Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft’s Washington Tax Dodge Nears $1 Billion
Jeff Reifman ^ | 10/25/2009 | Jeff Reifman

Posted on 10/27/2009 11:27:46 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat

After King County Superior Court Judge Gregory Canova awarded Microsoft an $8.7 million judgment in a 2008 lawsuit involving unpaid software licenses, he might have been surprised to learn that Microsoft isn’t actually in the software licensing business in Washington – or at least that’s what it reports to the state Department of Revenue.

For tax purposes, Microsoft reports that it’s earned its estimated $143 billion in software licensing revenue in Nevada, where there is no licensing tax. However, for legal purposes, Microsoft executes its licensing contracts so they are governed by and rely on the protections of Washington law and its courts (some regional contracts are governed by the laws in Ireland or China).

When necessary, as in the case Microsoft Licensing GP v. TSR Silicon Resources, which lasted two years, Microsoft uses the resources of Washington courts to enforce its licensing contracts. It does this while simultaneously dodging the taxes it would normally pay for engaging in the software licensing business in Washington - the same taxes that fund the courts.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.reifman.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: agenda; cheat; cultureofcorruption; democrats; democratscandals; lawsuit; microsoft; msn; tax; taxcheatparty; taxes; taxevasion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last
Interesting situation, suing over licenses from one state, yet claiming the licensing came from another state in order to avoid paying taxes.
1 posted on 10/27/2009 11:27:47 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

With the thumb of big brother weighing down, a business has to find a way to operate that creates a maximum return possible without breaking the law. From reading this, everything they did was legal, it is just one of those things that the press can spin to make it look like they are crooks.


2 posted on 10/27/2009 11:32:13 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Exactly.
The IRS itself encourages every taxpayer to use every LEGAL means to reduce their tax bills.


3 posted on 10/27/2009 11:37:18 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

There is nothing unusual in a business incorporating in a tax friendly state or aligning their units within states that provide maximum return or least expense based on regulations and taxation.


4 posted on 10/27/2009 11:39:16 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

“Wah! Wah! We passed a law to take your money and you moved your corporate papers to a state that charges less. It’s not fair!”


5 posted on 10/27/2009 11:43:43 AM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto

Typical liberal journalist spinning it to be those evil corporations trying to weasel out of poor people’s money.


6 posted on 10/27/2009 11:52:33 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...

7 posted on 10/27/2009 11:53:34 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The B&O tax in WA is among the stupidest and most crippling taxes ever conceived. It’s no wonder that people go to extreme measures to avoid it.


8 posted on 10/27/2009 12:03:24 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

There’s the bit about how the tiny licensing tax pays for the court system that Microsoft uses to enforce its rights. Microsoft wants the Washington State court system to help it enforce their rights, but they don’t want to pay for that service.

It’s like dodging the local tax that pays for the fire department, yet still expecting them to come when your house is on fire.


9 posted on 10/27/2009 12:04:17 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

That reminds me of some liberals who say you should smile, bend over, and accept their taxes because you drive on roads.


10 posted on 10/27/2009 12:11:27 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Because the billion dollar Marxist somehow just isn’t rich enough and yet he hires scabs from overseas so he doesn’t have to pay market wages.


11 posted on 10/27/2009 12:14:21 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all the while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto

If the Gates Foundation didn’t work to raise MY taxes, I might not care so much.


12 posted on 10/27/2009 12:15:21 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all the while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
There’s the bit about how the tiny licensing tax pays for the court system that Microsoft uses to enforce its rights. Microsoft wants the Washington State court system to help it enforce their rights, but they don’t want to pay for that service”

You gotta be kidding me.
Microsoft pays more taxes in Washington State than any other company in that state. Payroll taxes from Microsoft employees, plus the taxes that Washington State has taken from all those millionaires and billionaires that Microsoft has created in that state, alone have been massive.
Like others have pointed out, its incumbent upon every corporate entity, to use every LEGAL means to pay as little taxes as they can.
Why on earth should Microsoft hand out more money than they should, to a bunch of tax and spend loony left crazies who govern Washington State, when the Governor herself, originally got “ elected” by blatantly stealing the elections in broad daylight, 5 years ago?

