesota buscaram os mesmos métodos que são utilizados para avaliar os juros de pensão não vencidos. O Tribunal Supremo de Minnesota delineou um método de divisão para benefícios adquiridos, mas não vencimentos no caso Taylor v. Taylor, 329 N. W.2d 795 (Minn.1983). Nesse caso, o Tribunal afirmou que as pensões não vencidas não precisam ser tratadas de forma diferente dos direitos ou benefícios de pensão adquiridos, mas não vencidos: ambos contêm contingências sobre o pagamento efetivo de benefícios de pensão.
Olhando para casos em todo o país, existem dois métodos possíveis para dividir ativos não vencidos, incluindo opções de estoque. De acordo com um método, o tribunal de divórcio mantém a jurisdição para repartir o benefício não vencido em algum momento no futuro somente se e quando esse benefício for pago. Esta é a abordagem sugerida no caso da Califórnia In re Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal. Rptr. 633; 544 P.2d 561 (1976), e ecoou em decisões semelhantes em outros estados, como I n re Marriage of Hunt, 397 N. E.2d 511, 519 (1979), uma decisão de Illinois.
Um segundo método, e mais preferível, é dividir o benefício não vencido com base em uma fórmula de porcentagem. Isto é particularmente apropriado quando é difícil colocar um valor presente na pensão ou participação nos lucros devido a incertezas quanto à aquisição ou maturação. De acordo com este método, o tribunal de julgamento, a seu critério, pode atribuir a cada cônjuge uma percentagem adequada da pensão a pagar "se, na medida em que" a pensão se torne exigível. A fórmula utilizada para determinar os respectivos interesses não-marciais e conjugais no benefício, tomando o número total de anos em que o benefício é obtido e usando esse número como o denominador. O numerador é o número de anos em que o benefício se acumulou durante o casamento matrimonial.
Mesmo neste segundo método de divisão, o tribunal de primeira instância mantém a jurisdição sobre a divisão de benefícios não vencidos.
Fácil, rápido e acessível com garantia de 100%.
Minnesota Divorce Resources para ajudá-lo através do processo.
Fácil e conveniente - complete o seu próprio ritmo online.
Mais de 100 títulos dos melhores livros sobre divórcio e custódia.
Baixe instantaneamente, livros, manuais e formulários.
Seu Guia para se organizar e colocar tudo na escrita.
Encontre profissionais.
Comece seu divórcio.
Settle Your Divorce.
Fórum de suporte.
FERRAMENTA DESTINADA - 3StepDivorce TM (uma solução completa "faça você mesmo" para qualquer divórcio incontestável)
&cópia de; 1996 - 2018 Divorce Source, Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

O que você precisa saber sobre a divisão de opções de ações no divórcio.
Um dos itens mais difíceis de dividir em divórcio é uma opção de compra de ações. Uma opção é um tipo específico de benefício de emprego em que a empresa empregadora dá ao empregado uma opção para comprar ações da empresa no futuro com um preço fixo descontado ou declarado. Então, ao invés de simplesmente oferecer o estoque de funcionários como um benefício, eles têm a capacidade de comprar ações a um preço atraente em algum momento no futuro. Compreensivelmente, avaliar e dividir as opções conservadas em estoque para o divórcio pode ser bastante desafiador.
Como um assunto inicial, é importante não ignorar o fato de um cônjuge ter opções de ações. Só porque essa opção não é exercível até o futuro, ainda é muitas vezes uma fonte de riqueza tremenda. Se o seu cônjuge tem opções de ações, você certamente quer aproveitar o tempo para explorar se alguma parte das opções é propriedade conjugal e sujeita à divisão. Se você não sabe se o seu cônjuge tem ou não opções, certifique-se de obter uma descoberta completa que mostra todos os seus benefícios de emprego.
As opções têm sido uma fonte de riqueza astronômica para muitas pessoas - considere para um funcionário do Silicon Valley que recebeu opções em uma inicialização de software há vinte anos. Embora não fossem totalmente compensados ​​na época, muitos desses engenheiros de software receberam opções e, à medida que a riqueza da empresa empregadora aumentava as opções, recompensou-os com um pagamento sério.
Embora a grande maioria dos divórcios da Carolina do Norte não envolva opções de ações do Vale do Silicon Valley, há muitas startups locais que podem ter oferecido opções de ações como um benefício de emprego. Obter divulgação completa de seu ex-cônjuge sobre cada benefício de emprego é imensamente importante.
Marital v. Propriedade separada.
Se um cônjuge tiver opções de stock não exercidas, o primeiro passo será determinar quais opções, se houver, são consideradas conjugais. Pode-se supor que todas as opções concedidas durante o casamento são consideradas conjugais. No entanto, esta suposição não é inteiramente correta. As opções geralmente são concedidas como uma recompensa pelo trabalho passado e como incentivo ao trabalho futuro. A concessão de opções é uma forma de uma empresa assegurar-se de que um funcionário permanecerá, mesmo que a empresa não tenha os fundos para compensar adequadamente o empregado imediatamente.
O conceito de que a opção poderia ter sido concedida em alguma capacidade como recompensa pelo trabalho passado pode complicar a análise das opções de rotulagem como conjugal ou separada. Contemple uma situação em que um cônjuge recebeu uma opção após a separação. Se a opção fosse em parte compensação pelo trabalho concluído durante o casamento, pelo menos uma parte da opção seria considerada marital. Da mesma forma, se uma opção foi concedida pouco depois do casamento, para o trabalho realizado antes do casamento, uma parte dessa opção seria considerada separada e não sujeita à distribuição.
Ao classificar opções de ações como conjugais ou separadas, primeiro deve ser determinado qual foi a opção concedida. Se foi concedido por serviços prestados durante o casamento, é marital. Isso muitas vezes pode ser difícil de determinar, por isso certifique-se de ter acesso ao manual do funcionário, ao contrato de trabalho e a todos os outros documentos que informem sobre se a opção foi concedida para o trabalho passado ou para trabalho futuro.
Vested v. Opções não voltadas.
Além de determinar se as opções são propriedade separada ou propriedade conjugal, você precisará considerar se as opções estão ou não adquiridas. O período de aquisição refere-se à quantidade de tempo que um funcionário tem que esperar antes de poder exercer uma opção. Por exemplo, uma opção pode ter sido concedida a um empregado em 2005, mas não pode ser exercida até 2015. Essa opção será considerada "desativada" até 2015.
Como você pode imaginar, um cronograma de aquisição de direitos complicará ainda mais a divisão de opções de estoque incidente para o divórcio. Considere o exemplo acima, onde a opção foi emitida em 2005, mas não foi adquirida até 2015. Adicione o fato de que os cônjuges se casaram em 2003 e se separaram em 2012? As opções de ações não adotadas podem ser classificadas como propriedades conjugais?
Sim. Na Carolina do Norte, tanto as opções de ações adquiridas quanto as não vendidas estão sujeitas à distribuição. Então, se um cônjuge tiver opções não vencidas, essas opções ainda devem ser classificadas como conjugais ou separadas, avaliadas e divididas. No exemplo acima, uma parte das opções de ações não vencidas estarão sujeitas à distribuição.
Avaliando a opção.
Uma vez que tenha sido determinado que as opções são maritais, um valor terá que ser anexado a elas. Isso também é um processo complicado, e existem vários métodos que podem ser usados.
O método mais comum usado na Carolina do Norte é conhecido como o "Método do Valor Intrínseco". O cálculo utilizado neste método subtrai o preço de exercício da opção do valor do preço atual das ações e, em seguida, multiplica isso pelo número de opções que o cônjuge possui . Esta opção é ideal quando se lida com ações negociadas publicamente. Contudo, existem alguns prejuízos para esse método. Devido à simplicidade da fórmula, não há consideração dada à comercialização das ações, o fato de que o valor poderia cair antes que elas pudessem ser exercidas, e o risco de que as opções nunca ganhassem para citar alguns.
O modelo de Black-Scholes é outra abordagem para colocar um valor em uma opção de estoque. Ao contrário do Método do Valor Intrínseco, este modelo é complicado e normalmente requer um profissional, como um contador forense. Este modelo produz uma estimativa teórica do valor com base em instrumentos de investimento derivado. Considera vários fatores adicionais, como o preço histórico do estoque, o preço de exercício e o cronograma de aquisição.
Embora não seja um método comum para valorar uma opção de estoque, um tribunal da Carolina do Norte detém a "fração de cobertura", normalmente usada para avaliar os planos de aposentadoria qualificados, pode ser usada para avaliar as opções de compra de ações. Esta fórmula divide o período de tempo em que um cônjuge foi simultaneamente casado e contribuiu para o ganho das opções de estoque pelo período total de emprego durante o qual as opções foram obtidas.
Uma abordagem final para avaliar opções de ações é simplesmente chegar a um acordo. Os cônjuges podem simplesmente concordar que o valor da parcela conjugal das opções é um certo montante. Este método, obviamente, não exige a contratação de um contador forense, mas pode ser arriscado. Se você concorda que a parcela conjugal dos ativos vale US $ 50.000, mas depois descubra que esse valor é realmente muito menor do que as opções são verdadeiramente valiosas, não há nada que você possa fazer para obter o valor verdadeiro que lhe foi devido .
Dividindo a Opção.
Depois de ter determinado que as opções são maritais, independentemente de terem ou não adquirido, e você criou um valor para atribuir à parcela conjugal, o trabalho ainda não acabou. Neste ponto, será necessário abordar a forma como o valor da opção será distribuído para o cônjuge não empregado.
O método mais fácil e mais comum para dividir as opções de compra de ações é ter o cônjuge empregado que possui a opção compensar o valor acordado da opção com outro ativo. Por exemplo, se a opção for avaliada em US $ 100.000, o cônjuge não empregado tem direito a US $ 50.000. Em vez de realmente tentar dividir a opção e potencialmente desencadear conseqüências fiscais adversas, o cônjuge não empregado pode concordar em levar os $ 50,000 que ela é devida, aceitando outro ativo. Ela pode preferir obter um adicional de US $ 50.000 em uma transferência monetária de montante fixo, ou ter o título de um veículo, jóia, conta de aposentadoria ou outro ativo no valor de um valor comparável.
Às vezes, o método de deslocamento acima não funciona, no entanto. Considere uma situação em que o cônjuge do empregado simplesmente não tenha US $ 50.000 adicionais em dinheiro (ou ativo de valor comparável) para transferir para o ex-cônjuge.
O modelo de distribuição diferido é uma maneira de contornar o cenário acima mencionado. Este modelo permite que o tribunal ou os cônjuges decidam uma fórmula que irá prescrever como o cônjuge não empregado será pago uma vez que o cônjuge do empregado tenha exercido a opção. Este modelo de distribuição elimina a necessidade de concordar com um valor atual e permite que a avaliação seja determinada uma vez que a opção é exercida - é uma abordagem "esperar e ver". Essencialmente, o cônjuge do empregado pagará uma parcela proporcionada do benefício ao seu ex-cônjuge quando receber o benefício.
Se o modelo de distribuição diferido for o método escolhido para distribuir o valor das opções, o cônjuge não empregado quer certificar-se de que o contrato que prescreve esse método de distribuição contém um idioma que protege o cônjuge não empregado. As seguintes disposições são apenas algumas das que devem ser incluídas:
O aviso deve ser dado ao cônjuge não empregado se o seu emprego terminar. O consentimento deve ser dado ao cônjuge não empregado se o empregado-cônjuge exercer quaisquer opções. Deve ser notificado ao cônjuge não empregado se o empregador voltar a preços das opções ou substituir as opções de substituição. O aviso deve ser para o cônjuge não empregado se o empregador acelerar a data de vencimento (cronograma de aquisição) das opções.
Finalmente, o cônjuge do empregado deve manter as opções em uma confiança construtiva que especifica o processo que deve ser seguido quando há opções recentemente adquiridas.
Como você pode ter notado, realmente dividir a propriedade, ou transferir a própria opção para um ex-cônjuge não é mencionado como um método de distribuição potencial. Isso ocorre porque a grande maioria dos planos de opções de ações dos empregados proíbem explicitamente a cessão ou transferência de direitos nas opções. As empresas geralmente oferecem opções de compra de ações como um benefício para incentivar o funcionário a permanecer com a empresa por mais tempo, se o empregado pudesse transferir seu direito às opções para outra pessoa, esse benefício seria perdido.
As opções de ações que têm valor resultarão em incorrer em impostos de renda assim que o valor for realizado. As implicações fiscais variam de acordo com o tipo de opção em questão, como a opção é exercida e quanto vale a pena. Para complicar ainda mais as questões tributárias associadas à divisão de opções de compra de ações, a legislação tributária é um alvo em movimento e pode mudar no futuro e a carga tributária não pode ser transferida para o cônjuge não empregado, pelo que o cônjuge do empregado deve ter certeza de antecipar qualquer questões fiscais potenciais com antecedência.
A penalidade de imposto que ocorrerá ao transferir opções de compra de ações é uma função de "opções de ações estatutárias" (também conhecidas como opções de ações qualificadas) ou "opções de ações não estatutárias" (também conhecidas como opções de ações não qualificadas).
A transferência do último tipo de opção resultará na receita a tributação à taxa usual após a opção que está sendo exercida. O cônjuge do empregado seria tributado quando ele ou ela exerceu a opção, e o cônjuge não empregado seria tributado uma vez que as ações foram vendidas. Essas opções podem ser transferidas incidente isento de impostos para o divórcio, e os impostos não serão avaliados até que a opção seja exercida. Uma vez que estas opções são exercidas, estarão sujeitas a retenção na taxa de retenção suplementar e os impostos FICA serão deduzidos.
