RECENT TRENDS IN STOCK OPTIONS 

by 

Scott Jaquette* 

Matthew Knittel* 

Karl Russo** 

OTA Working Paper 89 March 2003 

OTA Papers is an occasional series of reports on the research, models and datasets developed to 

inform and improve Treasury’s tax policy analysis. The papers are works in progress and subject 

to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent official Treasury positions or policy. OTA Papers are distributed in order to document 

OTA analytic methods and data and invite discussion and suggestions for revision and 

improvement. Comments are welcome and should be directed to the authors. 

* U.S. Department of the Treasury. scott.jaquette@do.treas.gov, matthew.knittel@do.treas.gov 

** The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. karl.russo.wh00@wharton.upenn.edu 

The authors are grateful to Drew Lyon, Joel Platt, Jerry Tempalski, Andrew Bershadker, Thornton 

Matheson, and participants at the 2001 NTA Annual Conference on Taxation for their helpful input. The 

views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. 

Treasury Department. 
ABSTRACT 

This paper examines the significant increase in the use of stock options as a form of 

compensation for tax years (TY) 1997 (begins July 1997) to TY 2001 (ends June 2002). During this time 

period, we find that income attributable to the exercise of stock options more than doubled between TY 

1997 and TY 2000, then declined precipitously in TY 2001. Although firms can expense stock option 

income for tax purposes, we find that the net impact on federal income tax liabilities is limited because 

(1) the related personal income is concentrated at high individual marginal tax rates and (2) some firms 

cannot effectively utilize the full deduction to offset corporate income tax. We also find that stock option 

activity is heavily concentrated among firms in the computer and information management industries. 

Across all firms, we find that stock option income composed approximately one-third of the difference 

between book and tax income. 
I. INTRODUCTION 

Firms have traditionally compensated their employees through some combination of wages, 

salaries, commissions, or bonuses. Much less prevalent was compensation tied to firm performance, such 

as stock and/or stock options. Historically, performance-based compensation was reserved for corporate 

executives and officers of the firm. In theory, this unique form of compensation helped align the interests 

of management and shareholders. Although firms still use stock options to encourage managers to 

maximize shareholder value, their pervasiveness during the past decade suggests a dramatic shift in the 

utilization of this form of compensation. Firms now grant stock options to a much broader range of 

employees for myriad reasons. Potential motivations may include general productivity enhancement, 

attraction and retention of valuable human capital, reduction of short-run compensation costs, increased 

short-run cash flows, and higher levels of book income. 

The increasing prevalence of stock option compensation has implications for individual, 

corporate, and government finances. It also has implications for economic forecasters, because income 

attributable to stock options is typically much more volatile than traditional compensation, such as wages 

and salaries. In this paper, we document stock option activity for the five tax years (TY) beginning in 

July 1997 and ending June 2002.1 To provide the broadest possible illustration of the impact of stock 

options, we provide tabulations that examine stock options from various perspectives. For example, 

tabulations of total grant dollars and income realized provide insight regarding the impact of stock options 

on firms, their employees, and government tax revenues. Alternatively, comparison of stock option 

income to total Wages and Salaries used in the National Income and Product Accounts provides context 

regarding the relative size and importance of this income. Finally, industry tabulations illustrate the 

relative utilization of stock options across firms in the economy. 

1

 IRS’ Statistics of Income (SOI) division considers all firms with tax years ending July of year t through June of 

year t+1 to be part of tax year t. 
2 

This paper proceeds as follows. We begin with a general discussion of stock options and their 

impact on corporate and individual income tax liabilities. The next section discusses the data set and 

methodologies used in the paper. We then present stock option data and estimates of economy-wide 

stock option activity for grants, exercises and spread income, and the associated impact on federal income 

tax liabilities for TY 1997 to TY 2001. Next, we discuss the concentration of stock option activity across 

sample firms for TY 1997 to TY 2001, as well as industry tabulations for TY 2000. We conclude with a 

brief examination of the relationship between stock option compensation and discrepancies between book 

and tax income concepts. 

II. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS 

At the most general level, stock options are a form of compensation transferred (granted) to an 

employee, by an employer, in lieu of wages or salary. Stock options grant employees the right, but not 

the obligation, to purchase a specified number of shares of stock at a given price. Typically, the future 

purchase price (or strike price) is equal to the market price of the stock at the time of grant. Employees 

must remain with the firm for a specified period before options vest, typically three to five years. Upon 

vesting, employees may exercise their options. When an employee exercises options, he or she pays the 

firm the strike price for the shares, regardless of the then-current market price. The difference between 

the market and strike price at the time of exercise multiplied by the number of shares exercised is referred 

to as spread income. If an employee leaves the firm, outstanding vested and unvested options are 

forfeited or cancelled. Options not exercised by a date specified in the option contract, usually ten years 

from the date of grant, will expire. 

Unlike traditional cash remuneration, stock options’ ultimate value to the employee is dependent 

upon future stock performance, and thus is uncertain at the time of grant. When an employee elects to 

exercise their stock options, they may either purchase the underlying stock at a discounted price or 

receive an equivalent cash premium. This transfer from the firm to the employee becomes part of the 

employee’s taxable income for the year and appropriate taxes are withheld by the firm. From the 
3 

employer’s perspective, the realization of previously deferred compensation can be a cashless transaction 

if the firm issues new stock for the transaction. In this case, all existing shareholders bear the cost 

through stock dilution. If the firm wants to prevent dilution, it will purchase the shares on the open 

market and sell them to the employee at the strike price. In this case, the cost to the firm is the difference 

between the current market value and the price specified in the option contract. In either case, the 

employer may deduct the spread income paid to the employee from taxable income. 

III. CATEGORIES OF STOCK OPTIONS 

In general, two types of stock options are granted to employees: incentive stock options (ISOs) 

and nonstatutory stock options (also referred to as nonqualified stock options, or NSOs).2 For the 

employee receiving stock options, ISOs have certain tax advantages. If required holding periods are met, 

the spread income that accrues to the employee is treated as a long-term capital gain and taxed at a lower 

marginal rate relative to regular income.

3 If an immediate sale is not made upon exercise of an ISO, then 

the event is non-taxable, unless the taxpayer is subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). 

Conversely, NSO spread income is treated as wage income to the employee and thus, is taxable.4 If NSO 

shares are not sold immediately upon exercise, then the employee may also be subject to tax upon any 

realized capital gains or losses.5 

2

 Employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs) are sometimes considered a third type of stock option. Under an ESPP, an 

employee chooses to have a percentage of their salary withheld for a certain period of time, at the end of which they 

may use the withheld wages to purchase firm shares at a discount. 

3

 The shares must be held for at least one year after exercise and two years after grant. Otherwise, the sale of the 

shares results in a disqualifying disposition and the options lose certain tax advantages. In this case, the employee 

recognizes ordinary compensation income and possibly capital gains or losses. 

4

 As wage income, spread income on NSOs is subject to tax rates on ordinary income and Federal Insurance 

Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. However, other wage income for most individuals exercising options typically 

exceeds the contribution and benefit base for the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) portion of the 

tax. The hospital insurance (HI) rate applies for all spread income. 

5

 The tax basis of the acquired shares to the employee equals the option price paid plus the amount includible in the 

employee’s gross income. The employee’s holding period for such shares commences on the date of exercise. 
4 

Despite the tax advantages of ISOs for employees, other factors limit firms’ overall reliance on 

them. Perhaps most significant is the fact that firms cannot deduct ISO spread income in the computation 

of taxable income, but they can deduct NSO spread income. ISOs also have stringent definitional 

requirements and cannot exceed $100,000 in fair market value (calculated at the time of grant) per 

employee for each year of vesting. Finally, although ISOs are not taxable, ISO spread income is treated 

as a positive adjustment for AMT purposes in the year of exercise. This treatment may potentially offset 

some of the benefit attributable to preferential capital gains tax rates applied to the income in later tax 

years. Taxpayers must report this positive adjustment on the individual AMT return (Form 6251). (The 

amount of AMT owed, if any, at the time of exercise depends on a variety of factors on the taxpayer’s 

return.) Because individuals not subject to the AMT do not submit Form 6251, amounts reported on this 

form will not capture all ISO activity. However, reported amounts do provide a lower bound for the 

annual level of ISO spread income. These amounts ranged from $3.7 billion in TY 1997 to $17.5 billion 

in TY 2000. 