13 posted on 10/27/2009 12:18:30 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
Wah! Wah! We passed a law to take your money and you moved your corporate papers to a state that charges less. It’s not fair!”

Pretty much.
The loony left are always eager to spend other people's money, on stupid stuff like the recent buying cell phones for the “too lazy to work” brigade, promoting gay marriage, and other affirmative action programs.
I'd be very interested in having a look at this guy who wrote the article's tax returns. There is a pretty good chance(if I know liberals), that he is another Charlie Rangel, demanding that others pay more than their fair share of taxes, even while he himself keeps dodging his taxes for years.

14 posted on 10/27/2009 12:26:13 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

If ALL taxes were eliminated and replaced with the Fair Tax, everyone would be better off.


15 posted on 10/27/2009 1:27:19 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Fair tax, flat tax, just something that takes the forty thousand pages of tax code and reduces it down to fifteen lines is fine by me.


16 posted on 10/27/2009 1:29:50 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
That reminds me of some liberals who say you should smile, bend over, and accept their taxes because you drive on roads.

If those specific taxes go to pay for those roads, yes. I don't like freeloaders. If you use the service then you should pay, otherwise the rest of us taxpayers are supporting you.

17 posted on 10/27/2009 1:31:18 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Like others have pointed out, its incumbent upon every corporate entity, to use every LEGAL means to pay as little taxes as they can.

Thus the point of this article, whether or not it's legal. The tax man does not like it when you use a shell game to hide income. It's quite obvious that the Nevada entity is a shell.

Why all the sudden the compassion for tax cheats? Did Rangle and Obama's cabinet really change us that much?

18 posted on 10/27/2009 1:33:33 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030127/gates

An article entitled “Long Live the Estate Tax”, by Bill Gates, Sr. on the board of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

I know we are all hypocrites, but these guys take the cake.
You know, if these super rich liberals want the government to have so much money, why don’t they just give it to them. And why is there a Gates Foundation anyway? They should just give it to the government because the gov’t. knows what is best to do with the money anyways!?


19 posted on 10/27/2009 1:42:55 PM PDT by 21twelve (Drive Reality out with a pitchfork if you want , it always comes back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
And why is there a Gates Foundation anyway?

Because it gives them a tax dodge to give money to a charity that they sit on.

20 posted on 10/27/2009 1:44:35 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all the while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

The problem with income taxes is that politicians will always accept bribes and give one company an advantage over another.


21 posted on 10/27/2009 1:48:44 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I knew that. Just as I’m sure there are numerous and sundry Trust Funds for their kids to avoid the inheritance tax. Not that there is anything wrong with their Foundation (other than the liberal stuff it promotes!) or the trust funds. It’s the hypocrisy that bothers me.


22 posted on 10/27/2009 1:49:20 PM PDT by 21twelve (Drive Reality out with a pitchfork if you want , it always comes back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Thus the point of this article, whether or not it's legal”

Based on what evidence exactly?
The empty words of a tax and spend loony left bomb thrower?

The tax man does not like it when you use a shell game to hide income. “

The tax man knows exactly what to do IF they think tax laws have been broken. Hint: Throwing bombs on the internet is not part of it.

It's quite obvious that the Nevada entity is a shell.”

Again, the IRS(who know our tax laws), know what action to take IF they think tax laws have been broken.
So far, all I am seeing is the empty rantings of a hard line left wing radical, faithfully repeated by a Microsoft hating Applebot, who is scared silly at the sheer superb quality of Windows 7, and is out to spread as much anti-Microsift FUD as he can, on Freerepublic.

Why all the sudden the compassion for tax cheats? “

Now why don't YOU show me where the IRS actually said Microsoft has cheated on their taxes, eh?

Did Rangle and Obama’s cabinet really change us that much”

Naaah.
But Steve Jobs, and Apple cheating on Apple stock option backdating, at the expense of hard working ordinary shareholders did.

23 posted on 10/27/2009 2:03:33 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
The empty words of a tax and spend loony left bomb thrower?

He's what they call a "Microsoft millionaire." That's right, go ad hominem when the facts don't look good.

But Steve Jobs, and Apple cheating on Apple stock option backdating, at the expense of hard working ordinary shareholders did.