As opções de estoque estatutárias são tratadas de forma diferente, no entanto. Quando as opções de compra de ações estatutárias são vendidas, a conseqüência resultante é o tratamento de ganho de capital com os lucros adquiridos quando vendidos. Quando as opções de compra de ações legais são transferidas, no entanto, eles perdem seu status como opções de ações legais e se tornam opções não estatutárias. As opções de ações estatutárias têm um tratamento fiscal mais favorável, pelo que é aconselhável que o cônjuge recebente considere maneiras de obter as opções sem pôr em risco o tratamento fiscal favorável das opções qualificadas. Vale ressaltar, no entanto, que ocorre um resultado diferente quando em vez de transferir as opções de compra de ações qualificadas, o empregado transfere o estoque que é adquirido assim que a opção qualificada é exercida.
Uma opção é concordar com um valor monetário que as opções valerão uma vez exercitável, e simplesmente receberá esse montante como uma quantia fixa do outro cônjuge. Outra opção é incluir uma disposição no contrato de separação ou na ordem judicial que exprima que o empregado-cônjuge que possui as opções os manterá em nome do outro cônjuge. O cônjuge que deve as opções terá autoridade para solicitar ao outro cônjuge que exerça a opção a qualquer momento por seus desejos. Porque haverá uma consequência fiscal quando as opções forem exercidas, os cônjuges devem concordar que o cônjuge recebedor só leva o montante restante depois que a penalidade fiscal foi avaliada. Esta transação não prejudicaria o status fiscal favorável das ações qualificadas.
Obviamente, transferir opções de estoque pode criar uma grande dor de cabeça do ponto de vista fiscal. É aconselhável consultar um advogado ou CPA antes de transferir qualquer opção de compra de ações para que ambos os cônjuges estejam plenamente conscientes de quaisquer consequências fiscais antecipadas.

Dividindo opções de ações durante o divórcio na Califórnia.
Este artigo aborda as maneiras pelas quais os casais da Califórnia podem dividir opções de ações em divórcio.
Alguns recursos são fáceis de dividir em um divórcio - vender um carro e dividir os lucros é geralmente um acéfalo. A divisão de opções de estoque, no entanto, pode apresentar um conjunto único de desafios. As opções de estoque que podem ser vendidas para terceiros ou não têm valor real (por exemplo, opções de ações em uma empresa privada ou opções não adotadas) podem ser difíceis de valorar e dividir.
No entanto, os tribunais da Califórnia determinaram várias maneiras de lidar com a divisão de opções de ações em divórcio.
Uma opção comum de compra de ações hipotética.
Aqui, um cenário típico do Vale do Silício: um cônjuge pousa um excelente trabalho trabalhando para uma empresa iniciante e, como parte do pacote de remuneração, recebe opções de ações sujeitas a um cronograma de aquisição de quatro anos. O casal não tem certeza se o arranque vai continuar como está, ser adquirido ou dobrar como muitas outras empresas no Vale.
O casal mais tarde decide divorciar-se, e durante uma discussão sobre a divisão de ativos, as opções de ações surgiram. Eles querem descobrir o que fazer com as opções, mas as regras não são claras. Primeiro, eles precisam entender alguns dos fundamentos dos direitos de propriedade conjugal na Califórnia.
Propriedade comunitária.
De acordo com a lei da Califórnia, existe a presunção de que quaisquer ativos - incluindo opções de compra de ações - adquiridos a partir da data do casamento até a data em que as partes se separam (designado como "data de separação") são considerados "propriedade da comunidade". & Rdquo; Esta presunção é referida como uma "presunção geral de propriedade da comunidade". & Rdquo; A propriedade comunitária é dividida igualmente entre os cônjuges (uma divisão 50/50) em um divórcio.
Propriedade separada.
A propriedade separada não faz parte da propriedade marcial, o que significa que o cônjuge que possui a propriedade separada, possui-a separadamente do seu cônjuge (não em conjunto) e consegue mantê-lo após o divórcio. Propriedade separada não está sujeita a divisão em um divórcio. Na Califórnia, propriedade separada inclui todas as propriedades adquiridas por qualquer um dos cônjuges:
antes do casamento por presente ou herança, ou após a data da separação (ver abaixo).
Assim, em termos gerais, as opções de compra de ações concedidas ao cônjuge do empregado antes do casal casado ou após o casal separar são consideradas propriedade separada do cônjuge do empregado e não estão sujeitas a divisão no divórcio.
Data da separação.
O & ldquo; data da separação & rdquo; é uma data muito importante, porque estabelece direitos de propriedade separados. A data da separação é a data em que um cônjuge decidiu subjetivamente que o casamento acabou e, em seguida, objetivamente fez algo para implementar essa decisão, como a mudança.
Muitos casais divorciados discutem a data exata da separação, pois pode ter um grande impacto sobre quais ativos são considerados propriedade da comunidade (e, portanto, sujeitos a divisão igual) ou propriedade separada. Por exemplo, as opções de ações recebidas antes da data de separação são consideradas propriedade da comunidade e estão sujeitas a divisão igual, mas as opções ou outros bens recebidos após essa data são considerados os bens separados do cônjuge que os recebe.
Voltando ao hipotético acima, vamos supor que não há argumento sobre a data da separação. No entanto, o casal descobre que algumas das opções & ldquo; vested & rdquo; durante o casamento e antes da data da separação. Agora eles têm que determinar como isso pode afetar a divisão.
Vested Versus Unvested Options.
Uma vez que as opções de ações dos empregados & ldquo; colete, & rdquo; os funcionários podem & ldquo; exercise & rdquo; suas opções para comprar ações na empresa em um & ldquo; strike & rdquo; preço, que é o preço fixo que "normalmente" é declarado na concessão original ou no contrato de opção de compra de ações entre o empregador e o empregado.
Mas e as opções que foram concedidas durante o casamento, mas não tinham sido adquiridas antes da data da separação? Algumas pessoas podem pensar que as opções não investidas não têm qualquer valor porque:
Os funcionários não têm controle sobre essas opções e as opções não adotadas são renunciadas quando um empregado sai da empresa & ndash; Eles não podem ter essas opções com eles.
No entanto, os tribunais da Califórnia não concordam com essa visão e consideraram que, mesmo que as opções não adotadas possam não ter um valor de mercado justo presente, elas estão sujeitas a divisão em um divórcio.
Dividindo as Opções.
Então, como o tribunal determina qual parte das opções pertence ao cônjuge não empregado? Geralmente, os tribunais usam uma das várias fórmulas (comumente referidas como & ldquo; time rules & rdquo;).
Duas das principais fórmulas da regra do tempo utilizadas são a fórmula Hug 1 e a fórmula Nelson 2. Antes de decidir qual fórmula usar, um tribunal pode primeiro querer determinar por que as opções foram concedidas ao empregado (por exemplo, para atrair o empregado para o trabalho, como uma recompensa pelo desempenho passado ou como um incentivo para continuar trabalhando para a empresa), pois isso afetará qual regra é mais apropriada.
A fórmula Hug.
A fórmula Hug é usada nos casos em que as opções foram destinadas principalmente a atrair o empregado para o trabalho e recompensar serviços passados. A fórmula utilizada em Hug é:
----------------- x Número de ações exercíveis = Ações de Propriedade Comunitária.
(DOH = Data da contratação; DOS = Data da separação; DOE = Data de & ldquo; Exercisability & rdquo; ou vesting)
A Fórmula Nelson.
A fórmula de Nelson é usada onde as opções foram principalmente destinadas a compensação pelo desempenho futuro e como incentivo para ficar com a empresa. A fórmula usada em Nelson é:
----------------- x Número de ações exercíveis = Ações de Propriedade Comunitária.
(DOG = Data do Grant; DOS = Data da Separação; DOE = Data da Exercisabilidade)
Existem várias outras fórmulas de regras de tempo para outros tipos de opções, e os tribunais têm ampla discrição para decidir qual fórmula (se houver) para usar e como dividir as opções.
De um modo geral, quanto maior for o tempo entre a data de separação e a data de aquisição das opções, menor será a porcentagem global de opções que serão consideradas propriedade da comunidade. Por exemplo, se um número específico de opções atribuídas um mês após a separação, uma parcela significativa dessas ações seria considerada propriedade comunitária sujeita a divisão igual (50/50). No entanto, se as opções adquiridas vários anos após a data da separação, uma porcentagem muito menor seria considerada propriedade da comunidade.
Distribuindo as opções (ou o seu valor)
Após a aplicação de qualquer regra de tempo, o casal saberá quantas opções cada um tem direito. O próximo passo então seria descobrir como distribuir as opções, ou o seu valor.
Digamos, por exemplo, que é determinado que cada cônjuge tem direito a 5000 opções de ações na empresa do empregado-cônjuge; Existem várias maneiras de garantir que o cônjuge não empregado receba as próprias opções ou o valor dessas 5000 opções de ações. Aqui estão algumas das soluções mais comuns:
O cônjuge não empregado pode renunciar aos direitos sobre as 5000 opções de compra de ações em troca de algum outro ativo ou dinheiro (isso exigirá um acordo entre os cônjuges quanto ao valor das opções - para as empresas públicas, os valores das ações são públicos e podem formam a base do seu acordo, mas para empresas privadas, isso pode ser um pouco mais difícil de determinar - a empresa pode ter uma avaliação interna que pode fornecer uma boa estimativa). A empresa pode concordar em ter as 5000 opções de ações transferidas para o nome do cônjuge não empregado. O cônjuge do empregado pode continuar a manter a participação do empregado não empregado (s) por causa das opções (5000) em um fideicomisso construtivo; quando as ações são adquiridas e se elas podem ser vendidas, o cônjuge não empregado será notificado e poderá solicitar a sua parte ser exercida e depois vendida.
Conclusão.
Antes de concordar em renunciar a quaisquer direitos nas opções de compra de ações de seu cônjuge, você pode considerar aplicar uma fórmula de regra de tempo às opções, mesmo que atualmente não valem nada. Você pode querer manter um interesse nessas ações e os lucros potenciais; se a empresa for pública e / ou as ações se tornam valiosas devido a uma aquisição ou a outras circunstâncias, você ficará feliz por ter mantido.
Esta área do direito da família pode ser bastante complexa. Se você tiver dúvidas sobre a divisão de opções de ações, entre em contato com um advogado experiente em direito familiar para obter conselhos.
Recursos e notas finais.
1. Casamento de Hug (1984) 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780.
2. Casamento de Nelson (1986) 177 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 150.
Fale com um advogado de divórcio.
Nós ajudamos 85 clientes a encontrar advogados hoje.
Como funciona.
Diga-nos brevemente sobre o seu caso Forneça sua informação de contato Escolha advogados para entrar em contato com você.
Produtos.
Legal Legal.
Conecte-se conosco.
Direitos autorais e cópia; 2018 Nolo & reg; Os serviços de auto-ajuda podem não ser permitidos em todos os estados. As informações fornecidas neste site não são aconselhamento jurídico, não constituem um serviço de referência de advogados, e nenhuma relação advogado-cliente ou confidencial é ou será formada pelo uso do site. As listas de advogados neste site são pagas pela publicidade de advogados. Em alguns estados, a informação neste site pode ser considerada um serviço de referência de advogados. Faça referência aos Termos de Uso e aos Termos Suplementares para informações específicas relacionadas ao seu estado. O uso deste site constitui aceitação dos Termos de Uso, Termos Suplementares, Política de Privacidade e Política de Cookies.

Opções de estoque de empregado e divórcio.
Saiba como determinar o valor de uma ação antes de decidir se deve ou não comprá-la ou aproveitar o incentivo da opção de compra de seus empregadores. Contabilista explica como o sistema de estoque funciona e fórmulas usadas para prever o futuro.
Atualizado: 25 de fevereiro de 2015.
À medida que o mercado de ações continua a aumentar, os advogados de divórcio estão envolvidos em mais e mais casos envolvendo opções de ações. A concessão de opções de estoque para funcionários-chave agora é comum em empresas de alta tecnologia e está se tornando popular em muitas outras indústrias como parte de uma estratégia global de compensação de capital. As empresas maiores, de capital aberto, como a Pepsico, a Starbucks, o Travelers Group, o Bank of America, a Merck e a Gap, agora oferecem opções de estoque para quase todos os seus funcionários. Muitas empresas de alta tecnologia que não estão de alta tecnologia estão juntando as filas também.
Tradicionalmente, os planos de opção de compra de ações foram utilizados como uma forma de as empresas recompensarem a alta administração e os funcionários "chave" e associarem seus interesses com os da companhia e de outros acionistas. Mais e mais empresas, no entanto, agora consideram todos os seus funcionários como "chave". Como resultado, tem havido um aumento na popularidade de planos de opções de estoque de base ampla, particularmente desde o final da década de 1980. Mais de um terço das grandes empresas dos Estados Unidos agora possuem planos amplos de opções de estoque que cobrem a maioria ou a maioria de seus empregados - mais do dobro da taxa que existia em 1993. Em uma pesquisa de 1997 de 1.100 empresas públicas conduzidas pela Share Data, Inc. e a American Electronics Association, verificou-se que 53% dos inquiridos fornecem opções para todos os funcionários. Em empresas de 500 a 999 funcionários, o estudo descobriu que 51% oferecem opções para todos os funcionários, em comparação com 30% na pesquisa de dados da ação de 1994 e 31% na pesquisa de Share Data & Otilde; s 1991. Quarenta e três por cento das empresas com 2.000 a 4.999 empregados oferecem opções para todos, em comparação com 10% em 1994. Quarenta e cinco por cento das empresas com 5.000 ou mais empregados oferecem opções para todos, em comparação com 10% em 1994.