Although the dollar level for ISOs in TY 2000 is significant, we do not include this income in our 

annual estimates of spread income: only income attributable to NSOs is included. We do not include ISO 

income because: ISO income is not reported separately by firms, the income represents a relatively small 

portion of total option income, and corporations cannot deduct ISO income for tax purposes. One of the 

primary data sources used in this paper is firms’ 10-K financial filings with the SEC. Most firms 

explicitly report the tax benefit attributable to the deduction of NSO income in their 10-K filing. Because 

ISO income is not deductible, these amounts are not included. Across the five tax years used in this study 

(1997-2001), 71 percent of our total spread income estimate is attributable to firms that explicitly reported 

NSO tax benefits. For non-reporting firms, we base spread income estimates on stock option data found 

in the footnotes that accompany the 10-K financial statements. These data may include ISO activity. 
5 

Therefore, to adjust for the potential inclusion of ISO income for non-reporting firms, we reduce sample 

spread income estimates by three percent.6 

IV. PRIOR RESEARCH 

The dramatic growth in stock options throughout the 1990s has been well documented by 

researchers (Hall and Liebman (2000), Mehran and Tracy (2001), Graham et al. (2002), Liang and 

Weisbenner (2001), and Desai (2002)). Many authors have extended the seminal work of Black and 

Scholes (1973) regarding the valuation of options at time of grant, taking into account factors such as 

risk-aversion and wealth (Hall and Murphy (2000)) and potential future repricings (Corrado et al. (2001)). 

Although valuation of options at grant allows for improved measures of compensation trends (Lebow et 

al. (1999) and Mehran and Tracy (2001)), we do not address issues related to proper valuation at time of 

grant. Rather, we limit our analysis of stock option activity to measures that are easily quantified and not 

dependent upon growth and volatility assumptions inherent in various valuation models. 

Regardless of whether options are valued at grant or exercise, researchers have noted that stock 

options can have significant implications for employee, firm, and stockholder behavior. For example, 

Hall and Liebman (1998) document the strong, positive relationship between stock-based compensation 

and firm performance since 1980. Morgan and Poulsen (2001) find that options motivate managerial 

efforts to boost share values. Cipriano et al. (2001) find that the market negatively prices the tax benefit 

from employee stock options. Graham et al. (2002) find that options provide an important non-debt tax 

shield that explains the limited debt at highly profitable, option-intensive firms. 

Previous research has also attempted to quantify spread income paid to employees and the 

associated tax benefit to corporations (Sullivan (2000), Mehran and Tracy (2001), Desai (2002), and 

6

 Based on AMT data, we estimate that 89 percent of all stock options are NSOs. Sullivan (2000) assumes 80-90 

percent of stock options are NSOs. Hall and Liebman (2000) estimate NSOs account for 95 percent of option 

grants. Applying the 11 percent factor to the 29 percent of the spread income that was not reported yields 3 percent 

of the total, or a pro-ration factor of 97 percent. 
6 

Graham et al. (2002)). Relative to previous studies, we use a larger sample of firms (approximately 600 

per year) over a longer period of time (five years). We also employ a variety of measures to quantify 

historical levels and changes in stock option activity. The various measures we employ allow for the 

decomposition of spread income paid to employees into its two components: the number of shares 

exercised (i.e., prior grants of the firm) or market trends (i.e., the difference between market and strike 

prices). Finally, we match stock option data to tax return data for all firms included in the sample. The 

enhanced dataset allows us to derive the effective deduction utilized by corporations in a given tax year. 

Hence, we are able to determine the net effect of stock options on federal corporate income tax liabilities. 

V. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

To quantify recent stock option activity, we utilize data supplied by firms in their annual 10-K 

filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Corporate 10-K filings and annual reports 

are the sole source of primary stock option data because taxpayers need not itemize income that is 

attributable to stock options on their tax returns. When employees exercise their stock options, firms 

report spread income with other compensation such as Wages and Salaries and/or Compensation of 

Officers on corporate Form 1120. Similarly, spread income earned by employees is treated as regular 

income for tax purposes and is embedded with other wages on Form W-2.7 

Our final cross-section sample contains 3,069 observations for firms that were included in the 

S&P 500 and/or Nasdaq 100 indices for TY 1997 (tax years ending July 1997 to June 1998) through TY 

2001 (July 2001 to June 2002). If a firm was removed from either index but continued to be traded 

7

 Box 12 of Form W-2 is used to report miscellaneous income (e.g., adoption benefits) or deferrals (e.g., elective 

deferrals to a section 401(k) plan). Each relevant type of entry is accompanied by a code. Code V pertains to 

income from the exercise of nonqualified stock options. Code V was added to Form W-2 for tax year 2001. 

However, use of the code was optional for tax years 2001 and 2002 and very few employers elect to voluntarily 

itemize this income in Box 12 of Form W-2. 
7 

publicly, then the firm was retained in the sample. Alternatively, if a firm was added to either index 

during this time period, then the final sample includes data for that firm for all years. Therefore, the 

number of observations in any given year will always exceed the number of unique firms included in the 

S&P 500 and/or Nasdaq 100 indices. 

In general, these indices do not include foreign firms or American Depository Receipts (ADRs).8 

Spread income estimates will be understated to the extent that U.S. residents receive stock option income 

from foreign firms and the income is taxable under U.S. law. However, spread income estimates will also 

be overstated because many U.S. firms have significant foreign operations and a portion of the spread 

income they pay will accrue to non-U.S. residents. Although these measurement issues will not offset 

exactly, it is likely that the size of any net error is relatively small. In any event, it is not possible to 

determine these amounts using either tax or financial data. 

In July 2002, Standard and Poor’s removed seven non-U.S. firms from the S&P 500 index to 

make the index more representative of the U.S. stock market. Firms removed from the index include 

Unilever, Royal Dutch Petroleum (ADR), Nortel Networks, Alcan Inc., Barrick Gold, Placer Dome Inc., 

and Inco Ltd. Firms added to the index include Goldman Sachs, Prudential Financial, United Parcel 

Service, eBay Inc., Principal Financial Group, Electronic Arts, and Sungard Systems. The final sample 

includes firms that were added in July 2002 for all years that they were traded publicly. The final sample 

excludes firms removed in July 2002 from all tabulations. However, due to significant U.S. operations 

and stock option activity, Nortel Networks was retained in our sample. 

From the 10-K filings for TY 1997 to TY 2001, we record the employer identification number 

(EIN), fiscal year end, number of options outstanding, granted, exercised, and exercisable for each year, 

the respective weighted-average prices for options in each category, and the tax benefit attributable to the 

8

 Technically, the S&P 500 index still includes firms that are legally based in foreign countries such as 

Schlumberger Ltd. (registered for taxes in the Netherlands) and Tyco (registered for taxes in Bermuda). 
8 

exercise of stock options, if reported.9 Much of this information is available because Statement of 

Financial Accounting Standard No. 123 (FAS 123) requires firms to disclose the number of options 

granted and exercised during the year, and the average grant and exercise price for those options. 

Standard and Poor’s Research Insight (formerly CompuStat) supplies additional company-specific 

information including ticker symbol, pre-tax book income, stock price and market value at the close of the 

firm’s fiscal year, and information necessary to adjust for stock splits. 

To determine the tax receipt implications attributable to stock options, we use firm EINs to match 

data from 10-K filings to annual tax return data for TY 1997 to TY 2000.10 If a firm filed a consolidated 

tax return, we combined any separately reported option and financial data.11 Because tax data are not yet 

available for tax year 2001, we project 2001 tax income based on firm-specific book to tax relationships 

(excluding spread income) from tax year 2000. Tax data are from the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) 

Statistics of Income (SOI) Division. For each tax year, SOI compiles a stratified sample of corporate 

income returns that have been verified for accuracy and completeness. This sample is used to generate 

the population statistics that appear in the annual publication of Corporate Income Tax Returns. 

From these data sources, we estimate the spread income associated with stock options exercised 

during the year, the generated tax benefit, and the effective tax benefit (i.e., the amount that effectively 

offsets positive tax income for the tax year) for each firm. If firms reported the generated tax benefit in 

9

 Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 (APB 25) generally requires that firms that do not expense options 

record the tax benefit attributable to stock options as an addition to paid-in-capital in the Statement of Shareholder 

Equity. Effective for fiscal periods ending after July 20, 2000, material tax benefits attributable to options are also 

generally recorded in the operating section of the Statement of Cash Flows. However, not all firms disclose these 

amounts if the amounts are relatively small or considered immaterial. 

10 For a small number of firms, the EIN criterion did not result in a match to the SOI tax data file. These firms were 

retained in the final sample. For these firms, tax income was set equal to book income less spread income. 