One: Jobs was judged to have done no wrong and to have not profited from the backdating.

Two: One person was found to have fudged paperwork to correct an oversight and Apple handed her over to the feds.

Three: The shareholders suffered no loss of value due to the backdating, as proven by a lawsuit over it getting thrown out due to the inability to show any damages.

Your knowledge of computer industry history really sucks.

24 posted on 10/27/2009 10:29:02 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
He's what they call a “Microsoft millionaire.” That's right, go ad hominem when the facts don't look good.”

Now if yo will just show me were the IRS says Microsoft hasn't paid taxes that they legally owe, then you can even begin to talk.
Until then, this bomb throwing article you posted, is simply yet another pathetic attempt at anti-Microsoft FUD, based on NOTHING, brought on by the the panic that Applebots are suffering everywhere, from the superb quality, and blistering sales of the Win 7 launch
It is perfectly legal, for company to incorporate in a tax friendly state in order to maximum return or least expense based on regulations and taxation.
This is not communist North Korea..not yet anyways.

Worth repeating here:
The IRS itself encourages every taxpayer to use every LEGAL means to reduce their tax bills.

Produce ANY evidence of illegal tax evasion by Microsoft or shut up already. And no, sheer inuendo won't do.

25 posted on 10/27/2009 10:51:47 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
One: Jobs was judged to have done no wrong and to have not profited from the backdating.”

Steve jobs claimed he never really understood the implications of the options backdating because “he is not a financial guy”
Yeah right. The biggest control freak on the planet, loves money more than anyone I know, and he is not aware of implications of the stock option backdating in his own company?
If you believe that, I got an ice skiing slope in Florida to see ya.
Steve Jobs is not guilty like OJ Simpson is not guilty. He got away with it too.

Even Fortune magazine (as pro Apple as they come)was not buying it:
The Apple iWash: Steve Jobs’s premature exoneration”
The second argument is: We don’t have to worry about whether Jobs was trying to backdate or springload options because “he did not . . . financially benefit from these grants.” Again, this is no defense. If a hypothetical CEO gave himself backdated options in a effort fraudulently to deceive shareholders and enrich himself, that attempt would be a completed crime regardless of whether the dot-com bubble subsequently burst before he could capitalize on the attempted fraud. (The bursting of the bubble did, in fact, wipe out the value of all Jobs’s options. Apple replaced them with 5 million shares of restricted stock, worth almost $75 million, in 2003.) And if a hypothetical CEO gave someone else backdated options, then it’s hard to believe that he really wasn’t benefiting financially–albeit indirectly. His company would have been benefiting–it was able to offer higher compensation to employees than its law-abiding competitors could–and anything that benefited the company would have indirectly enhanced the CEO’s compensation and the value of his stock.

The third claim is that we don’t have to worry about whether Jobs was trying to backdate or springload options because he didn’t “appreciate the accounting implications.” Well, that’s getting closer to a defense, but I still don’t think he’s there yet. None of us fully appreciated the accounting implications of awarding in-the-money options at that time; the rules were excruciatingly complex and everyone twisted themselves into pretzels to avoid ever having to grapple with them. The relevant question is whether Jobs understood that backdating was morally or legally wrong–and the filing doesn’t tell us the answer to that one.

Furthermore, even if Jobs says he didn’t understand that backdating was illegal or wrong, and even if we believe him, I’m still not sure that gets him out of the woods. Yes, ignorance of the law is a defense to some white-collar crimes (mainly tax offenses), but it’s not a defense to most others. (Look at Pattie Dunn, the former chairman of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), now facing four state-law felonies for having conducted an investigation that two top in-house attorneys repeatedly kept assuring her was A-okay.)

To me, Friday’s filing does not look like the curtain closing on this particular play, but more like the curtain closing on Act I, Scene I.”
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/01/02/the-apple-iwash-steve-jobss-premature-exoneration/

Marketwatch:
“In October 2006, Apple issued an unusual statement in which the company admitted that, while Jobs was aware of the backdating, he was unaware of the accounting implications.
.....
That position was undercut six months later when former Apple finance chief Anderson — who settled with the SEC — issued his own statement, in which he said he had warned Jobs specifically of the implications of backdating. See full story”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-jobs-haunted-by-backdating-scandal-again

26 posted on 10/27/2009 11:27:23 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Two: One person was found to have fudged paperwork to correct an oversight and Apple handed her over to the feds.”