Uma vez que esta tendência não mostra nenhum sinal aparente de desaceleração, os advogados matrimoniais devem estar prontos para abordar as questões únicas que dela decorrem. Este artigo explicará a natureza básica das opções de ações dos empregados, como eles são valorizados, tributados e, em última análise, distribuídos incidentes de divórcio.
O que é uma opção de estoque de empregado?
Não há dúvida de que "opções de compra de ações" são ativos sujeitos a distribuição equitativa. No entanto, simplesmente dizer que eles são ativos não é suficiente para orientar o litigante matrimonial. Devemos primeiro entender a natureza básica e a definição de uma opção de compra de ações. Basicamente, uma "opção de compra de ações" é "o direito de comprar um número específico de ações de ações por um preço específico em horários especificados, geralmente concedidos a gerentes e funcionários-chave. O preço ao qual a opção é fornecida é denominado" concessão " preço e geralmente é o preço de mercado no momento em que as opções são concedidas.
Geralmente, as opções de ações são um incentivo para estimular os esforços dos principais funcionários e fortalecer o desejo dos funcionários de permanecer no emprego da corporação. Esses incentivos não se aplicam aos aposentados. Os planos de opção de compra de ações podem ser uma maneira flexível para as empresas compartilharem a propriedade com os funcionários, recompensá-los pelo desempenho e atraem e retem uma equipe motivada. Para as pequenas empresas orientadas para o crescimento, as opções são uma ótima maneira de preservar o dinheiro, permitindo aos funcionários um crescimento futuro. Eles também fazem sentido para as empresas públicas cujos planos de benefícios estão bem estabelecidos, mas que desejam incluir empregados na propriedade. (Nota: Ao emitir opções de compra de ações, uma empresa potencialmente dilui o valor das ações existentes).
Se uma opção de compra de ações é concedida por dinheiro, por serviços passados, como incentivo para serviços futuros, ou sem qualquer consideração, um detentor de opção deve exercer a opção dentro de seus termos ou ele está sujeito à perda de seu direito de faça isso. Em um contrato de opção, "o tempo é essencial". Geralmente, as provisões de vencimento e os contratos de opção de compra de ações são rigorosamente aplicados. Os tribunais rejeitam a inevitável violação dos contratos e confisco que os empregados, ex-funcionários e outros detentores de opções de ações pressionam quando não realizam suas opções no momento. Embora isso raramente se torne um problema no litígio de divórcio, é algo para se manter em mente para evitar uma perda econômica severa para qualquer das partes ou uma possível reivindicação de malícia.
Existem diferentes tipos de opções de compra de ações e como eles são tributados?
Geralmente, as opções de compra de ações vêm em duas categorias básicas: (1) opções de ações de incentivo (comumente designadas como ISOs) que são opções qualificadas ou estatutárias e (2) opções de estoque não qualificadas (que são comumente chamadas de NQSOs). Simplificando, a diferença entre um ISO e um NQSO torna a conformidade com os requisitos específicos do Código de Receita Federal no momento da concessão, o que, em última instância, afeta como a opção é tributada.
As opções de ações de incentivo são concedidas a particulares por motivos relacionados ao emprego. Como resultado, eles só podem ser concedidos aos funcionários. Eles também devem ser aprovados pelos acionistas da corporação e concedidos a valor justo de mercado.
NQSOs, por outro lado, podem ser concedidos a empregados e contratados independentes, e seus beneficiários.
Um funcionário não realizará nenhum lucro tributável após a concessão ou exercício de um ISO. Concomitantemente, a empresa não tem direito a uma dedução após o exercício da opção. Se o empregado vender a ação no prazo de dois anos após a outorga da opção e no prazo de um ano após a opção ser exercida, a receita ordinária será realizada em um valor igual ao menor de 1) o excesso do valor justo de mercado das ações em a data de exercício sobre o preço da opção, ou 2) o excesso do valor realizado na disposição sobre o preço da opção. Se o indivíduo possuir as ações por dois anos após a concessão do ISO e um ano após o exercício do ISO, a diferença entre o preço de venda eo preço da opção será tributada como ganho de capital ou perda. Se o estoque for vendido após o período de dois anos / ano, esse ganho também será um item de preferência de imposto mínimo alternativo sujeito à taxa de imposto de 26/28 por cento.
Em relação a uma NQSO, o titular "empregado" de uma opção não estatutária deve reconhecer a renda no momento em que a opção é concedida se a opção tiver um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado" no momento da concessão. Se a opção não for transferível e não tiver um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado", nenhuma renda resultará para o indivíduo após a concessão da opção. Quando a opção de compra de ações não qualificada é exercida, o indivíduo é tributado nas taxas de renda ordinárias sobre a diferença entre o valor justo de mercado da ação e o preço de exercício da opção. Quando o indivíduo vende o estoque, um ganho ou perda de capital será incorrido com a diferença entre o valor recebido pelo estoque e sua base de imposto. Normalmente, a base de imposto é igual ao valor justo de mercado no momento do exercício da opção. O ganho de capital seria de longo prazo ou curto prazo, dependendo da duração do tempo em que as ações foram realizadas após o exercício.
Se a opção for "negociada ativamente em um mercado estabelecido", o código considera a opção de ter um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado". Se não houver um "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado" no momento da concessão, o adjudicatário reconhece o rendimento no momento da opção: (1) tornar-se "substancialmente adquirido" ou (2) já não está sujeito a uma "substancial risco de confisco ". Qualquer lucro é um ganho de capital de curto prazo, tributável a taxas de renda ordinárias. O código estabelece quatro condições necessárias para uma opção que não seja "negociada ativamente em um mercado estabelecido" para atender ao padrão de "valor justo de mercado facilmente verificado": (1) a opção é transferível pelo adjudicatário (2) a opção pode ser exercida imediatamente na íntegra, quando concedido (3), não pode haver condição ou restrição sobre a opção que teria um efeito significativo no seu valor de mercado justo e (4) o valor de mercado do privilégio da opção é facilmente verificável. Todas as quatro condições devem ser atendidas. Uma vez que estas condições raramente são satisfeitas, a maioria das opções de ações não qualificadas e não estatutárias não negociadas em um mercado estabelecido, não possuem um valor facilmente verificável.
Há outro fator a considerar que pode ser aplicado a opções de compra de ações de incentivo e não qualificadas. Algumas empresas oferecem opções com um recurso de recarga. Uma opção de recarga oferece concessões automáticas de opções adicionais sempre que um empregado exerce opções anteriormente concedidas.
Se o estoque que é recebido após o exercício da opção é propriedade restrita, a tributação é diferida até as restrições caducarem. Freqüentemente os funcionários recebem estoque restrito por serviços. O estoque não é livremente transferível e está sujeito a um risco de caducidade com base no desempenho ou no emprego contínuo de um indivíduo por um período de tempo. De acordo com a Seção 83 (b) do Código da Receita Federal, um indivíduo pode optar por reconhecer o valor justo de mercado das ações, ignorando as restrições, como renda no momento do prêmio; se uma eleição da Seção 83 (b) for feita, o período de detenção para fins de ganhos de capital começa no momento da eleição, caso contrário o período de retenção começa a correr na conclusão da restrição.
Com base no que precede, pode ser apropriado taxar as opções de ações executivas de efeito para fins de distribuição equitativa. Isso ocorre porque as opções de ações executivas têm uma data de validade fixa e, portanto, devem ser exercidas e vendidas. O imposto resultante é inevitável e, portanto, deve ser considerado.
Como as opções de estoque são avaliadas?
Existem vários métodos para chegar a um valor presente para opções de estoque. Os dois mais populares são o "valor intrínseco" e o método "Black-Scholes". Em 1995, a profissão de contabilidade reconheceu formalmente que as opções de ações executivas têm valor além do seu valor intrínseco. Além disso, o Modelo de Preços de Opções de Black-Scholes foi reconhecido como um método apropriado para calcular o valor das opções de ações de executivos pela profissão contábil. Curiosamente, o Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) declarou especificamente que "a opção de compra de ações de um empregado tem valor quando é concedida, independentemente de, ou seja, (a) o empregado exercer a opção e comprar ações no valor de mais do que o empregado paga ou (b) se a opção expirar sem valor no final do período da opção.
No método do valor intrínseco, o valor da opção de compra de ações é igual à diferença entre o preço de exercício da opção e o valor justo de mercado do estoque. Por exemplo, se você tivesse uma opção para comprar ações "x" por US $ 5, e o estoque atualmente estava negociando por US $ 27 por ação, o valor intrínseco da opção seria $ 22 ($ 27 - $ 5 = $ 22). No entanto, o método do valor intrínseco não considera o valor ao detentor de ter o direito de comprar o estoque em algum ponto do futuro a um preço predeterminado. Também não considera a volatilidade do estoque subjacente, bem como as vantagens e desvantagens do mesmo. Além disso, não considera as vantagens e desvantagens do detentor da opção que não recebe os dividendos da ação, bem como o custo de oportunidade de compra do estoque e a perda dos juros perdidos sobre os fundos de aquisição.
Um método que considera os itens acima mencionados é o método Black-Scholes. Você pode ver a fórmula Black-Scholes clicando aqui.
As explicações das designações das letras para as outras variáveis ​​na fórmula Black-Scholes são:
C = SN (ln (S / K) C = prêmio teórico premium N = distribuição normal padrão cumulativa e = log de função exponencial = logaritmo natural.
A primeira parte do cálculo determina o benefício esperado de comprar o estoque de forma definitiva. A segunda parte do cálculo determina o valor presente do benefício de pagar o preço de exercício no futuro. A diferença é o valor justo de mercado da opção.
No entanto, um problema subjacente ao método Black-Scholes é que ele faz suposições sobre a volatilidade do estoque, taxas de dividendos futuros e perda de interesse. Uma alteração nesses pressupostos subjacentes pode afetar o valor da opção calculada de acordo com este método.
A tabela a seguir fornece um resumo de como uma alteração em uma dessas premissas afetará o valor das opções de ações calculadas de acordo com o método Black-Scholes.
Aumento da variável.
Diminuição da variável.
Comércio livre de risco.
Um equívoco comum na avaliação de opções de longo prazo é que um valor de opção é melhor representado pelo seu valor intrínseco. Na verdade, com base nos vários fatores de Black-Scholes, as opções de compra de ações que são "fora do dinheiro", ou seja, o preço de exercício excede o valor justo de mercado atual, são negociados com vários valores em dólares. Por exemplo, uma opção de estoque da Dell Computer com um preço de exercício de US $ 50,00 e um valor de mercado de US $ 37,3125 a partir de 24 de maio de 1999 negociado por US $ 8,75. Isso é mesmo, embora a opção tenha sido quase $ 13,00 fora do dinheiro quando a opção foi avaliada. A disparidade no valor é devido ao otimismo dos investidores que as ações da Dell aumentariam e valerão mais de US $ 58.75 antes do vencimento da opção.
Como as opções de ações são distribuídas em assuntos matrimoniais?
Geralmente, os métodos para distribuir opções de estoque geralmente se dividem em duas categorias:
Distribuição diferida após exercício de opções (Trust Constructivo); Avaliação atual com compensação contra outros ativos.
(Quando uma parte argumenta que uma parte das opções de compra de ações não são conjugais, então surge uma questão sobre a parte das opções de ações, distribuídas pelo método 1 ou 2 acima, devem ser concedidas ao cônjuge não empregado. tratado com mais detalhes na próxima seção deste artigo.)
Método de Distribuição Diferido.
O Método de Distribuição Diferida é provavelmente a maneira mais comum em que as opções são distribuídas e foi utilizada em um dos casos mais antigos de Nova Jersey que tratam de opções de ações incidentes sobre o divórcio, a saber: Callahan v. Callahan. In that case, the trial court ruled that stock options acquired by a husband during the course of the marriage were subject to equitable distribution notwithstanding the fact that the options would terminate if the husband left the company within a certain period of time and the fact that they were subject to various SEC regulations. The court impressed a constructive trust on the husband in favor of the wife for a portion of the stock options owned by him in order to best effect the distribution of property between the parties without creating undue financial and business liabilities. It should be noted that all of the options were granted during the course of the marriage. However, although not specifically stated, it appears that some or all of the options were not fully vested since they were subject to divestiture under certain circumstances. This may have been why the wife was awarded only 25% of the options when they matured." (See section below regarding determining distributive shares.)
The second mode of distribution is the Present Valuation Method. In this method, the stock options must be valued with the non-employed spouse receiving her share of the marital portion in cash or cash equivalent. Such a method should use discounts for mortality, interest, inflation and any applicable taxes. The downside of this "off-set method" is that it may become inequitable in the event that the employee spouse is either unable to exercise the options or, on the date they become exercisable, they are "worthless" (i. e., the cost of the option exceeds the fair market value.)