Depending on the tax year, tax income was projected for 10 to 16 entities. These entities were relatively small 

because the SOI sample includes nearly all large firms. 

11 Unlike financial accounting standards, tax consolidation is voluntary and does not occur unless the parent 

company has at least 80 percent ownership of the entity. Consolidation of the non-tax data resulted in 

approximately eight fewer observations per tax year. 
9 

the Shareholder Equity or Cash Flow Statement, then spread income is equal to the reported tax benefit 

divided by the marginal corporate tax rate (35 percent).12 13 However, many firms do not report the tax 

benefit attributable to stock options in their financial statements. For non-reporting firms, we estimate the 

spread income deduction as the number of options exercised (reported) times the differential between the 

weighted-average market price (not reported) and the weighted-average strike price (reported) for 

exercises during the year. Because virtually all options are granted “at market,” we assume that the 

reported weighted-average grant price is also equal to the weighted-average market price for stock options 

exercised during the year.14 Because the option must be “in-the-money” to be exercised, we constrain 

spread income to be non-negative. If not reported by the firm, we estimate that the generated tax benefit 

is equal to 35 percent of spread income. 

VI. STOCK OPTION ACTIVITY: TAX YEARS 1997-2001 

To provide the proper context for tabulations presented in this paper, we note two issues. First, 

historical stock option activity can be quantified using two measures: the dollar amount of options granted 

12 To the extent that firms include state and local tax benefits with their reported tax benefit, this methodology will 

overstate implicit spread income for firms that report these amounts. 

13 As noted by Hanlon and Shevlin (2002), firms may: not report tax benefits separately, report tax benefits only in 

the Equity Statement, or report amounts in both the Statement of Shareholder Equity and Statement of Cash Flows. 

In general, firms will report the same amount in both statements if the amount was considered “material” and if the 

firms were able to utilize the entire spread income deduction for tax purposes during the given tax year. However, 

firms may not separately itemize these amounts in the Statement of Cash Flows if they did not consider the amounts 

to be material or if the firm incurred a loss for the tax year. Finally, firms may also report different amounts in the 

two statements. This may occur if firms were unable to utilize the entire deduction against taxes and they did not 

establish a valuation allowance against the increase in future net operating loss deductions. In this manner, amounts 

reported in the Statement of Shareholder Equity generally represent the recognition of the tax benefit, while amounts 

reported in the Statement of Cash Flows represent realization of the tax benefit (if any). For these reasons, we 

utilize amounts reported in the Statement of Shareholder Equity. 

14 This approach is similar to that used in Sullivan (2000) and Graham et al. (2002). Although we tested several 

other methods, this one proved both conceptually and empirically robust. Across all firms that reported tax benefits, 

this methodology produced estimates that were within 5 percent of the total amounts reported for individual years. 

However, we note that this methodology can also produce non-trivial over- or understatements for individual firms. 

An alternative calculation would be to use the weighted average price, based on sales volume, of the firm’s stock for 

the year. Because the majority of the spread income estimate is attributable to firms that report (approximately 75 

percent for TY 2001), any error due to our choice of methodology should be relatively small. See Desai (2002). 
10 

by firms or the amount of spread income received by employees. We present both measures because each 

has relevance depending upon how activity is defined. For example, the dollar amount of grants is 

relevant if we consider a firm’s or industry’s relative reliance on stock options as a form of compensation. 

If firm A granted 100 stock options at the current market price of $10 while firm B granted 100 stock 

options at $100, the implicit amount of future compensation paid to the employee would be much greater 

for firm B if the two companies had similar expectations regarding income and price appreciation. 

Therefore, firm B utilizes this form of compensation to a greater extent than firm A.15 This activity 

measure is motivated solely by a contemporaneous decision of the firm’s management about desired 

levels of future compensation, assuming that expectations of future share price prove accurate. 

Alternatively, the amount of spread income paid to employees can also be used to quantify stock 

option activity. Unlike the dollar amount of grants, spread income paid in a given year is generally 

determined by recent performance of the firm’s stock and liquidity needs of employees. If this measure is 

used to quantify stock option activity, then it is useful to decompose spread income into its two 

components: the number of options exercised (generally grants from four to six years earlier) and the 

difference between the market and strike prices for those options. This decomposition makes it possible 

to attribute changes in spread income to prior grants made by firms and/or general market forces (i.e., 

price differentials). 

The second issue we note is that tabulations for the number of options granted, exercised, 

outstanding, or vested are presented both adjusted and unadjusted for stock splits. For data adjusted for 

stock splits, we restate all options data in terms of TY 2001 share volume. For example, if a two-for-one 

stock split occurred in TY 2001, then share amounts for TY 1997 through TY 2000 are multiplied by two 

and stock prices are divided by two. This adjustment ensures that tabulations are consistent across time 

15 This simple comparison does not address each firm’s relative utilization, only their absolute utilization. 
11 

and growth rates reflect real activity, as opposed to growth attributable to stock splits.16 We also present 

unadjusted amounts. Unadjusted data are necessary to decompose changes in the annual level of spread 

income into price factors and the actual number of shares exercised during the year. 

A. Stock Option Grants, Exercises, and Spread Income Tabulations 

Data from 10-K filings indicate that stock option activity increased significantly from TY 1997 to 

TY 2000, then declined in TY 2001. (See Table 1, located in the appendix.) Between TY 1997 and TY 

2000, the dollar amount of grants (173 percent), exercises (49 percent), options outstanding (176 percent, 

includes underwater options, those with a strike prices that exceeds the current market price), and options 

vested (142 percent, includes underwater options) increased substantially. Between TY 2000 and TY 

2001, the dollar amount of grants (-23 percent) and exercises (-17 percent) declined while options 

outstanding (15 percent) and vested (43 percent) continued to increase. The dollar amount of options 

outstanding and vested increased because the dollar amount of grants exceeded the dollar amount of 

options that were exercised or cancelled/forfeited. 

Although the dollar amount of grants provides insight regarding firms’ contemporaneous use of 

stock options, this is not true for the dollar amount of options exercised, outstanding, and vested. For 

these tabulations, additional data are needed to provide meaningful context. Table 1 provides historical 

data for the number of split-adjusted and non-split adjusted options exercised, outstanding, and vested, 

and the actual or potential spread income associated with those options. For exercises, spread income 

estimates represent amounts paid to employees of the firm. For shares outstanding and vested, potential 

spread income estimates represent amounts that would be realized if the shares were exercised at the end 

of firms’ fiscal year. Potential spread income estimates are calculated using weighted average price data 

for options outstanding and vested supplied by firms in their 10-K financial footnotes and fiscal year-end 

16 If a stock split occurs, firms typically, though not always, restate the options data found in the financial footnotes. 

If this occurs, we restate all years inside the three-year window included in the footnotes. For years outside the 

window, or if firms do not restate past amounts, we make manual adjustments. 
12
 

closing prices. Tabulations exclude any negative amounts attributable to firms that, on average, have 

negative potential spread income (i.e., outstanding and vested options where the weighted average strike 

price exceeds the fiscal year-end market price).17 

Tabulations from Table 1 show that the number of options, adjusted and unadjusted for splits, 

generally increased in all years. The sole exception is TY 2001 when the number of exercises declined by 

approximately 1.0 billion shares. Although not shown explicitly in Table 1, the number and dollar 

amount of options cancelled or forfeited increased significantly in TY 2001 due to bankruptcies of some 

relatively large firms.18 

Similar to the dollar amount of grants, spread income paid to employees also increased 

significantly from TY 1997 to TY 2000, then declined in TY 2001. For sample firms, spread income for 

TY 1997 to TY 2001 is as follows: $43 billion, $61 billion, $91 billion, $111 billion, and $68 billion. 

(During these five years, reported spread income composed an increasing portion of total spread income 

estimates. For TY 1997, 55 percent of the total spread income estimate was attributable to firms that 

reported stock option tax benefits. For TY 2001, the reported share increased to 76 percent of total spread 

income.) Potential spread income estimates associated with above-water options outstanding and vested 

exhibit similar, albeit stronger, patterns. Potential spread income had already started to decline in TY 

2000 due to the broad bear market. The decline continued in TY 2001 as the drop in market prices 

overwhelmed the greater number of options outstanding or vested. 

17 We note that estimates of potential spread income are likely subject to a high degree of variance, because they are 

based solely on weighted average price data supplied by firms. For example, the methodology used in this paper 

will exclude some outstanding and vested options that were above water but were more than offset by those 

underwater. 