Chortle!
“Fudged paperwork” and "oversight" by one person huh?
You Apple crazies just crack me up.
You are worse than 0bama’s White House propaganda machine.
Marketwatch:
Steve Jobs can't shake stigma of backdating
This week, another former confidante to Jobs came under the microscope of federal regulators. Ann Mather, who worked as chief financial officer of Pixar Animation Studios before then-chief executive Jobs dealt Pixar to Walt Disney Co, got the bad news this week. Mather, also a director at Google Inc., was notified that the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission had recommended the agency bring civil action against her related to the backdating of stock options

The move came almost exactly a year after the SEC filed similar charges against former Apple CFO Fred Anderson and former general counsel Nancy Heinen. Anderson settled his case, but Heinen is still on the hook and expects to go to trial sometime next year. Mather, Anderson and Heinen, through their lawyers, have strenuously denied wrongdoing.

In other words, there seem to be an awful lot of people around Steve Jobs who have allegedly had problems linked to the backdating of stock options. I'm just saying.
.........................
But as yet another executive who was once close to Jobs comes under the backdating cloud, one has to wonder: Is Jobs as innocent as Apple Inc. and its board have repeatedly claimed? Or is the government afraid to go after one of the most respected leaders of American business?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-jobs-haunted-by-backdating-scandal-again"

Fudged paperwork by one employee huh? Will you excuse me while I laugh?
This is a heck of a lot more than “fudged paperwork” by one employee. I can count 3 people here alone, and the SEC is not talking about no "fudged paperwork" here.

27 posted on 10/27/2009 11:40:31 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Three: The shareholders suffered no loss of value due to the backdating, as proven by a lawsuit over it getting thrown out due to the inability to show any damages.”

Maybe you'd better read this:
The impact of the options backdating scandal on shareholders
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V87-4V16627-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1067282904&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=587c68309ac3aeb3782157d1393dbf0c

And this:
Apple Execs Sued for Losses Related to Backdated Options”
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-execs-sued-for-losses-related-to-backdated-options/2214

And this:
July 2, 2008 10:20 AM PDT
Jobs, Apple directors face new backdating suit
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9982877-37.html

Your knowledge of computer industry history really sucks.”

Yeah? Funny, I seem to know more about Apple's ILLEGAL stock option backdating than you do. Plus I have continued to clobber you with ease in every single topic have debated in this thread, including this very one about Apple's ILLEGAL stock options backdating.

28 posted on 10/27/2009 11:47:22 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Despite one ambulance chaser that Apple paid off so he'd quit lowering shareholder value himself through his baseless accusations, you need to remember four facts:

1. Backdating was LEGAL and common practice in tech companies. Only the reporting and accounting requirements had changed, throwing many companies off.

2. The court ruled that nobody could prove any loss to shareholder value due to backdating.

3. Apple's investigation found two people who had fudged paperwork concerning the LEGAL backdating and turned them over to the SEC.

4. The SEC cleared Apple and Jobs of any wrongdoing.

Your claim of illegal reeks of libel.

29 posted on 10/28/2009 10:37:45 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Steve Jobs can't shake stigma of backdating

That's because people who hate Apple, like you, keep bringing up a settled issue. You do realize this hurts shareholder value, right? Of course you do. How much is Microsoft paying you?

This was an industry-wide issue, with hundreds of companies caught up in it. Some of them were actually found to be abusing stock options. Some, like Microsoft, stopped doing it years ago, taking a $200 million charge to do it (where were the shareholder suits over that?).

And, yes, fudged paperwork due to an oversight. It's illegal to do that even when you're doing it about something that was itself perfectly legal. Basically, she cut corners instead of correcting the oversight the proper, and legal, way.

Sorry, your innuendo and libel are going nowhere. The courts and the SEC cleared Apple and Jobs. It ends there.

30 posted on 10/28/2009 10:48:14 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Again you fail to realize that backdating was legal and common practice.

loves money more than anyone I know

Yep, he's really greedy for taking that $1 a year salary from Apple.