A review of out-of-state authority indicates that matrimonial courts differ on the method of distribution of stock options depending upon the nature of the options themselves, whether they are vested or unvested, transferable or salable. If the options are able to be transferred to the non-employee spouse, that is the preferred method of distribution, since it effects a clean break between the parties; there is no need for further communication between the parties and there is no need to use valuation methodologies. However, transfer of stock options is rarely permitted by employee stock option plans. Some courts have devised other methods, including but not limited to allowing the parties to be tenants-in-common, or allowing the non-employee spouse to order the employee spouse to exercise his or her respective portion of the options, upon furnishing the capital to do so. This is similar to the constructive trust solution devised in the Callahan case previously discussed. Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in fashioning an approach to fit the facts of the individual case. (Caveat: all of these methods still assume that there is no exclusion of options based upon the argument that they are unvested or were otherwise not earned during the marriage.)
As a practice point, please note that when distributing options in kind, consideration should be given that neither party violates any insider trading rules. For example, it may be a violation if the participating spouse advises the non-participating spouse that he or she intends to exercise his options in the near future. Another concern about the distribution of options in kind is that they can lapse if the individual's employment with the company is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
Determining the non-employed spouse's distributive share.
What happens when the employed spouse argues that some of the options are unvested or were otherwise "not acquired during the marriage" and therefore not distributable to the other spouse?
New Jersey courts have made it clear that it is necessary to balance the need for definitiveness embodied in the date of complaint rule (i. e., the cutoff date for determining which assets are subject to distribution) with the need for flexibility inherent in equitable distribution when addressing stock options incident to divorce. Whereas courts of many other states have employed the "time-rule formula" approach to determine what portion of stock options should be subject to distribution (see below), New Jersey courts have laid the groundwork in a more general fashion. Basically, assets or property acquired after the termination of the marriage, but as a reward for or result of efforts expended during the marriage, normally will be includable in the marital estate and thus, subject to equitable distribution. The law in New Jersey recognizes that assets acquired by gainful labor during the marriage or as a reward for such labor are distributable while assets acquired after dissolution due solely to the earner's post-complaint efforts constitutes the employed spouse's separate property.
The seminal case in the State of New Jersey regarding the distribution of stock options is the Supreme Court case of Pascale. In that case, the parties were married on June 19, 1977. A complaint for divorce was filed on October 28, 1990. The wife began her employment with the Liposome Company on April 14, 1987 at which time she was immediately granted the option to purchase 5,000 shares of stock in said company. As of the date of trial, the wife owned 20,069 stock options awarded between April 14, 1987 and November 15, 1991. 7,300 of the stock options were granted after the complaint for divorce was filed.
There were two blocks of stock options in dispute (i. e., 4,000 and 1,800), both granted on November 7, 1990. These were granted approximately ten days after the wife filed for divorce. (There was no indication of whether the options were vested in whole or in part, however, it is assumed that these options were "unvested".) Her position was that these options were not subject to distribution because the 1,800 were issued in recognition of past performance and the 4,000 options were awarded in recognition of a job promotion that imposed increased responsibility on her in the future. The wife relied on the transmittal letters from her company to support her arguments. The trial court found that neither of the two blocks of options granted on November 7, 1990 could be excluded from equitable distribution and were to be divided equally.
However, the Appellate Division found that one of the two sets of options awarded on November 7, 1990 should have been included in the marital estate while the other should have been excluded. The Appellate Division based that decision on its interpretation of the facts, finding that the block of 4,000 options granted in recognition of a promotion in job responsibility and an increase in salary was "more appropriately . designed to enhance future employment efforts" and should not have been included in the marital estate. However, as to the block of 1,800 options, the Appellate Division found that these options were granted in recognition of past employment performance. Therefore, these options were properly includable in the marital estate notwithstanding the date of complaint rule.
In reversing the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court in Pascale concentrated on N. J.S. A. 2A:34-23 and the guiding principles enunciated in Painter v. Painter, that "property clearly qualifies for distribution when it is attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse during the marriage." The Supreme Court in Pascale made it clear that the focus in these cases becomes whether the nature of the asset is one that is the result of efforts put forth "during the marriage" by the spouse jointly, making it subject to equitable distribution. To refute such a presumption, the party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear "the burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset."
The Pascale court concluded that "stock options awarded after the marriage is terminated but obtained as a result of efforts expended during the marriage should be subject to equitable distribution. The inequity that would result from applying inflexibility to the date of complaint rule is obvious." Note that no distinctions were made as to vested or unvested options. Therefore, it appears that the Supreme Court agreed with the goals sought to be achieved by the Appellate Division, but did not agree with their conclusions based on the record below. The Supreme Court gave greater weight to the "credible finding" made by the trial court after listening to many days of testimony that the promotion came about as a result of the excellent service that the wife had provided to the company during the marriage.
Query, what would the NJ Supreme Court have done if it determined that a block of options were awarded for a mix of pre and post marital efforts? What if there is no clear indication as to why the options are granted? What if the options are unvested and require future work effort to fully vest? These circumstances often exist and are where things get murky. New Jersey has not adopted a clear and precise method to determine what portion of options which have yet to be fully earned should be distributed. New Jersey's approach provides for a much more subjective analysis (and room for advocacy) than in other states which utilize various formulaic approaches including a coverture factor or time-rule usually taking into account vesting schedules.
Like New Jersey, the majority of states in this country do consider unvested stock options to be property subject to distribution in marital dissolution proceedings. Such was the recent ruling of the appellate court in Pennsylvania in the case of MacAleer. The Pennsylvania Appellate Court addressed the issue of whether stock options granted to a spouse during the marriage, but not exercisable until after the date of separation, constitutes marital property to be divided during the divorce. That court's reasoning parallels, to a large degree, the majority of the other states which hold that unvested stock options are marital property. Analogizing their prior decisions determining that unvested pensions were subject to distribution, the court noted that benefits resulting from employment during marriage are marital, since these benefits are received in lieu of higher compensation which would have been utilized during the marriage to acquire other assets or to raise the marital standard of living. Only a handful of states have specifically held otherwise. These states are Indiana, Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio and Oklahoma. North Carolina and Indiana do not divide unvested stock options on the basis of the state's statutory definition of "property." Oklahoma does not consider unvested stock options to be marital property based on the common law foundation of the stateÕs statutory scheme. These states award the unvested stock options to the employee spouse as separate property not to be considered for equitable distribution. These decisions are distinguished upon the fact that they are heavily influenced by statutes which define property in those jurisdictions. However, the remaining states which have addressed the issue, do find unvested stock options to be marital property and generally follow the same procedure for determining how much, if any, of the options constitute marital property.
Many jurisdictions, like New Jersey, view the first consideration to be a determination of whether the options were granted for past, present or future services. However, most courts have learned that employee stock options are not usually granted for any one reason, and could be compensation for past, present and future services. As a result, these courts sought some structure to determining the distributable share.
Remember: The options that are clearly given to the employee spouse as compensation or incentive for future services are wholly non-marital property. The options clearly granted exclusively for past or present services are fully marital property. There is no need for the court to utilize a coverture factor or time rule fraction for either category in order to determine the marital interest since they are wholly marital or non-marital property as the case may be. The problems arise when the reasons are unclear, where the options are unvested or include an indiscernable mix of pre and post marital efforts.
"Coverture Factor" or "Time-Rule Fractions"
Most out-of-state courts which have addressed distribution of unvested stock options use a "coverture factor" or "time rule fraction" to determine how much, if any, of the unvested stock options constitute marital property. The most prevalent time rule fraction has evolved from that which was used by the California Court of Appeals in Hug. The trial court in Hug found that the number of options that were community property were a product of a fraction; the numerator was the period in months between the commencement of the spouse's employment by the employer and the date of separation of the parties, and the denominator was the period in months between commencement of employment and the date when the first option is exercisable, multiplied by the number of shares that can be purchased on the date that the option is first exercisable. The remaining options were found to be the separate property of the husband.
The husband in Hug agreed that the options were subject to division according to the time rule; however, he contended that the trial court used an erroneous formula. He argued that the proper time rule should begin as of the date of granting the option, not the date of commencement of employment, since the options were not granted as an incentive to become employed. He argued further that each annual option was a separate and distinct option which is compensation for services rendered during that year, and as it was to accrue after the date of separation, it was totally his separate property. The court examined the various reasons why corporations confer stock options to employees, and found that no single characterization could be given to employee stock options. Whether they can be characterized as compensation for past, present, or future services, or all three, depends upon the circumstances involved in the grant of the employee stock option. By including the two years of employment prior to the granting of the options in question, the trial court implicitly found that period of service contributed to earning the option rights at issue. The appellate court found that this was supported by ample evidence in the record.
Various versions of coverture factors have evolved as courts addressed different factual circumstances. The recent Wendt case out of Connecticut entails a voluminous decision in which the court surveys the states which addressed the issue of division of unvested stock options, and notes the competing arguments and the most common numerators and denominators in diverse forms of the coverture factors. A brief summary of the Wendt court's decision as to stock options is helpful to understanding the approach of many courts to the issue of unvested stock options.
According to the December 31, 1996 unaudited financial statement prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, the husband owned 175,000 shares of General Electric Vested Stock Options and Appreciation Rights in the following amounts: 100,000 units granted November 20, 1992 with a $40 per share exercise price, 70,000 units granted September 10, 1993 with an exercise price of $48.3125 and 5,000 units granted June 24, 1994 with an exercise price of $46.25. The unaudited financial statements used the "intrinsic value" method, with a December 31, 1996 New York Stock Exchange price of G. E. common stock at $98 7/8 per share. On May 12, 1997, G. E. common stock split two for one and, thus, the number of options doubled to conform to the stock split. As of the date of separation, December 1, 1995, G. E. was trading at $72 per share. As of October 7, 1997, G. E. was trading at $72 per share in its split status or $144 per share at the pre-May 12, 1997 stock split number of stock options. Based on the facts found, the court divided the 175,000 vested stock options and appreciation rights based on the date of separation, December 1, 1995. In rejecting a Black-Scholes approach in favor of the "intrinsic value" method, the trial court valued the vested options as follows: 175,000 stock options at $3,200,000 for the November 20, 1992 grant; $1,658,125 for the September 10, 1993 grant and $128,750 for the June 24, 1994 grant for a total Ôintrinsic value" of $4,986,875. The court noted that this amount was before taxes. The court additionally noted that the options had no cash value until exercised at which point there would be tax due at short term capital gains tax rates, i. e., ordinary income tax rates. The court assumed maximum rates for the IRS, Medicare and Connecticut tax and calculated the net after tax of the intrinsic value to be $2,804,219. The court distributed one-half of that sum to the wife. The court found that the doubling of the G. E. stock after the date of separation was not due to the efforts of the wife, but that "she should share in the general increase in the investment community."
The Wendt court then proceeded to address the 420,000 unvested stock options differently. The court had already concluded that only a portion of these unvested stock options was marital property. The court had also concluded that the unvested stock options were granted for future services. Therefore, a coverture factor was required. The coverture factor was determined by a fraction as follows:
Number of Months from the Date of Grant to December 1, 1995.
Number of Months from the Date of Grant to the Date of Vesting and are not Subject to Divestment.
Number of Shares to be Vested at that Date of Vesting.
Since there were eight separate dates of vesting, eight separate coverture factors had to be calculated. For example, the coverture factor utilized for the 70,000 units granted on September 10, 1993 which vested on September 10, 1998 was as follows:
27.7 / 60 = 44.5% x 70,000 units = 31,150 units to be divided.
The court then took the price of the G. E. common stock on the date of separation (i. e. $72 per share) to calculate the intrinsic value and thereby determine the dollar amount owed to the wife for the marital portion of the unvested options. This was represented as follows:
$72.0000 -48.3125 (exercise price) = $23.6875 intrinsic value per share x 31,150 units = $737,866.
The "$737,866" represents the pre-tax dollar value of the marital portion of the unvested shares as determined by the coverture factor.
After all eight coverture factors were performed, the total dollar values of the marital portion of the unvested stock options was $1,626,273. The court then explored the various risk factors associated with the unvested stock options. It is helpful to review the various scenarios explored by the Connecticut court concerning what could happen to effect the unvested stock options.
The court had basically rejected the wife's expert's valuation methodologies (which included "Black-Scholes") and opted to use the "intrinsic value" to obtain the appropriate value. Specifically, the court rejected the wife's expert's use of the Black-Scholes model which actually resulted in a value 10% lower than the "intrinsic value" ultimately used by the court. The court then determined the wife's share of the intrinsic value of the unvested stock options (i. e., $1,626,273). The court noted that this amount was before taxes. The court proceeded to assume current maximum rates for the IRS, Medicare and Connecticut and found that the net after tax value of the gross intrinsic value would be $914,486. The court then proceeded to award the wife half of this sum. The court ordered the husband to pay the sum in cash and not in any portion of the options.
A similar approach was taken in the case of In re Marriage of Short. In this case, the court held that the inclusion of the unvested stock options in the pool of distributable assets depended on whether the options were granted to compensate the employee for past, present or future employment. The court held that unvested options awarded for past and present services were marital property regardless of the continuing restriction on transfer or vesting. Unvested options granted for future services were deemed to be acquired periodically in the future as the options vest and are subject to a time rule division to allocate the shares between marital (community) and non-marital (separate) property. A different time rule than in the Hug case was used to differentiate between vested options that are clearly separate property for which no time rule would be applied, and those which include both a community effort and separate effort.