18 For tax year 2001, firms that filed for Chapter 11 with large numbers of stock options outstanding include Enron, 

Exodus Communications, At Home Corporation, and Global Crossing. For these firms, it was assumed that some 

employees were able to exercise a certain proportion of stock options prior to bankruptcy based on (1) the monthly 

stock price (i.e., how quickly the price fell) and (2) pertinent characteristics of options outstanding and vested from 

the end of the prior fiscal year. Therefore, although these firms may not file a 10-K for tax year 2001, stock option 

tabulations for 2001 include amounts for these firms for stock options exercised, cancelled/forfeited, and spread 

income. 
13
 

Dividing spread income estimates by the number of (non-split adjusted) options yields the 

differential between the weighted average market and strike prices across all sample firms. This 

decomposition illustrates that the substantial increase in spread income paid to employees from TY 1997 

to TY 2000 ($67 billion, 156 percent) was largely attributable to an increasing gap between the weighted 

average market and strike prices ($14.90 dollars, 94 percent); the increase in the number of options 

exercised (0.9 billion shares, 32 percent) played a lesser role. For TY 2001, the smaller wedge between 

weighted average market and strike prices had significant implications for actual and potential spread 

income. These data suggest that if the stock market remains flat, spread income realized by employees 

will likely continue to decline in the short-run. A stagnant market generally implies a narrower gap 

between market and strike prices, as the weighted average strike price on all vested options continues to 

approach current market prices.19 

B. Extrapolation of Sample Data to Corporate Population 

To extrapolate estimates of sample spread income to all corporations, we make two adjustments. 

First, we assume that the ratio of sample market value to total market value is also representative of the 

sample’s share of total spread income. We use the Wilshire 5000 index as the denominator of this ratio 

because it represents the broadest range of publicly-traded stocks that are headquartered in the United 

States. Therefore, like the sample, projected population statistics do not capture any spread income that 

may accrue to U.S. residents from foreign firms. Because most firms have fiscal years that end in 

December, market values used for this ratio are measured as of December of the relevant fiscal year. 

Although this ratio varies slightly across years, the sample represents approximately 85 percent of total 

market capitalization. Therefore, this adjustment increases sample estimates by the reciprocal, or 1.18. 

19 This general observation ignores any impact of a stagnant market on option holders’ liquidity needs or 

psychology. For example, it is possible that a stagnant market implies that a higher proportion of vested, abovewater options are exercised if employees or their spouses are laid off. 
14 

The second adjustment to sample data is for ISOs (not deductible by firms) that may have been 

reported with NSOs (deductible). Because our objective is to measure spread income attributable to 

NSOs only, we deflate sample statistics by three percent to account for embedded ISO activity. 

Therefore, the overall factor used to convert sample data to population data is equal to 1.14. 

Extrapolation of sample data to all firms increases spread income estimates for TY 1997 to TY 2001 as 

follows: $49 billion, $69 billion, $104 billion, $126 billion, and $78 billion.20 (See bottom of Table 1.) 

C. A Note on Repricing of Stock Options 

Between March 2000 and July 2002, the Nasdaq index declined by nearly 75 percent. As shown 

by the tabulations from Table 1, this drop had a significant impact on actual and potential spread income 

estimates for TY 2001. As a result, many options now have strike prices that exceed the current market 

price of the stock. In addition to any income and tax implications, these underwater options have 

diminished value as incentives to employees. Therefore, firms with significant amounts of underwater 

stock options may consider repricing them. A firm reprices options by canceling a set of existing options 

(with high strike prices) and reissuing them at the current lower market price. To the extent repricing 

occurred for sample firms between TY 1997 and TY 2001, the repricings would manifest themselves as 

cancellations and new grants. 

Although the repricing and reissuance of underwater options may increase future tax benefits to 

the firm, this action also has two negative consequences. The first consequence is a possible deterioration 

in the relationship between management and shareholders. Non-option shareholders may feel slighted if 

the value of their stake in the firm falls while those perceived to be partially responsible for poor 

performance are held harmless through repricing. The second consequence from repricing is reduced 

20 By comparison, Desai (2002) obtains the following results for fiscal years (years ending June of year t to May of 

year t+1) 1997 to 2000: $42.6 billion, $73.6 billion, $74.8 billion, and $106.3 billion. These figures represent 

amounts extrapolated from stock option exercises of the top five executives for all firms included in the ExecuComp 

database. Generally, the ratio of grants to exercises for the top executives in a given company is applied to the total 

grants for all company employees. These fiscal years lag tax years used for tabulations in this paper by one month. 
15 

book income resulting from unfavorable accounting rules. Due to an interpretation made by the Financial 

Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in March 2000, there is an increased earnings cost to companies for 

repricing options. Retroactive to December 15, 1998, FASB Interpretation No. 44, "Accounting for Stock 

Issued to Employees," determined that, unlike prior treatment, repricings result in a compensation 

expense. The expense is calculated on a quarterly basis as the difference between the value at repricing 

(or start of a quarter) and the market value at the close of the quarter. Thus, any incremental appreciation 

in stock price lowers the book earnings of the firm. This treatment is known as variable plan expense 

accounting. The variable expensing of repriced options eliminates a major tax benefit to firms versus the 

original issuance of stock options: no expensing of option compensation on the company’s tax return. 

However, firms can circumvent variable plan expensing. For example, firms may simply issue 

new options at the current market price without canceling the existing underwater options. Some options 

are so far underwater that any near-term exercising of those options is unlikely. Thus, these firms need 

not worry about providing greater than planned compensation to the employees (although the increase in 

outstanding options may eventually lead to dilution issues). Another strategy used by firms is to cancel 

underwater options and reissue them after six months, which avoids the variable plan expensing 

treatment. Because it is relatively easy to avoid variable plan expensing, if the market remains flat or 

declines, we would expect that a greater proportion of options would be cancelled and reissued than we 

have observed in the recent past. 

VII. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF STOCK OPTION INCOME IN THE ECONOMY 

Although it is clear that stock options generated significant income in recent years, this form of 

compensation is still small relative to wages and salaries, as measured by the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce. For national income and product account (NIPA) 

measures, spread income attributable to stock options is embedded in both the Wages and Salaries and 

Profits Before Tax (as a deduction) series that compose approximately 70 percent of National Income. 

For calendar year (CY) 2000, the apex of spread income payouts, spread income composed 2.6 percent of 
16 

total NIPA Wages and Salaries. 21 (See Table 2.) While stock option income is small relative to more 

traditional forms of compensation, the volatility of this income can have significant implications for 

macro and tax receipt forecasters. For example, when stock option income is included, NIPA Wages and 

Salaries increased 2.4 percent between CY 2000 and CY 2001. If stock option income is excluded, then 

the annual growth increases to 3.4 percent. 

For NIPA Profits Before Tax, the deduction of spread income had a much greater impact. Spread 

income deductions reduced NIPA Profits Before Tax by approximately 14 percent in CY 2000.

22 As 

discussed in BEA’s methodology paper, Corporate Profits, NIPA Profits Before Tax includes certain 

income that is excluded from book and tax profits (e.g., unreported income). In addition, NIPA Profits 

Before Tax also excludes certain income that is included in book and tax profits (e.g., capital gains). 

Therefore, a more useful benchmark for corporations may be a comparison of spread income to reported 

pre-tax book income. Table 2 compares tabulations of pre-tax book income for sample firms with spread 

income estimates. As noted, firms did not deduct spread income in the derivation of pre-tax book income 

for TY 1997-2001. Had firms deducted these amounts, pre-tax book income for sample firms would have 

declined between 10 to 20 percent. 

VIII. TAX RECEIPT IMPLICATIONS OF STOCK OPTIONS 

Although stock options compose a relatively small portion of total economic activity, they can 

have much greater implications for federal tax receipts. This section of the paper examines the recent 

impact of stock options on corporate and individual income tax liabilities. An important caveat to this 

21 Typically, NIPA measures are calculated on an accrual basis. However, due to the difficulty inherent in valuing 

stock options at the time of grant and placing any income actually realized in the proper year, BEA currently 

recognizes all spread income in the year it is realized by employees. For a discussion of BEA’s treatment of option 

income, see Moylan (2000). 