His compensation is almost completely tied up in the value of his companies. Stock options and grants are how he gets paid. He's so rich because he increased the value of his companies so much, not because he drew big salaries like most CEOs.

31 posted on 10/28/2009 10:52:17 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
is simply yet another pathetic attempt at anti-Microsoft FUD, based on NOTHING, brought on by the the panic that Applebots

Funny, the article was written by a Microsoft millionaire.

It is perfectly legal, for company to incorporate in a tax friendly state in order to maximum return or least expense based on regulations and taxation.

Unless you're using a shell company to evade taxes in the state where the real operations are done and income is going. The article, which you probably have not read (hell, you don't even read your own posts) lays it out very well.

32 posted on 10/28/2009 10:55:22 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Funny, the article was written by a Microsoft millionaire”,/i>

And that us relevant how?
Have you heard of Rob Glaser?
He was a Microsoft millionaire too.
He's spent the last 15 years doing everything he can to bring Microsoft down, including suing Microsoft in court several times.

Unless you're using a shell company to evade taxes in the state where the real operations are done and income is going”

Now why don't you show me where the IRS says that?
I have REPEATEDLY asked you to show me ANY statement from the IRS saying Microsoft is illegally evading taxes, and you have equally REPEATEDLY refused to provide any such evidence. You are waffling worse than 0bama on Afghanistan. Your posts is Pure FUD.
‘nuff said.

33 posted on 10/28/2009 1:55:41 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Again you fail to realize that backdating was legal and common practice. “

It was done by a lot of greedy clowns in Silicon Valley, but it sure wasn't legal.
Broadcom cofounder Henry Nicholas faces up to 360 years in jail on charges of backdating options and distributing illegal drugs.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1019/forbes-400-rich-list-09-broadcom-nicholas-after-the-fall.html

Yep, he's really greedy for taking that $1 a year salary from Apple”

Which he more than made up for, by giving himself massive stock options.

Stock options and grants are how he gets paid”

Stock options are legal. Backdating stock options to a previews date so you can make huge illegal profits at the expense of ordinary shareholders is NOT legal, which is what this is about.

34 posted on 10/28/2009 2:05:18 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
That's because people who hate Apple, like you, keep bringing up a settled issue”

Chortle!
Ummm.. I didn't write those articles.
Those 2 articles were from the Apple loving Fortune magazine, and from Marketwatch, which almost always shills for Apple.
One of the articles was written when the SEC brought up charges in May this year on the Apple stock options backdating scandal.
They are business publications. They SHOULD cover such a story, unless you are suggesting that Apple is above the law and Steve Jobs is The Messiah (0bama Junior), or that that Apple should get a special dispensation to break the law and not get it reported in the news?

This was an industry-wide issue, with hundreds of companies caught up in it.”

Hundreds of murders are committed in New York City every year. That doesn't make killing someone legal does it?

Some of them were actually found to be abusing stock options.”

Including Apple CEO, who settled with the SEC.

Some, like Microsoft, stopped doing it years ago, taking a $200 million charge to do it (where were the shareholder suits over that?).”

ROFL!
Microsoft didn't do options backdating.
They merely stopped offering any stock options altogether, which happens to be very legal.
Way to try and change the topic and throw ineffective laughable bombs.
What more ya got?

35 posted on 10/28/2009 2:21:14 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
It was done by a lot of greedy clowns in Silicon Valley, but it sure wasn't legal. Broadcom cofounder Henry Nicholas faces up to 360 years in jail on charges of backdating options and distributing illegal drugs.

So now we know you don't know anything about stock options or this case. Nicholas hid the backdating of stock options to make it look like they were granted on the earlier date. He purposely deceived shareholders for his own profit.

The practice as happened at most companies, including Apple, is to grant the options on the date they were approved and state that the starting date for calculating their value is on an earlier date. It is perfectly legal as long as it is an approved method of compensation at the company, as it was at Apple.

Apple's main problem came from a change in accounting rules that determined how the backdating is accounted for on the books. Many companies that used the legal backdating method of compensation were caught up in that.

Which he more than made up for, by giving himself massive stock options.

Impossible. The board grants the options.

Backdating stock options to a previews date so you can make huge illegal profits at the expense of ordinary shareholders is NOT legal,

Wrong again in the Apple case, as shown.