Just recently, New York joined the substantial majority of states holding that "restricted stock and stock option benefit plans provided by a spouse's employer constitute marital property for the purposes of equitable distribution, where the plans come into being during the marriage but are contingent on the spouse's continued employment with the company after the divorce." New York's highest court, in a seven-judge panel, unanimously joined the majority of jurisdictions that use a time rule to divide such contingent resources. The DeJesus court laid out the following four-step procedure to guide courts in dividing such options:
1. Trace shares to past and future services; Determine the portion related to compensation for past services to the extent that the marriage coincides with the period of the titled spouseÕs employment, up until the time of the grant. This would be the marital portion; Determine the portion granted as an incentive for future services; the marital share of that portion will be determined by a time rule; and Calculate the portion found to be marital by adding: i) that portion that is compensated for past services; and ii) that portion of the future services deemed to be marital after application of the time rule.
The sum result will then be divided between the parties using the equitable distribution criteria.
This was the method utilized in Colorado in the case of In re Marriage of Miller. The DeJesus court was persuaded that the Miller type analysis best accommodated the twin tensions between portions of stock plans acquired during the marriage versus those acquired outside of the marriage, and stock plans which are designed to compensate for past services versus those designed to compensate for future services.
However, notwithstanding the complexity of these methods, the danger of rigidity and resulting unfairness from a blind application of a formulaic approach still exists. Such issue was addressed by an Oregon Court which stated that "No one rule will produce a just and proper result in all cases and no one rule will be responsive to many different reasons why stock options are granted." This was, more than likely, the reason that New JerseyÕs Supreme Court ruled as it did in Pascale.
Can stock options be viewed as income to the employee for support purposes?
There is little doubt that stock options constitute a form of compensation earned by the employed spouse during the marriage.
In February of 1999, an Ohio appeals court agreed with Susan Murray, the former spouse of Procter & Gamble Company executive Graeme Murray, that unexercised stock options should be used in calculating the value of child support for the couple's 16-year-old son. This decision was the first by an Appellate Court to say that parents cannot shelter income from their children Ð intentionally or unintentionally, by postponing the exercise of stock options until the kids are grown. Note that options granted in consideration of present services may also be deemed a form of deferred compensation. (See In Re Marriage of Short, 125 Wash.2d 865, 890 P.2d 12,16 (1995).
A Wisconsin Court of Appeals pointed out that a stock option is not a mere gratuity but is an economic resource comparable to pensions and other employee benefits. The Appellate Court of Colorado held that for purposes of determining child support, income includes proceeds received by father from actual exercise of father's stock options. The Supreme Court of Colorado held, in the Miller case already referenced above, that "under the Internal Revenue Code, the optionee of a non-statutory employee stock option must recognize income at the time the option is granted if the option has a "readily ascertainable value" at the time of the grant. If the option does not have a readily ascertainable value at the time of the grant, the optionee recognizes income at the time the option becomes "substantially vested" or no longer subject to a "substantial risk of forfeiture," which generally does not occur until the option is exercised.
The Miller Supreme Court found that unlike pension benefits, employee stock options may well be considered compensation for future services as well as for past and for present services.
It is clear that there is a growing trend among the courts of this nation to distribute unvested or non-exercisable stock options that were granted during the marriage. The key factor in such distribution is a determination as to the purpose for which the options were granted, i. e., whether the options were granted for past or future performance. Where an option is granted for a mixed purpose and/or requires continued employment past the termination date of the marriage (as determined by local law), many states are employing a time-rule fraction which may be modified by the trial court based upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Matrimonial practitioners must be aware of the various forms of time-rule fractions that can be used and the factors that can modify the fraction. Such factors include, but certainly are not limited to the following: (1) when the option was granted; (2) whether the option was granted for past or future performance (if "past" how far back); (3) whether or not the option was granted in lieu of other compensation; (4) whether or not the option was a qualified incentive stock option or non-qualified stock option; (5) when the options will expire; (6) the tax effect of the grant of the option; (7) the tax effect of exercising the option; (8) whether or not the option has a "readily ascertainable fair market value;" (9) whether or not the option is transferable; (10) whether or not the option is restricted property; (11) the extent to which the option is subject to risk of forfeiture; and (12) any other factors that the parties or court may deem fair and equitable to consider.
Since the majority of employee stock options are non-transferable and cannot be secured as with qualified pensions under federal laws such as ERISA, matrimonial attorneys should specifically tailor their language when drafting agreements concerning such assets. These agreements should include: (1) a list of all options granted and an explicit description of which options are marital and which are not; (2) if a Deferred Distribution Method is employed, a resortation of whether and under what terms the non-owner can compel the owner to sell options after they are vested; (3) provision for payment of the "strike price" by the non-employed spouse and taxes resulting from the exercise of options; (4) a description of how and when distribution is to be made to the non-owner spouse and (5) precise notification and document exchange provisions.
The matrimonial attorney involved in a case concerning stock options, especially when representing the non-employed spouse, should be sure to obtain the following information and documents: (1) a copy of the stock option plan; (2) copies of any correspondence or internal memorandum which were issued by the company at the time of the grant of any stock options; (3) a schedule of granted options during the employees period with the company; (4) the date of each option granted; (5) the number of options granted at each date; (5) the exercise price of options granted at each date; (6) the expiration date of each set of options granted; (7) the date of vesting for each set of options granted; (8) the date and number of options exercised; (9) all short term or long term employee incentive plans covering the employed spouse; (10) all Employment Agreements between the employed spouse and his or her employer; (11) all company plans, handbooks and option award letters related to stock options granted; (12) copies of the firm's 10K and 8K for the entire period that the employed spouse is with the company; (13) dates of promotions and positions held by the employee; (14) a brief job description of each position; (15) the salary history of the employee indicating all forms of compensation; (16) the grant date of exercised options and (17) copies of any corporate minutes or proxy statements referencing the award of options. The information listed herein provides the core information from which option values can be calculated and agreements intelligently reached concerning their distribution.
As we enter the 21st Century, it is clear that matrimonial attorneys will need to become as knowledgeable as possible regarding this unique kind of asset. Hopefully, this article has given some insight into the complexities involved when dealing with Employee Stock Options and Divorce.
Charles F. Vuotto, Jr., Esq. is a family law attorney in New Jersey.
Add A Comment.
Obrigado pelo seu comentário.
Comment is required.
Sorry! There was a problem with your comment submission. Por favor, tente novamente.
Email me when someone replies to this comment.
Your Email (optional and not shared)
Your Website (optional)
Username or Password invalid.
Username or Email.
Obrigado pelo seu comentário.
Comment is required.
Sorry! There was a problem with your comment submission. Por favor, tente novamente.
Obrigado pelo seu comentário.
Comment is required.
Sorry! There was a problem with your comment submission. Por favor, tente novamente.
Launched simultaneously with Divorce Magazine in 1996, DivorceMagazine was one of the first magazine websites in the world. Today, the website offers thousands of pages of divorce-related articles, FAQs, podcasts, videos, and targeted advertising. We also offer a Professional Directory featuring family lawyers, divorce financial analysts, accountants, therapists, and other divorce-related services.
Direitos autorais e cópia; 2017 Divorce Magazine, Divorce Marketing Group & Segue Esprit Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without prior written permission is prohibited.

How Do Courts Handle Unvested Stock Options.
On behalf of The Marks Law Firm, L. L.C. posted in Stock Options and Divorce on Tuesday, January 28, 2014.
Often individuals obtain as a benefit of their employment stock options with their employer. Sometimes, these options have a variety of requirements regarding when they vest (become the actual rather than potential property of the employer). At other times, these options may vest upon issue but have a long window to exercise.
Handling stock options during a dissolution of marriage can present some complicated issues. First, when do the options become marital property – at the time the employee receives the options, at the time the employee becomes vested in the options, or at the time the employee exercises the options? Second, how does one value the options at the time of dissolution if they have not vested or been exercised?
A stock option is a benefit received in conjunction with employment. In that sense, a stock option is no different than employment income, employer contributions to a retirement or pension fund, or an employee bonus. Any benefit received during the time the parties were married is in fact marital property.
Of course, stock options differ from regular income in that they may not automatically vest in the employee and have a value that could fluctuate from the time of issuance to the time of exercise based on the price of the stock. If the option increases significantly in value, a spouse would lose out on that increase if the valuation is taken at the time of dissolution. Conversely, if the option decreases significantly in value, a spouse would lose out on the value if valuation is taken at the time of exercise.
If the option vested and has been exercised during the marriage, the value is easily known at the time of exercise. If the option vested but has not been exercised at the time of dissolution, it is valued at the time of dissolution. If the option has not vested and has not been exercised at the time of dissolution, courts can choose to value the option as of the time of dissolution or avoid the risk of undervaluing or overvaluing the option by dividing it as a percentage rather than a dollar value.
How do courts compute the marital portion of an option? Unlike with a retirement or pension account, which accrues with years of service or contribution and can be easily measured as marital and separate from the date of marriage and date of dissolution, options do not always meet such a neat formula. For example, some options may not issue until after a long term of service, only some of which may have been marital. Generally, if the option vested during the marriage, it became a marital asset at that time, whether the employee cashed out the option or not. A more complicated question involves an option that vests after the end of the marriage. Often these options do not vest until the employee meets certain conditions or they represent a performance accomplishment. In these situations, the employee has the burden of demonstrating none of the future option has anything to do with past employment. As recently discussed in Beecher v. Beecher , a case from the Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, the employee has a very high burden to meet, as courts will assume that the award of the option during the marriage renders the option marital property subject to division. When the employee fails to meet the burden, as he did in Beecher, the option may be treated as funds received in their entirety during the marriage, which entitles the spouse to a half share – a different outcome than the formula used for measuring retirement and pension accounts where the percentage is based on the number of years of employment during marriage divided by the total years of employment. In this sense, stock options look more like a one time bonus and a spouse should share in the windfall.
Is it fair to the employee to have so much of the option inure to the benefit of the spouse, particularly if the marriage was of a short duration? As with any marital asset, an individual may argue to the court that it has a mixed character of separate and marital funds and should be divided accordingly. So, in the case where a spouse would gain a windfall after two years of marriage for what had been 25 years of employment, the court would likely award only a small percentage of the option. But note – it is the duty of the employee to make the case that a marital asset should be “sourced” in this fashion, otherwise the court will make an equal division.
So, stock options earned during the marriage, even if not vested or exercised, are marital property subject to division, valued at the time of exercise or the time of dissolution if not exercised. An employee may seek to show that the options were earned outside of the marriage to overcome the presumption of equal division, but that burden is on the employee and the court may reject that argument.
If you have questions about division of stock options in divorce, contact our St. Louis divorce attorneys – we can help.
Agende uma consulta.
Please Read: The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
Postagens recentes.
Categorias.
Creve Coeur, MO 63141.
Phone: (314) 993-6300.
O’Fallon, MO 63368.
Phone: (636) 695-4125.
When you need the services of a law office in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area, you want a well-respected firm that is focused on your needs and provides professional representation that is tailored to meet your goals. At The Marks Law Firm, L. L.C., our goal is exceptional service and value for every single client.
Copyright © 2018 The Marks Law Firm, LLC. Todos os direitos reservados.

Divorce stock options unvested

Online QDRO Preparation. Start Today >
Methods for Dividing Stock Options in State Court Divorce Cases Provided by the National Legal Research Group.
Almost all states now agree that stock options are marital property to the extent that they were earned during the marriage. As a result, in most cases in which stock options are present, the court and the parties will need to find some way to transfer part of the value of the options to the non-owning spouse. Federal law has not made the process of division any easier; indeed, a good case can be made that federal law has materially contributed to the problem. If federal law were to be clarified to permit direct assignment of stock options without prohibitively adverse tax consequences, division of stock options in state court divorce cases would be a much easier process.
The primary purpose of this article is to discuss federal and state law on mechanics of dividing stock options between the parties. Before reaching this issue, however, we will briefly review the nature of stock options themselves, and then discuss the manner in which stock options are classified and divided.
I. STOCK OPTIONS IN GENERAL.
A stock option is a legal right to purchase one share of stock for a specific price (the strike price), regardless of the price at which the stock is actually trading. The stock need not be publicly traded, but in most of the reported cases, a regular market does exist for the stock at issue.
Under almost all stock option plans, an option given to the employee is unvested when it is received. It cannot be exercised; it is lost if the employee stops working for the employer. After a specific period of time passes, the stock option vests. After vesting, the stock option can be exercised, and it is not lost if the employee leaves the company. Most vesting periods are in the two-to-five-year range. After a much longer period, often 10 years, the stock option expires and cannot be exercised.
II. CLASSIFICATION OF STOCK OPTIONS.
Stock options fall into the general category of deferred compensation rights, a category which also includes such commonly discussed assets as retirement benefits, bonuses, and intellectual property rights. For purposes of property division, deferred compensation rights are generally acquired when they are earned, not when value is actually received. For example, if the husband earns retirement benefits during the marriage, the benefits so earned are marital property, even if no money is actually received until long after the marriage ends.
Deferred compensation rights are most often classified by determining the period over which they are earned. A defined benefit retirement plan, for example, is usually acquired as compensation for a specific period of creditable service rendered to the employer. The amount received per month depends upon the total creditable service rendered, with some function of the employee’s highest annual salary often being worked into the formula as well. To determine the marital share, the court divides the total time married during the earning period by the total earning period. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N. W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996); Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675, 636 N. W.2d 890 (2001); Workman v. Workman, 106 N. C. App. 562, 418 S. E.2d 269 (1992). See generally Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property 6:25 (3d ed. 2005). Time married, in this context, means time between the date of commencement (almost always the date of marriage) and the date of classification. Identidade. The latter date varies by jurisdiction; it is usually either the date of final separation, the date of filing, or the date of divorce. Identidade. Section 5:28.