22 Profits Before Tax includes S Corporation profits, which are passed through to individual shareholders via 

Schedule K. Therefore, the impact on C Corporations is much greater than the amounts shown in Table 2. 
17 

discussion of “impacts” on tax liabilities is that we do not provide a formal counterfactual to the grant 

(and subsequent exercise) of stock options. Stock options are granted to employees as part of a total 

compensation package. Neither the individual nor corporate figures presented in this paper represent 

formal estimates of the tax revenue foregone due to firms’ utilization of options as a portion of this total 

compensation. To derive that estimate, it would be necessary to project the offsetting tax consequences of 

the traditional compensation that would have been paid in lieu of options. In addition, many factors 

besides tax considerations (e.g., productivity enhancement and employee retention) motivate firms’ 

decision to grant stock options. 

A. Individual Income Tax Liability 

Historically, individual income tax receipts have composed approximately eight percent of GDP 

in a given year. In CY 2000 this ratio, continuing a five-year growth trend, peaked at 10.3 percent of 

GDP. This two percentage point differential translates into an increase in individual income tax liability 

of approximately $200 billion for CY 2000. Many factors have been identified as contributing to the 

dramatic increase in the ratio of tax receipts to GDP, including: appreciation of stock prices, increases in 

effective tax rates, and general growth of the economy (Bull (2001), CBO (2001)). Although it is 

possible to measure certain factors directly, using individual income tax return data compiled by SOI 

(e.g., changes in capital gains income), the growth attributable to stock option income cannot be observed 

explicitly on individuals’ returns. However, individual income tax data do provide evidence of where 

stock option income may be concentrated. For example, the share of wages to the top one percent of 

individual income tax returns increased from 10.5 percent in TY 1997 to 12.7 percent in TY 2000.23 

Another potential data source for stock option income paid to employees is ExecuComp. The 

ExecuComp database provides information on compensation, including stock option income, for the top 

five highly-compensated executives of publicly-traded firms. Because individuals included in the 

23 Returns ordered by modified adjusted gross income (AGI); defined as taxpayer AGI plus tax exempt interest, less 

social security and capital gains income normally included in AGI. 
18 

ExecuComp database compose approximately 12.4 percent of total options-related income over the 1997-

2000 period, the data only provide insight to stock option income for very high income individuals.24 

(For 2000, spread income paid to the top five officers totaled $15 billion.) The vast majority of 

individuals included in the ExecuComp database are subject to the highest marginal tax rate. However, 

even if individuals are not included in the ExecuComp database, they will be subject to the highest 

marginal income tax rate if stock options push their taxable income over (approximately) $275,000. We 

assume that the weighted average marginal rate applied to spread income is relatively high due to the 

concentration of large dollar amounts at the top marginal tax rates. Based on an estimated distribution of 

spread income across the five marginal rates effective during the relevant tax year, we calculate a 

weighted average marginal rate of 37.3 percent. We apply this rate to the spread income base derived 

from the corporate data to calculate the associated impact on individual income tax liability.

25 For 

purposes of this analysis, we assume that the amount reported by individuals as taxable income matches 

amounts claimed by corporations as deductions. Using these assumptions, we estimate the impact on 

individual income tax liabilities for TY 1997 to TY 2001 as follows: $18 billion, $26 billion, $39 billion, 

$47 billion, and $29 billion. (See Table 3.) 

B. Corporate Income Tax Liability 

To derive an estimate of the corporate tax benefit attributable to spread income deductions, we 

apply a marginal tax rate of 35 percent to spread income estimates. If fully utilized, spread income 

deductions reduced corporate tax liabilities by the following amounts for TY 1997 through TY 2001: $17 

billion, $24 billion, $36 billion, $44 billion, and $27 billion. (See Table 3.) However, many firms cannot 

effectively utilize the entire deduction in a single tax year. For example, firms already in a loss position 

24 Share calculated relative to the population estimate of option income. 

25 Rate does not include an estimate of employment taxes. 
19 

cannot utilize the spread income deduction to reduce tax liability further. For these firms, there are three 

possible outcomes. First, the firm may file Form 1139, Application for Tentative Refund, to carry back 

net operating losses or capital losses to generate refunds from prior tax years. Second, the firm may carry 

the loss forward as a net operating loss deduction to offset future positive income.26 Third, some firms 

may never utilize the losses that are carried forward if the firm does not survive or fails to generate 

positive tax income. 

We calculate the effective spread income deduction as the portion that offsets positive tax income 

during the tax year. Tax income is defined as Net Income as reported by the firm on line 28 of Form 

1120. For example, if the firm reports positive tax income, then the entire spread income deduction is 

effective. If the firm reports negative tax income, then only the portion of the deduction that would 

produce positive tax income if the deduction were eliminated is effective. Therefore, effective deductions 

represent amounts that reduce current year tax liability, not liability from a prior or future tax year. 

For TY 1997, effective spread income deductions reduced corporate tax liability by $16 billion, 

95 percent of the tax benefit generated during that tax year. (See Table 3.) For TY 2000, effective spread 

income deductions reduced tax liability by $37 billion, 85 percent of the tax benefit generated during that 

tax year. As noted, micro data for TY 2001 are not yet available. To derive effective spread income 

deductions for TY 2001, it is necessary to project tax income for firms in our sample. We project 2001 

tax income for each firm based on (1) 2001 pre-tax book income and (2) book to tax income ratios for 

2000, net of the spread income deduction. We then deduct the 2001 spread income estimate to derive 

2001 tax income for each firm. Based on this algorithm, we project that effective spread income 

deductions reduced TY 2001 corporate liability by $18 billion, 67 percent of the tax benefit generated 

during that tax year. The proportion of the generated tax benefit that is effective has declined over time 

26 For TY 1997 to TY 2000, firms may carry net operating losses back up to two tax years or forward up to twenty 

tax years. Due to the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, firms may carry losses back up to five tax 

years for losses generated in TY 2001. 
20 

due to (1) a significant increase in the level of tax losses and (2) increased concentration of spread income 

to loss firms. 

IX. CONCENTRATION OF STOCK OPTION ACTIVITY 

Although sample tabulations presented in this paper include annual data from approximately 600 

firms, a relatively small number of firms generate most stock option activity, regardless of how activity is 

defined. To illustrate this phenomenon, we group sample firms into six size classes based on grant 

amounts and spread income paid for TY 1997 to TY 2001. Size classes include the following: top 10 

firms, firms 11 to 25, firms 26 to 50, firms 51 to 100, firms 101 to 200, and all other firms. Firms are 

ranked independently across tax years; we do not constrain firms to appear in the same size class over 

time. Therefore, tabulations merely reflect activity levels for a specific size class for a given tax year; 

they cannot be used to make general statements about a particular group of firms. In addition, the top 10 

firms need not be the same for the two measures of stock option activity that we employ. 

If activity is defined as dollars granted, concentration tabulations reveal that the top 50 firms 

compose a little more than half of the total amount. These firms also compose approximately 40 percent 

of total sample market value in a given year. (See Table 4.) If activity is defined as spread income paid, 

then the concentration ratio increases. For spread income paid, the top 25 firms compose approximately 

one-half of the total amount. These same firms compose approximately 30 percent of sample market 

value in a given year. For both activity measures, class shares are relatively stable over time. Therefore, 

the significant increase and decline in stock option activity from TY 1997 to TY 2001 appears to have 

been a fairly broad-based phenomenon for firms included in our sample. 

X. STOCK OPTION ACTIVITY ACROSS INDUSTRIES 

The pervasiveness of stock options in the computer, telecommunication, and information 

industries has been well documented in recent years. Characteristics that are unique to stock options may 

make this form of compensation more appealing to firms in these industries. For example, stock options 
21 

may help firms retain younger, mobile workers who have the human capital and flexibility to meet the 

demands of these industries. Stock options can also improve the short-run income statements of firms via 

improved cash flows.27 28 Core and Guay (2001) find firms use options to a greater extent when they face 

cash flow constraints and when the costs of external capital are greater. Prospective employees of these 

firms may also find options relatively more appealing if they value potential future rewards more than 

higher levels of immediate compensation and increased employment security afforded by other industries. 

To examine the relative utilization of stock options across industries, we group sample firms into 

industries based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for TY 2000. We use 

TY 2000 because it represents the apex of recent stock option activity and generally excludes the impact 

from the recently revised treatment of goodwill for book income accounting purposes.29 We define New 

Economy industries to include three industries from the Manufacturing sector (Computer and Peripheral 

Equipment, Semiconductor and Other, and Communications Equipment), three from the Information 

sector (Information and Data Processing Services, Software Publishers, and Telecommunications) and 

one from the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sector (Computer System Design and Related Services). 