36 posted on 10/28/2009 2:36:02 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
And, yes, fudged paperwork due to an oversight. “

No fudged paperwork
Deliberate, pre meditated backdating of stock options by Apple execs in order to profit.
Former Apple finance chief Anderson — who settled with the SEC — issued his own statement, in which he said he had warned Jobs specifically of the implications of backdating.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/former-apple-cfo-says-jobs-was-warned-of-options-dates
“Fudged paperwork” huh?
Don't make me laugh!

Basically, she cut corners instead of correcting the oversight the proper, and legal, way”

Nope.
and currently 3 people have been charged by the SEC ( former Apple CFO Fred Anderson, former general counsel Nancy Heinen, and Ann Mather), so far, not just one woman. But hey, just keep ya head in the sand like an ostrich.

Sorry, your innuendo and libel are going nowhere. The courts and the SEC cleared Apple and Jobs. It ends there”

You wish.
The SEC has brought new charges against Ann Mather on this same stock options back dating. That means they are still investigating the case, and were not happy with the answers that Apple gave them.

37 posted on 10/28/2009 2:36:52 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
So now we know you don't know anything about stock options or this case”

I know the charges brought by the SEC.

Nicholas hid the backdating of stock options to make it look like they were granted on the earlier date. He purposely deceived shareholders for his own profit.

Which is exactly what Apple did, according to ex Apple CFO, Anderson (who settled with the SEC ..read pleaded guilty for a lower sentence/fine)— who said he had warned Jobs specifically of the implications of backdating.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/former-apple-cfo-says-jobs-was-warned-of-options-dates

Apple's main problem came from a change in accounting rules that determined how the backdating is accounted for on the books”

Keep telling yourself that.
They deliberately set out to cheat, and they were caught, and the SEC has already brought charges against 3 ex Apple execs on the matter.

Impossible. The board grants the options.”

Jobs controls the Apple board. He has put his own creatures on the Apple board since he took over.

Wrong again in the Apple case, as shown”

Apple's case has already led to THREE Apple execs charged by the SEC, with one guy having settled with the SEC, and the other 2 charges still ongoing.

38 posted on 10/28/2009 2:48:00 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
I know the charges brought by the SEC.

Which were dismissed against Apple and Jobs due to no finding of wrongdoing. You keep forgetting that part.

who settled with the SEC ..read pleaded guilty for a lower sentence/fine

Actually, he admitted no wrongdoing.

Keep telling yourself that. They deliberately set out to cheat

Wrong. I'll try typing slowly for you:

Backdating stock options at Apple was perfectly legal and a common part of their compensation package.

Yes, a common part of their compensation package. Apple granted backdated stock options 6,500 times (15% of all granted) during the period in question. Jobs got two of them, later canceled. Where do you think the rest went? Spread about among hundreds or thousands of employees, of course.

As for those who got in trouble, they were busted for circumventing internal controls for Apple's backdating policy and lying to the outside auditors Apple hired at great expense (27,000 man hours, a million documents examined) to investigate the mess. Apple caught them and turned them over to the feds.

As far as the big backdated grant to Jobs, that was approved in August 01, but not finalized until December 01, but backdated to October 01 (which was actually forward-dated from the time of approval). The problem came when the guilty one decided to make up a board meeting on that October day to say they were approved on that day.

The basic fact: The board intended to give Jobs those options at the August price, which was about the same as the October price. The December price would have cheated Jobs out of a lot of money they intended to give him.

In any case, this was later canceled by the board, which instead gave Jobs five million shares (not options to exercise, flat-out gave them to him). Those shares were worth about $35 million at grant time, and are worth about a billion dollars now (except Jobs sold half in 2006). And you're complaining about $20 million that Jobs could have made off the backdating?

The facts remain against you. Jobs and Apple are squeaky-clean and did the right thing all the way through.

39 posted on 10/28/2009 8:17:47 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Which were dismissed against Apple and Jobs due to no finding of wrongdoing.”

Which Apple CFO settled with the SEC(read pleaded guilty to save a trail, for a fine and no jail term).
Which the SEC is still psersuing charges against 2 more Apple execs obn the stock optiins backdating scandals.