To take an example, assume that a military service member acquires retirement benefits as compensation for 30 years of military service. The divorce occurs in New York, where the date of classification is normally the date of filing. Of the 30 years, 12 occurred between the date of marriage and the filing of the divorce. The marital share of the pension is 12/30, or 40%.
In the specific case of stock options, the earning period always includes the vesting period. The purpose of the vesting period is to encourage the employee to continue working for the employer; that is why the employee loses unvested options if he voluntarily terminates his employment. See generally In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780, 201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984). When future employment is a condition of vesting, it is very difficult to argue that the option is not consideration for future service.
The hard question in classifying stock options is whether the option is consideration for past service as well. Some unvested stock options are awarded pursuant to a regular plan which awards an equal amount of stock options to all employees at a given level, primarily as a device for encouraging them to remain with the company. These sorts of options are generally consideration only for future services. See In re Marriage of Harrison, 179 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 1216, 225 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1986); Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656, 757 A.2d 1225 (2000); Hopfer v. Hopfer, 59 Conn. App. 452, 757 A.2d 673 (2000) (where husband started with employer only one month before the divorce); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 810 A.2d 1 (2002); In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 798 A.2d 35 (2002). See generally Turner, supra, 6:49. Under other option plans, however, more unvested options are awarded to employees who performed better in the past, or a committee may even have discretion to make extraordinary grants of unvested options to employees who made extraordinary contributions to the company. These options are consideration for both past and future services. Identidade. Section 6:49.
A related fact situation occurs when options are used to attract an employee to switch employers. These options are normally used to attract employees only after they have substantial skills, so that the options are in a sense acquired with the skills. In addition, employees who make this sort of job change often lose unvested stock options with their previous employer, options which were at least partly earned through marital effort. The general rule is therefore that stock options to change jobs are also acquired in exchange for both past and future services. In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780, 201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984); Salstrom v. Salstrom, 404 N. W.2d 848 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
III. DIVISION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
Because deferred compensation rights are earned before they are received, their division poses unique problems. These problems first arose in the context of retirement benefits, and the law on division of other deferred compensation rights is generally a specific application of general rules established in the retirement benefits cases.
In general, retirement benefits can be divided in two ways. Under the immediate offset method, the court determines a present value for the benefits. To do this, the court must measure the string of future payments which the employee is likely to receive; discount those benefits by the likelihood that each benefit will not be received (e. g., by the likelihood of early death); and then reduce the benefits to present value. This is a difficult process which usually requires expert testimony. After determining a present value, the court multiplies that value by the marital share to determine the marital interest, and applies the statutory division factors to determine the nonowning spouse’s percentage interest in the marital share. The nonowning spouse then receives his or her interest in cash or other property, while the owning spouse receives the entire pension. Turner, supra, Section 6:31.
Immediate offset requires significant expert testimony at the outset, so it is a more expensive method. It can be applied only when the marital estate has sufficient cash or other assets to permit payment of the offset. The accuracy of the method depends upon the accuracy of actuarial projections, which are almost never exactly accurate, so that one spouse or the other is bound to be hurt if both do not live to their exact life expectancies. But immediate offset allows the entire pension to be divided at the time of divorce, without requiring the parties to have an ongoing connection with each other for many years to come. After the divorce is over, it is by far the easiest method to implement.
Under the deferred distribution method, the court does not need to determine a present value for the benefits at the time of divorce (although some states require the court to do so for other purposes). Instead, the court measures the marital share and determines the non-owning spouse’s equitable interest in that share. For example, if the marital interest is 40% and an equal division is equitable, the non-owning spouse’s interest would be 20%. The court then orders the owning spouse to pay the non-owning spouse 20% of every future payment received from the retirement plan. Turner, supra, Sub Section 6:32-6:33.
Because no present division is made, deferred distribution does not depend upon the accuracy of present value calculations or actuarial projections. The amount payable will be exactly correct, regardless of who dies when. But the parties must continue to deal with each other for many years to come, and the non-owning spouse must bear the burden of enforcing the obligation if the owning spouse refuses to pay. There are also a variety of innocent and not-so-innocent ways in which the future events can influence the distribution. To take just one example, many defined benefit plans are encountering significant financial problems, which may ultimately reduce the amount payable. If the loss arises from market conditions, it should be shared; but what if the owning spouse was CEO of the company and failed, negligently or even deliberately, to fund the plan sufficiently after the divorce? Deferred distribution creates a significant potential for future litigation; it does not lead to a clean break between the parties.
The administrative problems of deferred distribution are less severe where the plan administrator can be directed to provide benefits directly to the non-owning spouse, Turner, supra, 6:18-6:20, or perhaps even to make the non-owning spouse an independent participant in the plan. Identidade. Section 6:34. Most private retirement plans are regulated by federal law, and there was initially some concern that federal law might not permit direct assignment of pension rights. The federal government eliminated this uncertainty in 1984 by making major modifications to ERISA, the federal statute governing retirement plans.
The modified statute allows direct assignment of benefits only if the assignment is made in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). A domestic relations order (DRO) is an order of the state court, made under the law of domestic relations, directing the plan administrator to assign benefits to a former spouse (the alternate payee). 29 U. S.C. Section 1056(d)(3)(A) (Westlaw 2006). It must contain certain basic identifying information, and more importantly it can only divide those benefits which are actually available to the employee under the plan. After the state court makes a DRO, the DRO is then submitted to the plan administrator, who determines whether the order meets the requirements of ERISA. If the administrator determines that the order meets those requirements, the order is qualified and the administrator must follow it. If the order is rejected, it is not qualified, and federal law prevents its enforcement. The administrator’s decision can then be reviewed in either state or federal court. See generally Turner, supra Section 6:18-6:19.
IV. DIRECT TRANSFER OF STOCK OPTIONS.
Federal Tax Treatment.
Before discussing the mechanics of dividing stock options, it is necessary to make a brief digression into federal income tax law. That law has had a significant impact upon the process by which stock options are divided.
As a general rule, when an employer pays compensation to an employee, two tax consequences follow. The compensation is taxed as income to the employee, and it is treated as a business expense of the employer. This general rule applies to property as well as to direct salary. For instance, if an employer gives a share of stock to an employee, the value of the share is taxable income to the employee, and a business expense deduction for the employer.
In the specific case of stock options, the tax treatment is different. When stock options are granted under a qualified plan, no income is recognized when the option itself is awarded or exercised, and the employer receives no business expense deduction. I. R.C. Section 421(a). The employee is liable for tax only when the share of stock acquired with the option is sold, and the tax can be paid with proceeds from the sale of the stock itself. Federal law recognizes two different types of qualified stock option plans: incentive stock option plans under I. R.C. 422, and employee stock purchase plans under I. R.C. 423.
If a stock option plan does not meet the requirements for either type of qualified plan, it is said to be a nonqualified plan. Stock options given under such a plan are treated as income to the employee, and an equivalent business expense deduction is permitted for the employer. These rules take effect at the time when the option is granted if the value of the option can readily be determined; otherwise, they take effect when the option is exercised. I. R.C. Section 83; Amelia Legutki, Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation 6.01 (Westlaw 2006) [hereinafter Mertens].
When a share of stock acquired with a stock option is sold, the employee recognizes income equal to the sale price minus his or her basis in the stock. If the stock option plan was qualified, the employee’s basis is the amount paid under the option. If the plan was unqualified, the employee’s basis is the amount paid, plus any amount previously recognized as income ordinarily, the value of the option when awarded. If the option was held for a minimum period of time, the income is taxed at capital gains rates; otherwise, it is taxed at normal tax rates. Mertens Section 6.01.
Federal Securities Law.
Just as the easiest method to implement deferred distribution of stock options is direct assignment of benefits through a QDRO, the easiest method to implement deferred distribution of stock options is direct transfers of the options themselves.
Like all publicly traded securities, stock options are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Before 1996, former SEC Rule 16b-3 positively prohibited any direct transfer of stock options. Annual Review of Federal Securities Regulation, 52 Bus. Lei. 759, 766 (1997). Thus, direct assignment was not a permissible method for implementing a state court division of marital property.
In 1996, the SEC revised Rule 16b-3 to remove the prohibition on direct transfer. 17 C. F.R. Section 240.16b-3 (Westlaw 2006). It also adopted Rule 16a-12, 17 C. F.R. 240.16a-12 (Westlaw 2006), which provides that certain transfers meeting the ERISA definition of a DRO (qualified or otherwise) need not be reported. If an express rule provides that direct transfers need not be reported, those transfers are obviously no longer barred by the SEC. Thus, after 1996, federal securities law no longer prohibits direct assignment of stock options.
If stock options were regulated by ERISA, federal law would require plan administrators to permit direct transfer of stock options by means of QDROs. But stock option plans are clearly not within ERISA. ERISA applies only to "benefit plans," which are subdivided into "welfare plans" and "retirement plans." 29 U. S.C. 1002(3) (Westlaw 2006). Since a stock option is not a benefit payable only upon retirement, a stock option plan is not retirement plan. The definition of "welfare plans" includes plans intended to provide "medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services," 29 U. S.C. 1002(1)(A) a list which conspicuously excludes stock options. "Employee stock option plans are generally not covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as they are not considered welfare or retirement plans." Matthew T. Bodie, Aligning Incentives with Equity: Employee Stock Options and Rule 10b-5, 88 Iowa L. Rev. 539, 547 (2003). See generally Oatway v. American International Group, Inc., 325 F.3d 184, 187 (3d Cir. 2003) ("most courts have uniformly held that an incentive stock option plan is not an ERISA plan"; citing the cases). Thus, the QDRO provisions of ERISA do not apply to stock option plans.
Federal Tax Law One might think that the decision by the SEC to tolerate divorce-related transfers would make such transfers permissible. Unfortunately, the SEC is only one of the federal agencies with the power to limit divorce-related transfers. The IRS, and federal tax law in general, continue to make direct transfer difficult.
The core of the problem is in the requirements for the two different forms of qualified stock option plans. The requirements for an incentive stock option plan provide:
(b) Incentive stock option. For purposes of this part, the term "incentive stock option" means an option granted to an individual for any reason connected with his employment by a corporation, if granted by the employer corporation or its parent or subsidiary corporation, to purchase stock of any of such corporations, but only if.
. . . . (5) such option by its terms is not transferable by such individual otherwise than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and is exercisable, during his lifetime, only by him[.]
I. R.C. Section 422(b)(5) (emphasis added).
The requirements for an employee stock purchase plan provide:
(b) Employee stock purchase plan. For purposes of this part, the term "employee stock purchase plan" means a plan which meets the following requirements: . . . . (9) under the terms of the plan, such option is not transferable by such individual otherwise than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and is exercisable, during his lifetime, only by him.
I. R.C. 423(b)(9) (emphasis added). Thus, both forms of qualified stock option plans provide that any stock option awarded can be exercised only by the employee. There is no exception permitting exercise by a spouse, present or former.
It should be stressed that neither of the above-quoted statutes absolutely prevents a stock option plan from allowing transfer of stock options. The federal courts have refused to construe either statute to prevent transfer absolutely, in the same manner as the antiassignment provision of ERISA. E. g., DeNadai v. Preferred Capital Markets, Inc., 272 B. R. 21, 40 (D. Mass. 2001) ("DeNadai fails to point to any evidence that Congress intended I. R.C. 422(b)(5) to serve as a general exemption from creditor process"). This refusal is highly consistent with the fact that such transfers are implicitly permitted by SEC Rule 16a-12.
The effect of Sub Scetion 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) is not to prohibit direct transfers under a DRO, but rather to change the tax treatment of options which are so transferred. It is highly desirable to employees that stock options awarded under a qualified plan be taxed under the special rules set forth in Section 421(a). The above language suggests, at a minimum, that any option exercised by a nonemployee loses the favorable tax treatment it would otherwise enjoy. It would be taxed as income when received or exercised, not when the share of stock acquired was sold.
If a plan is already nonqualified, the conditions set forth in Sub Section 422 and 423 do not apply to begin with, and there is apparently no reason why federal tax law would require or even suggest that the options not be transferable.
Revenue Ruling 2002-22.
Concerns regarding the tax treatment of stock options directly transferred from one spouse to the other were strengthened by the IRS decision in Rev. Rul. 2002-22, 2002-1 C. B. 849. This ruling focused primarily upon whether direct transfers of stock options are a taxable event. The general rule is that divorce-related transfers generally are not such an event, I. R.C. 1041, but the IRS had previously made informal statements that it might try to argue that transfers of stock options were somehow outside 1041.
Rev. Rul. 2002-22 recedes from these suggestions, and constitutes an admission by the IRS that the general principles of Section 1041 apply. But the ruling comes loaded with provisos and qualifications. The overall effect of the qualifications is to remove a significant portion of the practical benefit of the admission.
The fact pattern directly addressed in the ruling arose from a divorce-related transfer of stock options awarded under a nonqualified plan. The Service ruled that Section 1041 applied:
The term "property" is not defined in Section 1041. However, there is no indication that Congress intended "property" to have a restricted meaning under 1041. To the contrary, Congress indicated that 1041 should apply broadly to transfers of many types of property, including those that involve a right to receive ordinary income that has accrued in an economic sense (such as interests in trusts and annuities). Identidade. at 1491. Accordingly, stock options and unfunded deferred compensation rights may constitute property within the meaning of 1041.