In general, industries were classified as New Economy if they produce goods or services related to 

computers, communications, and/or electronic-related data services. We note that this definition 

27 The reduction of income taxes paid as a result of the deduction triggered by employee exercise of stock options 

constitutes an operating cash flow. Shareholders must balance this improvement to cash flows with the concomitant 

dilution to earnings per share when evaluating company financial statements. Firms also generate positive cash 

flows via proceeds from employees exercising options and from delayed compensation. 

28 Cipriano et al. (2001) find that the tax benefit from stock options increased average cash flow from operations by 

19.2 percent for fiscal years 1997 to 2000 for S&P 100 and Nasdaq 100 firms. 

29 Starting January 1, 2002, firms must generally write off goodwill when it is determined that the value of the asset 

has become impaired. Previously, firms amortized goodwill for book income purposes. While this change impacted 

some firms in TY 2000 (tax years ending July 2000 to June 2001), most firms were not affected in TY 2000 (e.g., 

taxpayers with tax years ending December 2000). A notable exception was JDS Uniphase. For purposes of 

comparisons to pre-tax book income, an explicit adjustment was made for JDS Uniphase. For tax year 2000, JDS 

Uniphase (fiscal year ending June 2001) declared a one-time reduction for impairment of goodwill of $50.1 billion. 

The firm’s pre-tax book income was adjusted to exclude this one-time write down. The firm is included in the 

Semiconductor and Other Manufacturing category. 
22 

combines some traditional manufacturers and service firms with truly “new” industries that did not exist 

in the previous decade. We also note that many firms do not engage solely in the activity under which 

they are classified. For example, many manufacturers also act as wholesalers and/or retailers for their 

products. Industry classifications merely represent a firm’s primary business activity, as defined by 

Standard and Poor’s Research Insight. For general comparisons, we classify all non-New Economy 

industries as Other industries. 

Table 5 presents industry data on market value, the dollar amount of grants, spread income, pretax book income, and tax income for TY 2000. Aggregated figures for New Economy and Other 

industries are presented at the bottom of the table. The data illustrate that while New Economy industries 

composed 30 percent of sample market value, their share of grant dollars (58 percent) and spread income 

(53 percent) was much greater. Conversely, New Economy industries composed a much lower portion of 

total pre-tax book income (17 percent) and tax income (18 percent). 

The data also reveal that spread income deductions had much greater significance for the book 

and tax profits of New Economy firms in TY 2000. To illustrate this phenomenon, the pre-tax book 

income and tax income tabulations each include an additional column: spread income / pre-tax book 

income and spread income / tax income plus spread income. The first additional column illustrates the 

projected impact on pre-tax book profits if firms had expensed spread income. The second additional 

column illustrates the actual impact on tax profits. For TY 2000, the expensing of stock options would 

have decreased pre-tax book profits by 54 percent for New Economy firms, compared to only 10 percent 

for Other firms.30 Notable were Computer Manufacturers and Software Publishers, whose pre-tax book 

income was eliminated completely. For tax income, the expensing of stock options reduced tax profits by 

44 percent for New Economy firms, compared to 13 percent for Other firms. 

30 Graham et al. (2002) find that stock option deductions represent approximately 10 percent of aggregate pre-tax 

book income for S&P 100 firms for FY 2000: deductions equal to $30 billion on pre-tax book income of $310 

billion. For Nasdaq 100 firms, stock option deductions eliminated all pre-tax book income: deductions equal to $69 

billion on pre-tax book income of $52 billion. 
23 

XI. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN BOOK AND TAX INCOME 

Currently, firms may either disclose the value of stock options in their financial footnotes or 

expense their computed fair value. Prior to CY 2002, nearly all firms elected to forego expensing.31 For 

these firms, spread income compensation was not deducted from pre-tax book income, but was deducted 

in the derivation of income for tax purposes. This divergent treatment of spread income is one of many 

factors that cause reported values of book and tax income to diverge. The Treasury Department (1999) 

noted that growing disparities between book and tax income growth rates may result from increased tax 

shelter activity.32 In response to the Treasury study, analysts noted that stock option compensation had 

become a significant factor contributing to greater disparities between book and tax income.

33 However, 

more recently Desai (2002) found that “increased sheltering is responsible for the distinctive breakdown 

in the relationship between book and tax income.” Desai finds that identifiable factors (stock options, 

unrepatriated foreign source income, and depreciation differentials) and unexplained factors (all other 

factors) have both been responsible for the increasing divergence between book and tax income. For 

1998, Desai estimates that unexplained factors composed a little more than one-half of the total book-tax 

gap for his sample of firms. Tax deductions attributable to stock options accounted for one-quarter of the 

book-tax difference in that year. 

The options-tax data sample constructed for this paper provides useful insight regarding historical 

discrepancies between the tax and book income concepts. Table 6 provides a simple comparison of pretax book income ( excluding tax-exempt interest ) to tax income for TY 1997 to TY 2000.34 For 

31 Prior to CY 2002, large firms that expensed spread income included Boeing and Winn Dixie. In an effort to 

increase investor confidence in financial statements, many firms have recently declared their intention to expense 

options. As of February 2003, the Wall Street Journal notes 143 firms that have stated they will expense stock 

options. 

32 See Treasury (1999) and Sullivan (1999). 

33 See Kies (1999), Sullivan (2000), Manzon and Plesko (2001), and Desai (2002). Analysts have also noted that 

many other legitimate factors (e.g., temporary timing factors such as depreciation, permanent factors such as 

increased investment in tax-favored assets, or issues related to consolidation) may explain any disparity. 

34 Due to significant changes in the book income treatment of goodwill, this comparison was not made for TY 2001. 
24 

TY 1997, pre-tax book income exceeds tax income by $121 billion for firms included in our sample. By 

TY 1999, the discrepancy increases to $274 billion. For these years, the divergent treatment of spread 

income can explain approximately one-third of the book-tax discrepancy. For TY 2000, the discrepancy 

declines and the spread income deduction composes approximately one-half of the difference. 

This simple comparison illustrates that the divergent treatment of stock option compensation has 

been a significant factor in book-tax discrepancies for recent tax years. Currently, firms need not disclose 

this discrepancy on Schedule M-1 of Form 1120, Reconciliation of Income (Loss) per Books With 

Income per Return. However, given the relative magnitude of the spread income deduction in recent tax 

years, this deduction may warrant separate itemization on Schedule M-1. 

XII. CONCLUSIONS 

This paper documents stock option activity for taxable U.S. corporations for five tax years 

beginning July 1997 and ending June 2002. We find that stock option activity increased significantly in 

the first four years as measured by the dollar amount of grants (173 percent) or spread income paid to 

employees (156 percent). For TY 2001, we find substantial declines for dollar grants (-23 percent) and 

spread income paid (-38 percent). 

Relative to existing literature that attempts to quantify stock option activity and spread income, 

we use a much larger sample of firms and utilize tax data to derive effective spread income deductions. 

Our results support previous spread income estimates. Our population estimate of spread income for TY 

1999 is $104 billion. Previous studies have comparable estimates for the same year: Sullivan (2000) 

estimates more than $70 billion, Mehran and Tracy (2001) estimate $116 billion, the Congressional 

Budget Office (2001) estimates a range of $50 to $100 billion, and Desai (2002) estimates $75 billion. 

Our population estimate for TY 2000 is $126 billion. Previous studies have comparable estimates for 

2000 as well: Desai (2002) estimates $106 billion and Graham et al. (2002) estimate approximately $100 

billion (S&P100 and Nasdaq 100 only). 
25 

We find that TY 2000 represents the apex of stock option activity. For TY 2000, we estimate 

total grant dollars for sample firms of $318 billion and total spread income for all firms of $126 billion. 

However, even for this historically large year, we find that stock option income composed a relatively 

small portion of total Wages and Salaries (2.6 percent). While relatively small, the inherent volatility of 

this income can potentially explain a significant portion of the movement in much larger series such as 

NIPA Wages and Salaries or federal individual and corporate income tax receipts. 

We match financial information from the 10-K filings to annual tax return data to calculate the 

net impact of stock options on federal income tax receipts. For TY 2000, we estimate that stock options 

increased individual income tax liability by $47 billion and decreased corporate tax liability by $37 

billion. We note that this calculation excludes any net operating loss deductions or carryback refunds 

related to options from other tax years. We also note again that we assume the relevant base of taxable 

personal income is equal to the amount of corporate deductions from stock options. 

For TY 2000, we provide tabulations of stock option activity and book and tax income across 

NAICS industries. We find that stock option activity for New Economy industries is significantly greater 

relative to Other industries. For TY 2000, New Economy firms composed 58 percent of total dollar 

grants and 53 percent of total spread income paid. By contrast, these firms composed only 30 percent of 

total market value. Spread income deductions also had a much greater impact on profit levels for New 

Economy firms. Spread income deductions decreased tax income by 44 percent for New Economy firms 

(13 percent for Others). Had firms expensed these amounts for book income purposes, pre-tax book 

income for New Economy firms would have declined 54 percent (10 percent for Others). 

We also consider the impact of stock options on discrepancies between book and tax income. We 

find that stock options compose a non-trivial portion of the discrepancy between book and tax income for 

recent tax years. If analysts compare these profit concepts over time in an attempt to make inferences 

regarding possible aggressive or illegal tax behavior, analysts should account for spread income paid to 

corporate employees. Spread income deductions are not only large, but, as illustrated by this paper, they 

are sensitive to general fluctuations in the stock market. 
26
 

REFERENCES 

Black, Fisher, and Myron Scholes. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of 

Political Economy 81 (1973): 637-59. 

Bull, Nicholas. “The Effect of Asset Price Changes on Federal Tax Liability.” working paper, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, November 2001. 

Cipriano, Michael, Daniel W. Collins, and Paul Hribar. “An Empirical Analysis of the Tax Benefit of 

Employee Stock Options.” working paper, September 2001. 

Corrado, Charles J., Bradford D. Jordan, Thomas W. Miller Jr., and John J. Stansfield. “Repricing and 

Employee Stock Option Valuation.” Journal of Banking and Finance 25 (2001): 1059-1082. 

Core, J., and W. Guay. “Stock Option Plans for Non-Executive Employees.” Journal of Financial 

Economics 61:2 (August 2001): 253-287. 

Desai, Mihir. “The Corporate Profit Base, Tax Sheltering Activity and the Changing Nature of Employee 

Compensation.” NBER Working Paper No. 8866, April 2002. 

Graham, John R., Mark H. Lang, and Douglas A. Shakelford. “Employee Stock Options, Corporate 

Taxes and Debt Policy.” working paper, March 2002. 

Goolsbee, Austan. “What Happens When You Tax the Rich? Evidence from Executive Compensation.” 

Journal of Political Economy 108 (April 2000): 352-378. 

————. “Taxes, High-Income Executives, and the Perils of Revenue Estimation in the New 

Economy.” American Economic Review 90 (2) (May 2000): 271-5. 

Hall, Brian J., and Jeffrey B. Liebman. “Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?” Quarterly Journal of 

Economics 113:3 (August 1998): 653-691. 

——. “The Taxation of Executive Compensation.” NBER Working Paper No. 7596, March 2000. 

Hall, Brian J., and Kevin J. Murphy. “Optimal Exercise Prices for Executive Stock Options.” NBER 

Working Paper No. 7548, February 2000. 

Hanlon, Michelle, and Terry Shevlin. “Accounting for Tax Benefits of Employee Stock Options and 

Implications for Research.” Accounting Horizons (16) (March 2002): 1-16. 

Kies, Kenneth J., Statement before the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Hearing on Corporate Tax Shelters, November 10, 1999. 

Lebow, David, Louise Sheiner, Larry Slifman, and Martha Starr-McCluer. “Recent Trends in 

Compensation Practices.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Finance and 

Economics Discussion Series No. 32, 1999. 

Liang, Nellie, and Scott Weisbenner. “Who Benefits from a Bull Market? An Analysis of Employee 

Stock Option Grants and Stock Prices.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

Finance and Economics Discussion Series No. 57, 2001. 
27 

Manzon, Gil, and George Plesko. “The Relationship Between Financial and Tax Reporting Measures of 

Income.” working paper, American Tax Policy Institute, January 2001. 

McGill, Gary A., and Edmund Outslay. “Did Enron Pay Taxes?: Using Accounting Information to 

Decipher Tax Status.” Tax Notes August 19, 2002: 1125–1136. 

Mehran, Hamid, and Joseph Tracy. “The Impact of Employee Stock Options on the Evolution of 

Compensation in the 1990s.” NBER Working Paper No. 8353, July 2001. 

Morgan, Angela G., and Annette B. Poulsen. “Linking Pay to Performance – Compensation Proposals in 

the S&P 500.” Journal of Financial Economics 62 (2001): 489-523. 

Moylan, Carol. “Treatment of Employee Stock Options in the U.S. National Economic Accounts.” 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2000. 

Sullivan, Martin A. “Let the Good Times Roll: Options and Tax-Free Profits.” Tax Notes (May 29, 

2000): 1185-1191. 

——. “A Revenue Estimate for Corporate Tax Shelters.” Tax Notes (November 22, 1999): 981-

983. 

——. “Shelter Disclosure Could Help Economists . . . and the Economy.” Tax Notes (August 19, 

2002): 1034-1037. 

U.S. Congressional Budget Office. The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011. 

January 2001. 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Problem of Corporate Tax Shelters: Discussion, Analysis and 

Legislative Proposals. July 1999. 
APPENDIX 

Table 1 

Stock Option Activity, Tax Years 1997-2001 (1) 

Annual Chan

Sample Data TY 1997 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 2000 TY 2001 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 

Number of Entities 611 624 628 610 596 Dollar Amounts 

Grants 116.6 150.2 239.6 318.1 244.7 33.6 89.5 

Exercises 32.2 36.5 42.9 47.9 40.0 4.3 6.5 Outstanding 263.5 353.2 522.1 727.9 833.2 89.7 168.9 

Vested 98.7 128.9 171.3 239.1 343.0 30.2 42.4 

Split Adjusted Number 

Grants 5.9 6.2 6.7 8.1 7.9 0.3 0.4 

Exercises 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 2.7 0.1 0.1 

Outstanding 18.5 20.0 21.9 25.4 27.6 1.5 1.9 Vested 8.1 8.8 9.6 11.4 13.4 0.7 0.8 

Non-Split Adjusted Number 

Grants 4.7 5.4 5.9 7.9 7.9 0.7 0.5 

Exercises 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.6 2.7 0.2 0.1 

Outstanding 14.8 16.8 19.1 24.5 27.6 2.0 2.3 Vested 6.7 7.5 8.4 10.9 13.4 0.8 1.0 

Spread Income 

Exercises, Actual 43.3 60.5 91.2 110.6 68.4 17.2 30.7 Outstanding, Potential (2) 201.5 312.1 427.1 346.5 164.3 110.6 115.0 Vested, Potential (2) 128.7 185.0 235.1 232.3 136.5 56.3 50.1 

Weighted Average Price Difference 

Exercises 15.91 20.51 29.56 30.81 25.74 4.60 9.05 Outstanding (2) 13.59 18.59 22.38 14.15 5.96 5.00 3.79 Vested (2) 19.35 24.80 27.91 21.31 10.16 5.45 3.12 

Pro-Rated Population Statistics 

Factor 1: Proportion of NSOs 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% Factor 2: Sample Composition of Total 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Conversion Factor 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 

Total Spread Income 49.4 69.1 104.1 126.2 78.1 19.7 35.0 

Annual Growth 39.9% 50.7% 21.3% -38.1% 

(1) All figures in this and subsequent tables are in billions of dollars or billions of shares. (2) Estimates for firms that, on average, have options that are above water. 
Table 2 

Relative Impact of Stock Option Income 

TY 1997 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 2000 TY 2001 

Total Spread Income 49.4 69.1 104.1 126.2 78.1 CY NIPA Wages and Salaries 3,888.9 4,192.8 4,470.4 4,836.3 4,950.6 

Percent Spread Income 1.3% 1.6% 2.3% 2.6% 1.6% 

Growth Including Spread Income 7.8% 6.6% 8.2% 2.4% 

Growth Excluding Spread Income 7.4% 5.9% 7.9% 3.4% 

CY NIPA Profits Before Tax 792.4 721.1 762.1 782.3 670.2 CY NIPA Profits Before Tax 

Plus Spread Income 841.8 790.2 866.2 908.5 748.3 Reduction due to Spread Income -5.9% -8.7% -12.0% -13.9% -10.4% 

Sample Pre-Tax Book Income 471.0 509.8 647.2 653.7 352.1 Sample Spread Income 43.3 60.5 91.2 110.6 68.4 

Reduction to Pre-Tax Book Income -9.2% -11.9% -14.1% -16.9% -19.4% 
Table 3 

Tax Implications of Stock Options 

TY 1997 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 2000 TY 2001 

Total Spread Income 49.4 69.1 104.1 126.2 78.1 Marginal Tax Rate, Individual Income Tax 37.3% 37.3% 37.3% 37.3% 37.3% 

Increase to Individual Income Tax Liability 18.4 25.8 38.8 47.1 29.1 

Marginal Tax Rate, Corporate Income Tax 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% Reduction to Corporate Income Tax Liability -17.3 -24.2 -36.4 -44.2 -27.3 Effective Corporate Deductions for Tax Year 46.9 62.2 91.8 106.8 52.3 

Reduction to Corporate Income Tax Liability -16.4 -21.8 -32.1 -37.4 -18.3 

Ratio: Effective Deductions / Total Deductions 94.9% 90.1% 88.2% 84.6% 67.0% 
Table 4 

Stock Option Activity Concentration 

TY 1997 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 2000 

Dollar Percent Percent Dollar Percent Percent Dollar Percent Percent Dollar Percent Percent 

Grant Amount Amount Activity Mar Val Amount Activity Mar Val Amount Activity Mar Val Amount Activity Mar Val 

Top 10 Entities 26.1 22.4% 11.0% 31.1 20.7% 13.9% 65.2 27.2% 13.3% 86.8 27.3% 14.5% 11 to 25 17.8 15.2% 11.9% 22.9 15.2% 14.0% 35.9 15.0% 17.5% 47.2 14.8% 5.9% 26 to 50 17.6 15.1% 17.1% 21.7 14.4% 13.3% 33.5 14.0% 14.9% 49.6 15.6% 21.5% 

51 to 100 19.7 16.9% 15.3% 24.5 16.3% 19.2% 35.1 14.6% 14.2% 53.1 16.7% 13.7% 

101 to 200 18.6 15.9% 16.8% 24.3 16.2% 15.4% 33.9 14.1% 16.2% 43.4 13.6% 19.3% 

All Other 16.8 14.4% 28.0% 25.7 17.1% 24.2% 36.1 15.1% 23.9% 38.0 11.9% 25.1% 

Total 116.6 100.0% 100.0% 150.2 100.0% 100.0% 239.6 100.0% 100.0% 318.1 100.0% 100.0% Sample Spread Income Top 10 Entities 13.1 30.2% 15.9% 19.7 32.6% 17.3% 34.2 37.5% 18.2% 37.1 33.5% 15.4% 11 to 25 6.9 15.9% 12.5% 11.4 18.8% 15.5% 13.5 14.8% 12.0% 19.3 17.4% 11.7% 

26 to 50 6.6 15.2% 11.6% 8.3 13.7% 13.1% 12.2 13.3% 14.6% 15.8 14.3% 14.4% 51 to 100 6.4 14.8% 14.5% 8.3 13.7% 15.1% 12.7 13.9% 17.0% 17.4 15.7% 16.5% 101 to 200 6.0 14.0% 16.9% 7.1 11.8% 14.1% 11.5 12.6% 14.9% 14.6 13.2% 16.9% 

All Other 4.3 10.0% 28.7% 5.7 9.4% 24.9% 7.1 7.7% 23.4% 6.4 5.8% 25.1% 

Total 43.3 100.0% 100.0% 60.5 100.0% 100.0% 91.2 100.0% 100.0% 110.6 100.0% 100.0% 
Table 5 

Stock Option Data by NAIC, Tax Year 2000 

Market Percent Grant Percent Spread Percent Pre-Tax Percent Sp Inc / T

Value of Total Amount of Total Income of Total Book Inc of Total Book Inc In

Mining 179.5 1.4% 2.1 0.7% 0.9 0.8% 13.9 2.1% 6.7% Utilities 363.2 2.9% 3.6 1.1% 0.4 0.3% 19.3 3.0% 1.9% Construction 8.2 0.1% 0.2 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 1.4 0.2% 3.1% 

Manufacturing 

Food and Apparel 552.9 4.4% 6.6 2.1% 1.6 1.5% 38.0 5.8% 4.3% Wood and Paper 153.2 1.2% 2.3 0.7% 0.3 0.3% 11.3 1.7% 2.5% Petroleum and Coal 472.2 3.8% 2.4 0.8% 0.9 0.9% 57.7 8.8% 1.6% Chemical 1,738.2 13.8% 21.1 6.6% 12.7 11.5% 60.1 9.2% 21.2% Plastic, Rubber, Metal, Machine 264.9 2.1% 6.7 2.1% 1.9 1.7% 18.1 2.8% 10.6% 

NE Computer and Peripheral Equiq. 957.6 7.6% 44.4 14.0% 18.0 16.2% 17.0 2.6% 105.6% NE Communication Equipment 400.9 3.2% 29.5 9.3% 6.5 5.9% 7.4 1.1% 87.9% NE Semiconductor and Other 591.0 4.7% 29.1 9.1% 11.0 10.0% 21.8 3.3% 50.7% 

Electrical and Other 245.6 2.0% 7.6 2.4% 1.9 1.8% 12.0 1.8% 16.2% Transportation 284.5 2.3% 4.2 1.3% 2.0 1.8% 32.1 4.9% 6.1% Furniture and Misc. 102.0 0.8% 2.4 0.8% 0.5 0.4% 5.3 0.8% 8.9% 

Wholesale 178.9 1.4% 4.3 1.4% 1.9 1.7% 8.5 1.3% 22.5% 

Retail 742.4 5.9% 8.2 2.6% 3.9 3.6% 34.5 5.3% 11.4% 

Transportation 158.4 1.3% 1.5 0.5% 0.6 0.6% 14.6 2.2% 4.4% Information 

Publishers, except Software 82.0 0.7% 2.2 0.7% 0.4 0.3% 4.5 0.7% 8.0% 

NE Software Publishers 756.7 6.0% 35.7 11.2% 14.4 13.0% 11.7 1.8% 122.8% 

Motion Picture and Broadcasting 443.1 3.5% 12.3 3.9% 4.3 3.9% 6.2 0.9% 69.4% 

NE Telecommunications 709.2 5.6% 30.3 9.5% 4.6 4.1% 45.5 7.0% 10.1% NE Info and Data Processing 108.0 0.9% 8.4 2.6% 2.8 2.5% -7.6 na na 

Finance, Ins., Real Est., Rental 

Depository Credit Intermediation 721.7 5.7% 13.2 4.2% 2.5 2.3% 62.6 9.6% 4.0% Non-Dep Credit Intermediation 506.7 4.0% 9.9 3.1% 3.5 3.2% 40.4 6.2% 8.7% Securities, Comm. Contracts, Other 247.2 2.0% 7.8 2.5% 5.6 5.1% 26.4 4.0% 21.3% 

Insurance Real Estate, Rental 606.8 4.8% 5.9 1.8% 2.1 1.9% 38.3 5.9% 5.6% 

NE Comp. System Design and Services 196.5 1.6% 7.5 2.4% 1.5 1.4% 12.9 2.0% 11.7% 

Management, Research, Admin. 101.4 0.8% 2.0 0.6% 0.6 0.5% 4.7 0.7% 11.9% 

Health Care 55.3 0.4% 0.6 0.2% 0.4 0.3% 2.8 0.4% 13.2% 

Service and Hotel 84.9 0.7% 2.0 0.6% 0.5 0.4% 6.6 1.0% 7.2% 

All Other 572.8 4.6% 3.9 1.2% 2.4 2.1% 25.8 4.0% 9.2% 

Total 12,585.8 100.0% 318.1 100.0% 110.6 100.0% 653.7 100.0% 16.9% New Economy 3,719.9 29.6% 185.0 58.1% 58.7 53.1% 108.7 16.6% 54.0% Other 8,865.9 70.4% 133.2 41.9% 51.9 46.9% 545.0 83.4% 9.5% (NE) Denotes New Economy Industry. 
Table 6 

Book and Tax Income Comparisons 

Annual Change 

TY 1997 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 2000 TY 1998 TY 1999 TY 200

Pre-Tax Book Income 471.0 509.8 647.2 653.7 38.8 137.4 

Less Tax-Exempt Interest 9.5 10.6 11.3 11.8 1.0 0.7 

Modified Pre-Tax Book Income 461.5 499.3 635.9 641.8 37.8 136.7 

Less Tax Income 340.1 312.5 362.3 410.3 -27.6 49.9 4

Residual Income 121.4 186.8 273.6 231.5 65.4 86.8 -4Sample Spread Income 43.3 60.5 91.2 110.6 17.2 30.7 1

Percent of Residual 35.6% 32.4% 33.3% 47.8%