You keep forgetting that part”

You keep forgetting the ongoing charges against 2 Apple execs, and the Apple CFO “settling” with the SEC..
Read above.

40 posted on 10/28/2009 8:22:21 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Actually, he admitted no wrongdoing”

You don't “settle” with the SEC if you have done no wrong.
What is there to settle if you are innocent?
Plus, even as we speak, the SEC is still pressing charges against TWO former Apple execs relating to the illegal stock options backdating Apple scam. Funny way to "drop all charges" isn't it?

41 posted on 10/28/2009 8:27:34 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Including Apple CEO, who settled with the SEC.

I'd LOVE to see evidence for that. Come on, show it. Back up your claim. Why would Jobs settle when the SEC cleared him of any wrongdoing?

Microsoft didn't do options backdating.

During 1990s, Microsoft Practiced Variation of Options Backdating -- Wall Street Journal, 2006.

They had essentially the same practice as Apple, except their backdating window was even wider.

They merely stopped offering any stock options altogether

Microsoft Annual Report 2009: "At June 30, 2009, an aggregate of 714 million shares were authorized for future grant under our stock plans, which cover stock options, stock awards, and shared performance stock awards."

Whoops!

What more ya got?

I got a lot if you keep throwing these demonstrably false claims at me. You're not doing well. You should probably quit.

42 posted on 10/28/2009 8:37:29 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Wrong. I'll try typing slowly for you:

Backdating stock options at Apple was perfectly legal and a common part of their compensation package”

How about this: You can type slow, you can type fast, you can type in big black letters, or in type Apple gay pink, it won't make one iota of difference to the fact that stock option backdating IS illegal
Nor would it make make one iota of difference to the fact that the SEC launched a MAJOR investigation into Apple for ILLEGAL stock options backdating.
Nor would it change the fact that Apple CFO was forced to settle with the SEC on charges relating to illegal stock options backdating.
Nor would it change the fact that the SEC is STILL pressing charges against TWO Apple execs for the part they played in the ILLEGAL stock options backdating scam, like I have already provided links to over and over again in my earlier posts, only for you to ignore reality, and keep coming back with the same lunatic Applebot nonsense.

43 posted on 10/28/2009 8:39:14 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Funny way to "drop all charges" isn't it?

Let's try this again: Something funny going on, company investigates, company finds the culprits, company turns them over to the SEC for prosecution.

The company and the CEO are in the clear. The SEC prosecuted the culprits. Is that so hard to understand?

44 posted on 10/28/2009 8:40:25 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Microsoft didn't do options backdating.

During 1990s, Microsoft Practiced Variation of Options Backdating — Wall Street Journal, 2006.”

Chortle!
Umm... my post was in reply to your post about Microsoft dropping stock options altogether, which you tried to compare to Apple's ILLEGALLY backdating stock options .
Not to mention, you are comparing Microsoft stock options being dated in the same month that the options were issued, to Apple backdating stock options back to YEARS, before the stock options were issued, something that indicates premedidated plot to commit a crime by Apple's execs.
That is laughable.
Even on top of that, Microsoft actually voluntarrily took charges for even that, with no SEC investigations.

From your own link:
“Those practices, which Microsoft ended in 1999 after seven years, amounted to a variation of backdating of the options, since they couldn't be priced at the low for a month until the month was over. That approach to compensation — retroactively locking in a low price at which an options holder can buy stock — has become the subject of a widening series of inquiries at other companies by federal authorities.
Unlike many of those companies, Microsoft voluntarily stopped the practice and disclosed it. In a news release issued on July 19, 1999, the company said it was ending the monthly-low policy and taking a $217 million charge

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is, Microsoft decided to take charge to cover this pricing of options within the same month they were issued, without anyone from the SEC demanding that they do so, with a gun pointed at their heads.
Apple had to ubderngo a tough investigation of their far more egregious backdating scam, and be under the threat of SEC charges, before they would do what is right.
Shows the difference between the two firms.

45 posted on 10/28/2009 8:55:41 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
“”At June 30, 2009, an aggregate of 714 million shares were authorized for future grant under our stock plans, which cover stock options, stock awards, and shared performance stock awards.”