The greater problem for the taxpayers was not the applicability of Section 1041, but rather the common-law assignment-of-income doctrine. Under that doctrine, "income is ordinarily taxed to the person who earns it, and that the incidence of income taxation may not be shifted by anticipatory assignments." Identidade. See generally Lucas v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111 (1930). If the doctrine applied, the husband would be liable for the entire tax due, regardless of the anticipatory assignment to the wife. But the assignment-of-income concept is fundamentally incompatible with Section 1041, which was intended to allow unlimited tax-free transfers of property between spouses incident to divorce:
[A]pplying the assignment of income doctrine in divorce cases to tax the transferor spouse when the transferee spouse ultimately receives income from the property transferred in the divorce would frustrate the purpose of Section 1041 with respect to divorcing spouses. That tax treatment would impose substantial burdens on marital property settlements involving such property and thwart the purpose of allowing divorcing spouses to sever their ownership interests in property with as little tax intrusion as possible. Further, there is no indication that Congress intended 1041 to alter the principle established in the pre-1041 cases such as Meisner that the application of the assignment of income doctrine generally is inappropriate in the context of divorce.
Rev. Rul. 2002-22. The Service therefore ruled that nonqualified options could be transferred between divorcing spouses without any change in tax consequences.
The problem with Rev. Rul. 2002-22 began when the Service departed from the facts presented and addressed qualified stock options:
The same conclusion would apply in a case in which an employee transfers a statutory stock option (such as those governed by Section 422 or 423(b)) contrary to its terms to a spouse or former spouse in connection with divorce. The option would be disqualified as a statutory stock option, see Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9), and treated in the same manner as other nonstatutory stock options. Section 424(c)(4), which provides that a Section 1041(a) transfer of stock acquired on the exercise of a statutory stock option is not a disqualifying disposition, does not apply to a transfer of the stock option. See H. R. Rep. No. 795, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 378 (1988) (noting that the purpose of the amendment made to Section 424(c) is to "clarif[y] that the transfer of stock acquired pursuant to the exercise of an incentive stock option between spouses or incident to divorce is tax free").
Identidade. (emphasis added). Thus, the Service expressly confirmed that a qualified option becomes a nonqualified stock option when transferred by a DRO, because Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) (both quoted previously in this article) expressly forbid any transfer of a qualified stock option, even one made incident to divorce. This conclusion is not changed by Section 1041, which provides that transfers incident to divorce are not taxable events, because the problem is not that the transfer itself is taxable. The problem is that the transfer strips the option of the preferential tax treatment given to qualified options, because Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) make absolute nontransferability a condition upon qualified status. As a result, while Rev. Rul. 2002-22 benefits holders of nonqualified options, it provides very cold comfort to holders of qualified options.
Moreover, the Service added a second troublesome condition to its ruling:
This ruling does not apply to transfers of property between spouses other than in connection with divorce. This ruling also does not apply to transfers of nonstatutory stock options, unfunded deferred compensation rights, or other future income rights to the extent such options or rights are unvested at the time of transfer or to the extent that the transferor’s rights to such income are subject to substantial contingencies at the time of the transfer. See Kochansky v. Commissioner, 92 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1996).
Identidade. (emphasis added). On its face, therefore, the ruling applies only to vested stock options. It is very possible that the Service might attempt to apply different rules when unvested stock options are transferred. Moreover, the nature of those different rules is logically suggested by the case cited, Kochansky v. Commissioner, 92 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1996), which held under the assignment-of-income doctrine that an attorney was liable for all tax due on a contingent fee, even though part of the fee had been assigned to his spouse pursuant to divorce. In short, the Service is holding the door open for arguing that the employee must pay all tax due upon an unvested stock option, regardless of any deferred distribution to a former spouse. See David S. Rosettenstein, Options on Divorce: Taxation, Compensation Accountability, and the Need to Look for Holistic Solutions, 37 Fam. L. Q. 203, 207 n.13 (2003) ("It is not clear what purpose the reference to Kochansky serves if it is not to leave the door open to an assignment of income analysis, however inappropriate that analysis may be"); see also id. at 207 n.19 ("[T]he ruling would seem to reserve the Service’s ability to adopt an assignment of income analysis to any unvested options transferred to the non-employee spouse").
Moreover, it is also worth noting that the central issue in Kochansky, the effect of the wife’s community property rights on the result, was not addressed because it was not preserved in the court below. That procedural ruling fundamentally limits the precedential value of Kochansky, for it is very possible that the result would have been different if the issue had been preserved. Indeed, the Service itself admits earlier in Rev. Rul. 2002-22 that "the application of the assignment of income doctrine generally is inappropriate in the context of divorce." By citing Kochansky in spite of these points, the Service undercuts the power of its own admission that the assignment-of-income doctrine is inconsistent with the policy behind Section 1041, and leaves reasonable taxpayers with no way to predict the tax consequences of a very desirable method of division the direct transfer of unvested qualified stock options from one spouse to the other incident to divorce.
What is doubly frustrating is that a fair resolution of the entire issue should not be overly difficult. As a court-created rule, the assignment-of-income doctrine is clearly secondary to Section 1041. That statute requires, implicitly if not explicitly, that transfers of property incident to divorce trigger no adverse federal tax consequences. There is no basis for applying the assignment-of-income doctrine to any divorce-related transfer, regardless of whether the options at issue are vested or unvested.
For exactly the same reason, it is wrong to allow divorce-related transfers of any stock option to result in loss of qualified status. Whatever Congress had in mind when enacting Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9), it did not intend those sections to apply to divorce-related transfers. The consistent trend in all areas of federal tax and securities law over the past 20 years has been to allow divorce-related transfers with no greater tax consequences than would have been present if divorce had not occurred.
The statutes admittedly do not contain any express exception for divorce-related transfers, and there may be some merit to the argument that the remedy must be statutory. But that fact does not make reform any less necessary. I. R.C. Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) should be amended to permit divorce-related transfers of stock options without loss of qualified status.
"[S]tock options also represent a contract, and thus fall within the ambit of state common law." Bodie, supra, 88 Iowa L. Rev. at 547. State law applying to stock options is not superseded by ERISA, for as noted previously, ERISA does not apply to stock option plans. Since the distinction between qualified and nonqualified plans is purely a matter of income tax law qualified plans are eligible for more favorable tax treatment the qualified or nonqualified status of the plan has no effect upon state law.
State court opinions dividing stock options have frequently observed that the great majority of all stock option plans prohibit direct assignment. See Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ("Both expert witnesses in this case testified that the unvested stock options could be neither valued nor transferred"); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 557, 810 A.2d 1, 11 (2002) ("The difficulty of establishing a present value and the fact that the options themselves are usually not divisible or transferable make the [deferred distribution] approach desirable"); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 593, 769 A.2d 1165, 1170 (2001). Nothing in federal law requires that state courts enforce prohibitions on assignment. The issue is therefore purely one of state contract law.
While there are no reported state court cases discussing restrictions on the transfer of stock options, there are reported cases discussing contractual restriction on the transfer of actual shares of stock. The general rule is that these restrictions are binding, but that they are narrowly construed. For example, a restriction upon voluntary transfer, or even upon transfer generally, does not apply to involuntary transfer:
We hold that a transfer of stock ordered by the court in a marriage dissolution proceeding is an involuntary transfer not prohibited under a corporation’s general restriction against transfers unless the restriction expressly prohibits involuntary transfers. Ordinarily, for drafting purposes, we think use of the phrase "involuntary transfers" would be deemed to encompass divorce court transfers. No such phrase was used here, however; and the general language is inadequate to prohibit the court’s transfer of the F-L stock.
Castonguay v. Castonguay, 306 N. W.2d 143, 146 (Minn. 1981).
[T]he agreement requires a shareholder who wishes to sell, assign, encumber or otherwise dispose of the corporation’s stock other than as expressly provided for in the agreement to obtain the written consent of the other shareholders. The agreement contains no express provision regarding the interspousal transfer of shares incident to equitable distribution. The spouse has neither joined in the agreement nor has she waived her interest in the stock. We are not prepared to cut off the marital interest of a spouse under these circumstances. We hold that, under the rule of strict construction, a restriction on the transfer of stock does not apply to interspousal transfers of stock which is marital property absent an express provision prohibiting such transfers.
Bryan-Barber Realty, Inc. v. Fryar, 120 N. C. App. 178, 181-82, 461 S. E.2d 29, 31-32 (1995); see also In re Marriage of Devick, 315 Ill. App. 3d 908, 920, 735 N. E.2d 153, 162 (2000) ("Strictly construing the restrictive provision of the affiliate agreements, we determine that the restriction is applicable only to voluntary transfers and not to transfers by operation of law, such as by court order"). The reasoning of these cases is similar to the reasoning of the federal district court in DeNadai v. Preferred Capital Markets, Inc., 272 B. R. 21 (D. Mass. 2001), which held that the tax law transfer restriction in I. R.C. Section 422(b)(5) did not prevent involuntary assignment to creditors.
One fact not considered in some of the stock transfer cases is the presence of a bona fide reason to limit transferability. If the IRS continues to take the position that any transfer of stock options under a qualified plan destroys the qualified status of the option transferred, there is a good reason for most plans to limit transfers. Federal tax law on this point is unfortunate, but it must be lived with until it changes.
But even this situation is not unknown in the state court cases. In McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S. W.2d 68 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995), a shareholders’ agreement provided that "if any person obtains an attachment or other legal or equitable interest in any of the Shares owned by" an employee, the corporation would have an option to purchase those shares. Identidade. at 75. The court held that this provision did not on its face absolutely prevent a divorce-related transfer. It noted, however, that the practical result of such a transfer might be the involuntary sale of the very asset being transferred, and suggested that the court and the parties must live with this fact. By similar reasoning, it seems likely that a state court would not be deterred from dividing stock options by the mere fact that the shares so transferred might lose their qualified status. It also seems likely, however, that the court would first give the parties every opportunity to agree upon a method of transfer which preserves the tax advantages of qualified status.
V. OTHER METHODS FOR DIVIDING STOCK OPTIONS.
While federal law now permits direct transfer of stock options in at least some cases, direct transfer may cause prohibitively adverse tax consequences, and it may not be in the best interests of the parties for other reasons. Since direct transfer was not permitted at all before 1996, there is a reasonable body of case law discussing other division methods. On the facts of specific cases, these methods may reach results which are equal or even superior to the results of a direct transfer.
Deferred Distribution of Profits.
The most common method for dividing stock options in actual practice is a deferred distribution of the profits. Under this method, the court determines the nonowning spouse’s interest in each set of options. It then orders the owning spouse to pay the nonowning spouse the stated percentage of all profits traceable to exercise of the option. It will normally be necessary to direct the owning spouse to withhold taxes from the payment, or otherwise adjust the parties’ rights to reflect the fact that the IRS will assess the relevant tax consequences entirely against the owning spouse.
For cases making a deferred distribution of the profits of stock options, see In re Marriage of Frederick, 218 Ill. App. 3d 533, 578 N. E.2d 612 (1991); Frankel v. Frankel, 165 Md. App. 553, 585, 886 A.2d 136, 155 (2005); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 559-60, 810 A.2d 1, 12 (2002) ("The benefit subject to distribution, as we stated in Green and repeated earlier in this opinion, is the profit"); Green v. Green, 64 Md. App. 122, 494 A.2d 721 (1985); Smith v. Smith, 682 S. W.2d 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984), overruled on other grounds, Gehm v. Gehm, 707 S. W.2d 491 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 591, 769 A.2d 1165, 1169 (2001) (over a dissent which would give the nonowning spouse more control over when the options are exercised); and Chen v. Chen, 142 Wis. 2d 7, 15, 416 N. W.2d 661, 664 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The trial court determined a percentage . . . and divided the profit from the stock option contracts accordingly").
Deferred distribution of the profits works best when the parties expect to exercise the option within a fairly short period of time after it vests, and to sell the stock as soon as the option is exercised. If no limits are placed upon when the option will be exercised or when the resulting stock can be sold, the owning spouse could delay the exercise or sale longer than the nonowning spouse desires, or could exercise the option or sell the stock sooner than the nonowning spouse prefers. Because this method gives the nonowning spouse little control over the option and the resulting stock, it tends to work best when the owning spouse has superior financial expertise, and the nonowning spouse trusts the owning spouse to make a good decision in the financial interests of both parties. Since the parties are sharing the profit from each option, the owning spouse has a natural incentive to maximize both spouses’ profits, so long as the owning spouse can be trusted to behave in an economically rational manner.
Another common method for dividing stock options is to make the nonowning spouse an equitable owner of a portion of the options. This method is normally implemented by directing the owning spouse to set aside a certain number of options for the benefit of the nonowning spouse. These options cannot be exercised by the owning spouse alone. Rather, the owning spouse is ordered to exercise these options only when requested to do so in writing by the nonowning spouse. The resulting stock can be either sold immediately, or promptly transferred to the nonowning spouse. It will ordinarily be necessary to have the nonowning spouse make a separate payment to hold the owning spouse harmless from tax consequences, as the owning spouse may be liable to the IRS for taxes on the nonowning spouse’s shares. In situations in which actual transfer of the options is not possible or is otherwise inadvisable, this method provides a reasonably close approximation of the same end result.
For cases awarding equitable ownership of certain options to the nonowning spouse, see Keff v. Keff, 757 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), and Callahan v. Callahan, 142 N. J. Super. 325, 361 A.2d 561 (Ch. Div. 1976). See also In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 669, 798 A.2d 35, 39 (2002) (directing husband to exercise options as soon as possible, except that he could hold the options for the minimum period necessary to obtain favorable tax treatment, but allowing the wife to consent otherwise in writing, so that she could effectively make independent decisions).
It may be possible to mix both the deferred division of profits and the equitable ownership approaches:
[The trial court] ruled that the husband could exercise the options and then sell any or all of his shares if and when the options vest. If so, the judge determined that the husband must share with the wife one-half of the net gain (i. e., the gross proceeds less the purchase price and less the tax consequences to the husband) from the sale. If the husband decides not to exercise his vested options, the judge ordered that the husband notify the wife of his decision and allow her to exercise her share of the options through him. The wife would then be responsible for the tax consequences resulting from the sale of the shares.
Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787, 802, 752 N. E.2d 718, 731 (2001). Thus, the husband had the right to exercise the options and sell the stock immediately upon vesting, paying the wife her share of the profit. If he declined to exercise the options or sell the stock immediately, he was required to hold the stock for the wife’s benefit, allowing her to exercise and sell her share of the options as she desired.
The equitable ownership method suffers from most of the same advantages and disadvantages as a direct transfer. It gives the nonowning spouse control over when to exercise options and sell stock, which is a powerful benefit when both spouses are equally able to make good investment decisions. It limits the owning spouse’s ability to commit financial misconduct, although not as much as direct transfer, because the nonowning spouse still bears the risk that the owning spouse will disregard instructions. The greatest limitation is again the fact that some nonowning spouses will not have the financial skills to make good investment decisions, and will not in the press of other matters be sufficiently motivated to seek expert assistance.
The ultimate form of equitable ownership is of course division in kind. Several state court decisions have stated that such division is preferable in situations in which it is permitted by the employer. See In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 669, 798 A.2d 35, 39 (2002); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 593-94, 769 A.2d 1165, 1170 (2001). But both cases noted that transfer was not permitted on the facts.
There may be some concern on the part of the courts that equitable ownership, short of an actual transfer of the stock options, may be too difficult to implement. In Fisher, for example, after holding that a direct transfer was preferable but impossible, the court ordered the direct distribution of profits, apparently out of concern that allowing the wife more choice regarding the exercise of the options would unduly limit the husband’s rights. But the husband’s rights would surely have been even more limited by a direct transfer, and the court held that such a transfer would be favored, if permitted by the plan. Another possibility is that the court was concerned that equitable ownership would be an administrative burden to the husband, who would be responsible for exercising the wife’s stock options when requested to do so. But this burden must be balanced against the benefit of giving the wife control over when her share of the options is exercised.
A constructive trust is not really an independent method for dividing stock options, but rather a useful device for facilitating enforcement of either deferred distribution of profits or equitable ownership. By providing that the owning spouse hold certain stock options in trust for the nonowning spouse (under equitable ownership) or for the benefit of both parties (under deferred distribution of profits), an order or agreement imposes upon the owning spouse a familiar set of duties. As a trustee, the owning spouse must use reasonable care to manage the options held in trust, perhaps even using the care that a prudent investor would use with his or her own property. There is also a developed body of law on trustee misconduct which can be invoked in the event that the owning spouse acts negligently or dishonestly.
For cases expressly approving a constructive trust, see Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002), and Callahan v. Callahan, 142 N. J. Super. 325, 361 A.2d 561 (Ch. Div. 1976). See also Banning v. Banning, 1996 WL 354930 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (trust permissible but not required).
Constructive trust tends to work best with deferred distribution of profits, where the owning spouse is expected to use his or her best judgment for the benefit of both parties. Under equitable ownership, the owning spouse is required only to follow the nonowning spouse’s instructions, not to use independent judgment, and it is important to draft any constructive trust language with this limitation in mind. For a good example of language which clearly imposes no duty of independent judgment in making decisions, see Callahan, 142 N. J. Super. at 330-31, 361 A.2d at 564 ("He shall exercise her share of the options only at her direction").
Where a constructive trust is ordered, the trial court normally retains jurisdiction to supervise its implementation. See Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ("[T]he trial court imposed a constructive trust upon appellant to keep half of the options for appellee’s benefit, expressly reserving jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the trust"). Indeed, continued supervision is generally necessary even where a constructive trust is not expressly ordered:
Unreasonable or spiteful spouses are not altogether unknown to trial courts charged with adjudicating the multifarious issues arising under the divorce code. The court of common pleas will have jurisdiction over the equitable distribution of the Fishers’ marital assets until all of the assets have been distributed; we have already determined that the stock options or their value cannot be distributed at the present time. Mrs. Fisher will be able, so long as options acquired during her marriage may yet be exercised, to petition the court if she has evidence that Mr. Fisher has violated 23 Pa. C.S. 3102(a)(6) (policy of effectuating economic justice between parties who are divorced) or otherwise deprived her, under principles of equity, of assets she is entitled to receive.
Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 593-94, 769 A.2d 1165, 1170 (2001). Consequências fiscais.
Regardless of whether the court defers distribution of profits or provides for actual equitable ownership of options, the court must include a separate provision accounting for tax consequences. If the options themselves are not actually transferred, all of the tax consequences will be due to the owning spouse. That spouse is therefore entitled to withhold from any payment to the nonowning spouse the taxes due on the nonowning spouse’s share of the options. See Fountain v. Fountain, 148 N. C. App. 329, 340, 559 S. E.2d 25, 33 (2002) (court "may choose to place conditions on the distribution, i. e. require . . . non-owner spouse to save owner spouse harmless from any tax liability incurred as a consequence of purchase"); In re Marriage of Taraghi, 159 Or. Aplicativo. 480, 494, 977 P.2d 453, 461 (1999) (trial court properly authorized husband to withhold taxes; "[a] sale of the stock upon exercise of the options is contemplated and husband will be taxed on the entire capital gain").
Immediate offsets of stock options have been very rare in the reported cases. The fundamental problem is that an immediate offset requires a determination of the present value, and the present value of stock options is extraordinarily speculative. Indeed, it is often so speculative that the present value simply cannot be computed. See Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ("Both expert witnesses in this case testified that the unvested stock options could be neither valued nor transferred"); In re Marriage of Frederick, 218 Ill. App. 3d 533, 541, 578 N. E.2d 612, 619 (1991) ("[T]he options could not be valued until such time as they were exercised"); In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 669, 798 A.2d 35, 39 (2002) ("[U]nvested stock options have no present value"); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 591, 769 A.2d 1165, 1169 (2001) ("[I]t is impossible to ascribe a meaningful value to the unvested stock options, primarily because it is absolutely impossible to predict with reliability what any stock will be worth on any future date").
If the options are vested and there is a steady and stable market for the stock, it may be possible to reach a present value which both spouses can live with. If neither spouse is willing to accept the risk that future stock prices will not turn out as expected and this is a significant risk in the majority of all fact situations then it is necessary to use some form of deferred distribution.
Some courts have avoided the need to predict future stock prices by using the value of the stock at the time of divorce, minus the strike price for the option. See Richardson v. Richardson, 280 Ark. 498, 659 S. W.2d 510 (1983); Wendt v. Wendt, 1998 WL 161165 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998), judgment aff’d, 59 Conn. App. 656, 757 A.2d 1225 (2000); Knotts v. Knotts, 693 N. E.2d 962 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998); Fountain v. Fountain, 148 N. C. App. 329, 559 S. E.2d 25 (2002); Banning v. Banning, 1996 WL 354930 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996); Maritato v. Maritato, 275 Wis. 2d 252, 685 N. W.2d 379, 385 (Ct. App. 2004) (option has no value if market value is less than exercise price on date of valuation). The problem with this approach is that it depends too much upon short-term market fluctuations. For example, the same stock options might be worthless when market prices are at a low point (e. g., late 2001) and very valuable when the market is at a high point (e. g., late 1998). The better approach, and the majority rule, is to divide the profit made at the time when the option is exercised, using a coverture fraction to exclude value attributable to postdivorce efforts.
One case makes an immediate offset using a valuation computed by an expert using the Black/Scholes valuation model. Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656, 578 N. W.2d 848 (1998). This model, which is based upon an entire series of factors, produces a better value for stock options than is obtained by subtracting the strike price from the market price on the date of valuation. But the method is not easily applied, and any value reached remains highly speculative. See generally Wendt; Chammah v. Chammah, 1997 WL 414404 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997) (both criticizing the Black/Scholes method); see also Fountain (trial court had discretion to reject Black/Scholes on the facts, as no specific valuation method is required; not criticizing the method itself). A clear majority of the cases use some form of deferred distribution.
Federal law clearly does not prohibit divorce-related transfers of stock options. Provisions prohibiting transfer are nevertheless common, because they are conditioned upon optimal tax treatment. But the only federal case to consider the issue, DeNadai, rejected the argument that the tax statutes are antiassignment provisions. ERISA’s more express antiassignment and QDRO provisions are not relevant to the issue, as stock option plans are clearly outside ERISA.
Nontransferability provisions included in stock option plans for tax reasons are enforceable under state law. But they will be construed very strictly, and they will not bind a divorce court unless their language is very clear. At a minimum, they probably must apply to involuntary transfers, and they might have to mention divorce-related transfers specifically.
While it may be possible to force the employer to accept a direct transfer order in individual cases, this should be a remedy of last resort for qualified stock option plans. The IRS has clearly taken the position in Rev. Rul. 2002-22 that any direct transfer destroys the qualified status of the share so transferred, resulting in adverse tax treatment. There is also a clear possibility that the IRS will raise unforeseeable assignment-of-income doctrine arguments in response to direct transfers of unvested options. Until tax law is more settled, the direct transfer of qualified stock options poses significant tax risks.
For vested nonqualified options, Rev. Rul. 2002-22 clearly opens the door to transfer without additional adverse side effects. Loss of favorable tax treatment is not an issue in this setting, as there is no such treatment to lose. Where state law permits, the direct transfer of nonqualified vested options may be a useful method of division.
Even nonqualified options, however, are still risky to divide by direct transfer when they are unvested. Rev. Rul. 2002-22 clearly falls short of accepting that 1041 overrules the assignment-of-income doctrine in the context of unvested options. Since commentators have generally rejected the Service’s position on this point, it is hard to know exactly what arguments the Service would make, and there is a risk that individual transfers will become expensive test laboratories for new tax law theories.
All of the tax law problems can be avoided to some extent by appropriate hold-harmless provisions in private settlement agreements. The problem is that there is no way to determine in advance the amount at issue (or the amount of attorney’s fees necessary to fight the IRS to determine the amount at issue). "At the very least, the extent of any award will have to be reduced to reflect the transferor’s deferred liability, assuming we have even the vaguest notion of what that might amount to." Rosettenstein, supra, 37 Fam. L. Q. at 207. To the great majority of litigants who prefer to avoid income tax quandaries, the clear message is to avoid any direct transfer of qualified stock options incident to divorce.
Finally, as Rosettenstein notes, even if direct transfer is permitted and not accompanied by burdensome tax consequences, it should not immediately be assumed that direct transfer is necessarily in the interest of the nonowning spouse. Unlike retirement benefits, stock options generate maximum value only if they are competently managed by the holder. The option must be converted into stock at the right time, and the stock itself must be sold at the right time. In many situations, the employee spouse may have a better ability to identify the right time, so that the nonowning spouse may actually do better to receive only a share of the profits and not actual ownership of the options. Also relevant are the spouses’ personal tolerances for investment risk, their willingness to adopt tax law positions which might be challenged by the IRS, and the degree to which each trusts the other to manage a jointly held asset for mutual benefit. When all of these factors are considered, direct transfer may not always be the best division method, even in situations in which it is legally permitted.
The state court cases generally prefer direct transfer as a division method wherever possible on the facts. Most of the cases find, however, that direct transfer is not permitted by the plan.
The method most often used to divide stock options is a deferred distribution of profits. The second most common method is an immediate offset based upon the difference between the market value and the option strike price on the date of valuation. This method is overly simplistic, and tends to reach extreme results when market conditions are unusually high or low. A better method could be reached by relying less upon immediate market conditions, but any attempt to reduce stock options to present value is inherently speculative. Deferred distribution is clearly the better division method.
A clear majority of the deferred distribution cases make a distribution of profits rather than awarding equitable ownership. This point makes an interesting contrast with the equally clear tendency to favor direct transfer where that is a feasible option on the facts. Minimizing the burden upon the owning spouse is clearly a very important factor; the courts are consistently favoring division methods which limit postdivorce connections between divorcing spouses. The result is to leave the owning spouse with complete control over when the options are exercised, subject only to the general supervisory jurisdiction of the court to avoid clear instances of misconduct. Whether this approach avoids litigation will ultimately depend upon the behavior of owning spouses. If owning spouses abuse the control which the courts are tending to give them, awards of equitable ownership may become more popular.
The Need for Reform.
State court decisions often suggest that direct transfer of stock options should be the primary method of division when such a transfer is legally permitted. No court or commentator in recent years has suggested any federal or state interest which benefits if divorce-related transfers are forbidden, and the consistent trend in federal law over the past two to three decades has been to allow divorce-related transfers. Federal law should be amended to recognize a QDRO-like device for transferring stock options, and to provide that such transfers do not result in the loss of qualified status for income tax purposes.
Questões? Ligar.
Read Our Article in the.
PA Family Lawyer.
Need Your Retirement Account Valued?
Be QDRO Smart. Be QDRO Savvy. Be QDRO Safe. SM.
&cópia de; 2009 - 2018 Pension Appraisers Online, Inc. - Have Questions? 1-877-770-2270 (toll-free)