Umm.. you left out this little part:

STOCK OPTIONS

In fiscal year 2004, we began granting employees SAs rather than stock options as part of our equity compensation plans. Since then, stock options issued to employees have been issued primarily in conjunction with business acquisitions. Nonqualified stock options were granted to our directors under our non-employee director stock plan until 2004 when we began granting directors SAs. Nonqualified and incentive stock options were granted to certain officers and employees under our employee stock plans. Options granted between 1995 and 2001 generally vest over four and one-half years and expire seven years from the date of grant, while certain options vest either over four and one-half years or over seven and one-half years and expire 10 years from the date of grant. Options granted after 2001 vest over four and one-half years and expire 10 years from the date of grant. We granted one million, 10 million, and two million stock options, respectively, in conjunction with business acquisitions during fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007.”

Oh dear!

46 posted on 10/28/2009 9:02:03 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
my post was in reply to your post about Microsoft dropping stock options altogether

No, my post was clearly about Microsoft doing backdating and then dropping the practice. Face it, you said "Microsoft didn't do options backdating" which is flat-out false.

I was wrong though. I thought you'd try to weasel out of that statement because the title said "a variation of." You instead tried a different tactic, lying about my posts.

Apple backdating stock options back to YEARS, before the stock options were issued

Evidence required. The one the girl is being prosecuted for was over a month, about the same time Microsoft used to date theirs. Apple's normal backdating practice was within the week.

Microsoft voluntarily stopped the practice and disclosed it.

That would seem to go against your claim that Microsoft didn't do backdating.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is, Microsoft decided to take charge to cover this pricing of options within the same month they were issued ... Apple had to ubderngo a tough investigation of their far more egregious backdating scam, and be under the threat of SEC charges, before they would do what is right.

Apple ordered its own investigation without being forced by the SEC. Of course you can't do what's right before the investigation is complete, because until then you don't know what is right.

Now about your claims that Jobs settled with the SEC and that Microsoft no longer issues stock options. Care to back those claims, or would you like to try to wiggle your way out of them? Or maybe you could just be honest and admit they were false.

47 posted on 10/28/2009 9:11:11 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Let's try this again: Something funny going on, company investigates, company finds the culprits, company turns them over to the SEC for prosecution.”

Let's try again shall we?
Illegal stock options backdating go on at Apple. After hearing about it, the SEC come in and launch an investigation into Apple. The SEC ends pressing charges against 2 Apple execs relating to illegal stock option backdating, and force the CFO to settle with the SEC.
Now, a company is it's execs, and it's employees, it's not the buildings. If top Apple execs who are in charge of finance, are found guilty of stock options backdating, that is the same as Apple being found guilty of illegal stock options backdating.
You can't turn round and say “Hey, these guilty people are separate from Apple, so Apple is not guilty”.

48 posted on 10/28/2009 9:12:46 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
Of course you ignore this part: "stock options issued to employees have been issued primarily in conjunction with business acquisitions..." And that's primarily, which means there are other times they issue the options.

They "merely stopped offering any stock options altogether," and yet here they are, issuing stock options.

Seriously, your lack of knowledge of the industry is amazing.

Oh dear, indeed!

49 posted on 10/28/2009 9:17:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The one the girl is being prosecuted for was over a month, about the same time Microsoft used to date theirs.”

Ummm..the SEC is currently pressing charges against TWO ex Apple employees. I have given you links to, over and over again, but you just can't see so good.

“”Microsoft didn't do options backdating” which is flat-out false.’

Dating a stock option within the same month in which the options were issued as Microsoft did, was not something the SEC considered worth launching an investigation into. However, the SEC DID launch a very serious investigation into Apple for options backdating though.
I think the SEC know when a criminal backdating has been done when they see one, like in the case of Apple, and when it's npt been done, as in the case of Microsoft.

Apple ordered its own investigation without being forced by the SEC”

ROFL!
Apple launched their investigation AFYER the SEC had already started investigating them, in an all too obvious, pathetic attempt to fool the SEC into thinking Apple was doing ‘the right thing”. It didn't work. Charges were still pressed by the SEC.
Meanwhile, the SEC never even investigated Microsoft for options backdating, let alone press charges.

50 posted on 10/28/2009 9:31:33 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson