| Members Area |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home Page | Reference Desk | ESOPs | Stock Options | Ownership Culture | About Us & How to Join | Order Form |
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
Home > Reference Desk > Plan Basics >
Employee ownership is one of the hottest trends in American business. Over 11,000 companies have employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) covering about eight million employees. Several thousand companies give most or all their employees stock options, covering another seven to ten million employees. In addition, millions of employees buy stock in their employer though 401(k) plans or stock purchase plans.
Most of the companies sponsoring these plans, however, have at least 20 employees, or they are startup companies that plan to grow quickly and be sold or go public. What about the typical small business, one that, like over 95% of all U.S. businesses, has fewer than 20 employees? (We've picked the number 20 arbitrarily, but it is a number that is often used to describe companies large enough to consider traditional employee ownership plans.) Not many of these companies share ownership with their employees. The existing employee ownership plans may seem too costly or complex, or their employees may be too impermanent, or their financial positions too uncertain to justify an employee ownership plan. This article discusses what approaches you might consider if you are in this position.
The information here is not designed to help a few managers buy a company. This is not what we mean by employee ownership. One or two people starting or buying a small business alone certainly have a tough time, and we wish them well. But this article will focus on the issues involved when a larger group of employees share ownership in a small company.
Companies share ownership with employees for a variety of reasons. For some people, the reason may be simply "it's the right thing to do." For most others, however, there are purely practical reasons to share ownership. Employee ownership can have benefits for owners of businesses, employees, and their companies. Among these are:
The word "ownership" is used in different ways by different people. Legally, ownership of a business is a bundle of rights to reap the benefits of that business and to make decisions about how the business is run. The basic rights in a business are the right to company income, the right to the surplus value of the company if the company is sold, the right to make decisions about how the business should run, and the right to sell all or part of the value of the business.
In non-employee ownership companies, employees receive the right to some of the company's income through wages, but not other rights. Employee ownership companies involve employees in some or all of the other myriad rights of ownership.
The particular way in which the rights of ownership are assigned to owners in the company depends on its legal structure. A business must be set up in one of three ways: as a sole proprietorship, as a partnership, or as a corporation. In a sole proprietorship, business property, liability, and income are treated as the personal property of a single person. These businesses will have to first establish a partnership or incorporate to share ownership with employees.
A partnership is composed of two or more partners who carry on a venture for profit. Income is passed through to partners and taxed at personal income tax rates. Each partner is liable for all the debts and obligations of the partnership. A partnership can also have limited partners, who are not liable for debts and obligations but receive income like other partners. Limited partners cannot take an active part in the management or operation of the company, which generally means that employees cannot be limited partners.
Partnerships are problematic for employee ownership. Due to the legal treatment of partnerships, the more partners, the more chance there is that a partnership will run into problems. One problem is that the whole partnership can be committed to a binding contract by any one partner. Another is that the whole partnership can be liable for the wrongful acts of any one partner. Also, partnerships may require consensual decision making on many issues and may legally terminate with the departure of only one partner.
If there are only a few employees at the company who have a close working relationship with each other, a partnership might be a workable and inexpensive way to share ownership. When this is not the case, partnerships will not be a good option for employee ownership.
Most employee ownership companies are corporations. In a stock corporation, the corporation distributes the rights of ownership by issuing shares to "shareholders." Shareholders have limited rights and responsibilities, with the formal responsibilities of ownership conferred on a board of directors. In a corporation, shareholders can only lose the investment they make to buy shares -- they are not liable for the corporation's debts.
There are actually three kinds of corporations, C, S, and limited liability, that differ according to their tax treatment. In "C" corporations, profits are taxed at corporate income tax rates. "S" corporations profits are taxed at the individual rates of shareholders. In some states, there are also "Limited Liability Corporations" (LLCs), which combine elements of the "S" and "C" structure. Because of the way these tax rates compare, most employee ownership corporations are "C" corporations.
In most small businesses, the corporate structure is only a formality to satisfy the letter of the law. In practice there are usually only one or two owners, who make all the decisions. Employee ownership companies, however, must pay closer attention to the legal mechanics of ownership, because there are more people involved in ownership and the allocation of rights between different owners is more complicated. Also, employee ownership companies use less traditional and more complicated ownership arrangements than other companies.
Ownership can be shared directly with employees through partnerships or corporations, and also indirectly through tax-exempt benefit trusts. However, if the company meets certain qualifications, it can receive important tax benefits. Cooperatives, employee stock ownership plans, and profit sharing plans are the most common tax-benefited ownership structures in small businesses, although others exist. Each of these options is detailed below.
The following may seem like a wide range of complicated choices, but most companies will be able to quickly narrow down the choices. For example, only companies that want to share control on a one-person/one-vote basis can use cooperatives, while profit sharing plans are unwieldy mechanisms for majority employee ownership. In choosing a plan, companies should consider set-up costs, potential tax benefits, and whether the requirements of the plan fit with the company's goals for employee ownership.
A partnership agreement can share decision making, profits, asset value, liability, and many other aspects and benefits of running a small business. A partnership can involve any number of partners, who may or may not be employees of the partnership. However, because of potential liability problems, such as the ability of a single partner to obligate the entire partnership to a contract, as well as the usual tax and liability advantages of incorporation, it is probably best to use partnerships to share ownership among only a small number of people. Partnerships will generally be the cheapest way to share ownership among less than five or six employees. Using self-help books, you can probably write a partnership agreement yourself and pay for legal counsel only to review the completed agreement.
A limited liability corporation (LLC) is very similar to a partnership, except that it provides that the partners are not liable for the debts and other obligations of the company should the company be unable to fulfill them. Ownership in these companies could be shares by extending partnership to additional employees or by giving employees an option to purchase a partnership interest at a price fixed today for a number of years into the future. Because neither LLCs or partnerships are commonly used for broad employee ownership, however, we do not discuss them further here.
Any incorporated business, no matter how small, can give or sell shares directly to employees. New shares can be created or they can be purchased from a previous owner. If employees acquire shares directly, they become direct owners, and can exercise all the rights associated with ownership, including a share of the company's equity value and voting rights. Employees can receive shares that give only voting rights, only equity rights, or both, and with any percentage of the total voting or equity stake. Employees can be allowed to resell their shares freely, or resale can be limited for any reasonable business purpose. If employees buy shares, the company must obtain an exemption from securities registration. Most private companies can obtain a so-called "Section 701 exemption" or another exemption from federal registration. However, an exemption from federal registration requirements does not always provide an exemption under state rules. Moreover, companies must still file anti-fraud disclosure statements to employees. This can cost several thousands of dollars on up.
With "restricted stock," companies can grant employees shares that are subject to restrictions. Under these plans, an employee receives a defined number of company shares that are subject to forfeiture and transfer restrictions unless certain qualifications are met, such as the employee staying with the company for a defined number of years, the company meeting specified profit goals, or the employee meeting individual goals. While the restrictions are in place, the employee could still be eligible for any dividends paid on the shares and could be allowed to vote them as well.
Taxation of shares is complicated, and the advice of a tax attorney may need to be sought in specific cases. However, the following rules should generally apply:
These tax obligations must be considered carefully. Being able to deduct the cost of shares substantially reduces the cost of direct employee ownership for the company. On the other hand, few employees will be able to or want to cover the cost of taxes on shares for which they may receive no financial benefits for many years.
As for cost, direct ownership usually requires less specialized legal services than other employee ownership options. A typical set-up cost is $3,000-$5,000. With thorough preparation this cost may be much less. In general, the simpler the share arrangement, the cheaper it will be to set up.
A slightly different arrangement than allocating all ownership rights through shares is to transfer some rights to a trust, which is managed by a trustee. Legally, the trust is the owner of the shares, but the trust has certain obligations to the employee. For example, the trustee can be obligated to vote all the shares according to the vote of the majority of employees and to transfer equity rights to employees when they leave the company.
Cooperatives are a type of company in which control is on a one person/one vote basis. Cooperatives can be set up as partnerships or corporations, and in some states, there are worker cooperative statutes. Whatever form a cooperative takes (most are set up as corporations), they qualify for special federal tax benefits. Cooperatives are the oldest form of employee ownership in the United States, dating from the early 1800s. Although they are not common in larger businesses, they make up a large portion of small employee-owned businesses.
Formal voting control must be on a one-person/one-vote basis. Usually most employees must be shareholders, although as many as half can sometimes be excluded. Generally, a cooperative cannot pay dividends, and must pay out any excess earnings not held in the company to employee shareholders based on salary, time worked, or some other work-related basis. However, if non-employee owners have a small percentage equity share and return on investment is limited, these owners can still be rewarded through dividends.
Persons who sell shares to a worker cooperative are exempt from capital gains taxes if the gain is reinvested in U.S. securities. Cooperatives are exempt from double taxation on dividends to employees that are based on time worked or salary rather than equity. Most small businesses will not need to pay out dividends anyway (see discussion in Financial Benefits in a Corporation), but this exemption gives cooperatives more flexible tax planning options than other corporations, letting them treat profits like either an "S" or a "C" corporation without changing their legal structure.
Set-up costs for cooperatives are even cheaper than direct ownership plans for two reasons: worker cooperative laws in many states make it simple to incorporate and qualify as a cooperative; and, there are professionals and organizations offering inexpensive services or financial support for cooperatives.
Typically, a worker cooperative makes employees owners after a probation period. Employees than either buy shares of stock that have real equity value that fluctuates with the company's value or they purchase a membership share, which has a fixed value that may or may not have interest added on to it as the employee accumulates seniority. When an employee leaves, either the cooperative or another employee buys the share (if it is real equity), or (if it is a membership share), the cooperative pays off the employee and a new employee buys a share at the base price.
Most cooperatives establish an internal account to which profits are allocated, usually to all cooperative members based on hours worked or some other equitable measurement of their contribution. These profits are deductible to the company, but taxable to the employee. When employees leave, they are paid out their account balances, usually with interest. In the interim, cooperatives may also pass some of the profits directly through to members, perhaps to help them pay taxes they owe on the profits allocated to their accounts.
ESOPs are the most commonly used form of employee ownership in the U.S. Qualifying as an ESOP allows a company to receive valuable tax benefits. However, ESOPs are complicated and expensive to set up, and for small companies, the tax benefits will not always compensate.
Because of complex and stringent regulations, ESOPs will probably cost a minimum of $20,000 to install, and several thousand dollars annually to maintain. An ESOP company must have annual independent business valuations, which accounts for much of these costs. ESOPs also require the most specialized legal and financial services of structures discussed here.
With an ESOP, stock must be held in a trust. Each participating employee has an account in the trust. Stock is placed in an employee's account only during employment. The employee can receive dividends on the shares, but usually cannot sell the shares until leaving the company. Employees are usually prohibited from putting up money to purchase the stock. Generally, the company borrows or uses available funds to buy the shares from their current owners and contributes those shares to the trust, or contributes new shares.
When employees leave the company, they become direct owners of the vested shares in their accounts. The company must offer to repurchase the shares from the employee in cash. The company may retain the first right to buy the former employee's shares before the employee may offer the shares for sale to anyone else. Shares must be distributed in a "nondiscriminatory" manner. Generally, this means that most full-time employees must be included in the plan, and that the majority of the benefits cannot go to top managers, corporate officers, or highly paid employees. Allocation is by relative pay or some more equal formula.
ESOPs offer excellent tax advantages. Generally, contributions to an ESOP are immediately deductible up to 25% of the company's annual payroll. Employees do not pay taxes until they actually receive their stock after they leave the company. (Compare this to the tax treatment of direct ownership discussed above.) Persons who sell shares to an ESOP in a C corporation can defer capital gains taxes if they reinvest the money from the sale in qualified U.S. securities, and the ESOP owns 30% or more of the company's shares. In an S corporation, and ESOP, like any owner, receives an annual statement of the profits of the corporation attributable to its percentage of ownership, but, unlike these other owners, it does not have to pay tax on this amount. This special tax benefit means that 100% S corporation ESOPs pay no federal tax. (Note: To avoid tax evasion, federal law now restricts the use of S corporation ESOPs.)
ESOPs are covered thoroughly in the ESOP area of this site. A good place to start is with our Interactive Introduction to ESOPs.
Legally, profit sharing plans have nothing to do with "profits," although most companies contribute to them based on profits. They are simply a confusingly named type of benefit plan governed by ERISA, similar to an ESOP. Because of legal requirements placed on these plans, they are probably risky for a small company unless only a small percentage of the plan's holdings (less than 15%) are the company's stock. They are, however, a relatively inexpensive way to give employees an equity share of the company while protecting them from short-term tax obligations.
As with an ESOP, the company must place assets in a trust, employees get accounts in the trust, and the plan is governed by a trustee. The trust can hold cash, stock of other companies, or the sponsoring company's stock.
The trustee has a legal responsibility to make sure that the funds of the profit sharing plan are "prudently invested." The law is not clear on the extent of this obligation, but putting all of the plan's assets in the stock of a small business may not be considered prudent. If only about 15% to 30% of the plan's assets are in company stock, the company will probably be safe.
The major tax benefits of a profit sharing plan are that, like an ESOP, contributions to the plan are immediately deductible by the company, and the employees pay taxes only when they actually receive direct ownership of the shares.
Set-up costs will probably be on the order of several thousand dollars or more Profit sharing plans usually cost more than cooperatives or direct ownership, but cost less than ESOPs because they do not require an independent valuation and because there are "safe harbor" plans, that is, model plans that the IRS guarantees will qualify as a profit sharing plan, which can simply be copied by your attorney. While share valuation is not legally required, it is highly advisable.
In addition to the formal employee ownership plans outlined above, companies can share ownership through plans normally intended for other purposes. For instance, many companies now have 401(k) plans. These savings plans allow employees to put part of their pay on a pretax basis into a company sponsored trust. They must be given at least four investment options. Companies often match employee contributions, usually at 25% to 75%. Companies can just match in newly issued shares of company stock. There are no special fiduciary rules for this, but the issuance of these shares will dilute the holdings of other owners. Any shares contributed by the company should be subject to an annual outside appraisal. Because of securities rules, it is not practical for small companies to offer their own stock as an employee investment option.
Stock options give an employee the right to purchase shares at a price fixed today (the grant price) for a defined number of years into the future (the exercise term). Options usually are subject to vesting, so an employee might get, for instance, the right to purchase 25% of the shares available under the option grant after two years, 50% after three, 75% after four, and 100% after five. The exercise term is most commonly 10 years.
There are two kinds of options: non-qualified options (NSOs) and incentive options (ISOs). Anyone can receive an NSO; only employees are eligible for ISOs. Under an NSO, the employee can receive the right to purchase shares at any price (although some states require the price not be less than 85% of fair market value, something usually set by the board or an appraiser in closely held companies, and offerings under 85% can create tax issues). Almost always, the offering is a fair market value price. Once vested, the options can be exercised (that is, the employee can buy the shares) any time until they expire. When the employee does buy the shares, the spread between the grant and exercise price is tax deductible to the company and taxable as ordinary income to the employee.
In an ISO, when the employee exercises, if the shares are held at least one year after exercise and two years after grant, the employee does not have to pay tax until the shares are sold, and then pays capital gains taxes. The company, however, does not get a tax deduction. Employees cannot receive more than $100,000 in options that become exercisable in any one year (that is, they become fully vested), must be granted options at not less than fair market value for the option (or 110% for 10% owners), and cannot hold the options more than 90 days after leaving employment. If the terms of an ISO are not met, they are treated like an NSO.
Closely held companies issuing options must decide on how to make a market for them once they are exercised. Some companies say that the shares can only be sold, or even that the options can only be exercised, on going public or being acquired; others provide internal markets by having the company repurchase the shares or allowing other employees to buy the shares.
Generally, options do not show up as a cost on the company's income statement until they are exercised, at which time the spread becomes a compensation cost. There are some exceptions to this, however, when companies make changes in existing option plans.
Options do not provide employees with any control rights (unless the company creates these rights) until the shares are purchased, and even then the company can provide that only non-voting shares can be bought. The number of shares that will be in employee hands at any time because of the exercise of options is usually quite small as a percentage of total shares. Option plans are particularly popular with fast-growing companies that plan to be acquired or go public, but as long as companies can provide a market for the options, there is no technical or legal reason for a closely held company not to offer them.
Stock options are covered thoroughly in the options area of this site.
For most small businesses, the costs of using employee ownership will be an important factor in selecting a plan. Employee ownership plans are complicated, and often require specialized professional services, such as securities or employee benefits lawyers, employee benefits plan administrators, and business valuation consultants. A company can expect, at minimum, to spend $20,000 setting up an ESOP. Profit sharing plans are about half the price of ESOPs. Direct ownership through corporations and partnerships and cooperatives are usually the cheapest options. Still, even these options often costs as much as a few thousand dollars.
Plan costs are not the only consideration, however. The more expensive plans may pay for themselves through their tax benefits. When an owner is selling out a majority interest in a company to employees, there are tax benefits to the selling owner and to lenders that often make the ESOP, expensive as it seems, more than pay for itself. Another important consideration is the ability of ESOPs and profit sharing plans both to avoid short-term employee tax obligations and to allow the company to take an immediate tax deduction. Finally, other financial benefits of employee ownership, like increased employee retention or company performance, may make up for the costs. And, although costs may be high, they may seem cheaper when compared to alternatives, for example, selling the business through a broker rather than through an ESOP.
A basic decision to be made is whether employees will receive their ownership stake by buying shares, receiving them as part of their compensation, or some combination. There are trade-offs involved with either approach. What works will depend on the desires and financial needs of the employees, the current owner, and the company, as well as how quickly all parties want to transfer ownership.
From the viewpoint of the company, it is advantageous if employees are willing and able to pay for shares (assuming securities registration can be avoided). It may be necessary for employees to put up money in order to complete a buyout, to convince lenders that employees will be committed to the employee-owned company, or because the company is not able to purchase or give away the shares. However, there has not been great success with employee ownership that relies on employees to put up their own money to buy shares. Lower and middle income employees have little extra income to spend on long-term savings of any kind, much less on risky investments in small companies. Employees can always refuse to buy or accept stock (unless it is a mandatory condition for employment). In most cases where ownership is for sale to employees rather than given as a benefit of employment and buying stock is not mandatory, only a few highly paid employees will participate, if any. Also, selling stock to employees who are not experienced investors may sometimes impose a legal obligation on the company to make sure that the employee is making a prudent investment, something that is not always easy to guarantee.
Companies have been more successful at involving a broad range of employees in ownership when employees are given shares as part of compensation. Part of the success of the ESOP has been that it relies on company funds to buy shares, and employees have no immediate financial obligations. When the company assumes the obligations, the difficult process of convincing employees of the value of stock investment and helping them raise the money to buy shares can be avoided.
Generally, then, asking employees to take on the burden of buying shares may not work, except when employees have high incomes or they are highly motivated, for example, when starting a company from scratch or in an employee-initiated buyout.
The company might also split the costs of buying shares with employees, either by combining employee and employer purchases (for example, by agreeing to buy a certain number of shares each time the employee buys shares), or by offering employees shares at reduced prices. Discounts are not taxable to the employee if they are less than 15%; otherwise they are taxed like any other income. Alternatively, the company might make buying shares easier by allowing employees to pay for them over time or to borrow against the shares they purchase.
Remember, asking employees to assume tax obligations before receiving financial benefits of ownership is similar to asking them to purchase shares. Although this might be desirable from the company's viewpoint, this may put too large a burden on employees. Also, employees can always refuse to accept or retain the shares, thus compromising the potential benefits to the company of employee ownership.
Many employee ownership plans in the U.S. are set up to buy out the shares of a retiring or departing owner, most in successful, profitable businesses. This is largely because selling to employees can bring financial benefits to the selling owner, benefits that often outweigh the costs of setting up an expensive plan such as an ESOP.
First, there are valuable tax advantages to owners who sell to either a cooperative or an ESOP. If the ESOP or cooperative will own 30% or more of the company, then the selling owner can defer taxation on the capital gain from the sale by reinvesting that gain in securities of most U.S. corporations.
Second, an employee ownership plan provides a dependable buyer for the company. When an owner wants to sell, there may be no outside buyer willing to pay market value for the company. The employee ownership plan usually can pay market value, and it can be initiated at the decision of the selling owner, rather than relying on an outside buyer.
One of the first decisions to make is whether or not employees will have controlling interest in the company. Does the sort of employee ownership you have in mind involve only equity rights, or will it involve employee control as well? It makes sense to think of there being two basic kinds of employee ownership companies: those with equity benefit plans and those that are employee controlled.
In a company with an equity benefit plan only, employees receive an equity stake in the company but do not as a group have voting control over the company. Such plans are often set up as a retirement or savings benefit and as a way to let employees in on the equity growth of the company while creating an incentive to stimulate productivity. In such plans, ultimate control remains with either a top manager or an outside owner (although perhaps subject to some legal rights of the employee owners).
In an employee-controlled company, employees as a group have voting control over the company. Ownership may not even involve significant equity rights, but any outside owners are minority or nonvoting owners. Employee ownership in such a company is a means of sharing control and dividing up corporate income among employees.
It is important to be clear on which approach you intend to take for your employee ownership. Formal voting control brings with it important legal rights. Most decisions are made on a day-to-day basis, not through formal corporate mechanisms. Experience has shown that employees are conservative shareholders, supporting recommendations made by management. But business owners should not give voting rights to employees with the expectation that they can retain all control for themselves. Whoever has voting control of the corporation has the right to choose and remove directors and corporate officers. If conflicts arise, these mechanisms may become important. Also, people often assume "ownership" includes control. If the desire is to create a mechanism by which employees can share in equity growth but not to control the company, then this should be clear to everyone involved from the beginning. Finally, the type of employee ownership structure chosen depends on which approach you will take. Not only must voting rights be structured differently, but different financial arrangements may be required according to who controls the company.
The only practical way that the equity value of shares can be translated into a financial benefit for employees without selling the entire company to an outside buyer, is for the company to agree to repurchase shares.
In equity benefit plans, an agreement must be made to repurchase shares, or employees are being given essentially worthless shares -- not a very motivating benefit. There are also strict repurchase requirements for ESOPs. In order for share ownership not to seem like too distant or uncertain a reward, repurchase should be guaranteed, by contract if necessary, and done within a reasonable time after an employee leaves the company.
In an employee-controlled company, however, repurchasing shares is not absolutely necessary because employees can get financial benefits by other means. Controlling owners can decide to reward themselves through wages and bonuses, rather than by increasing their equity stake. If shares are not repurchased, the main importance of the shares then is to divide up control and to split up the surplus from a sale of the whole company, not to provide a financial benefit through equity. But the company must specify that it will not repurchase shares in its agreements with employees.
Employee-controlled companies should carefully consider whether they will repurchase shares. Not repurchasing shares can save the company money, and it can reduce costs to new employees of becoming owners, since the value of shares that are not repurchased will be less. On the other hand, employee-controlled companies may want to repurchase shares to provide an equity benefit for the same reasons as other employee ownership companies want this kind of incentive. Also, repurchasing shares may motivate each employee to work more for the long-term benefit of the company.
If the company does decide to repurchase shares, it should take steps to make repurchase manageable. The company needs to plan carefully for its repurchase obligation and put aside funds for this purpose. The company must also decide what conditions will be placed on repurchase (where these are not already set by an ESOP). Will repurchase be made only if the employee reaches retirement age or any time the employee leaves the company? Will shares be repurchased if the employee is fired? If the employee quits? If the employee is laid off? The answer will depend on the way the company wants this financial benefit to motivate employee owners, provide job security, or serve other purposes.
The company needs a method for determining the monetary value of shares for several reasons: so the sellers will know if they are getting a reasonable and fair price; so employees will know their tax obligations if they receive shares; to meet requirements for ESOPs; and, to determine the price at which the company will repurchase shares.
The "value" of a business is the value that it would sell for in a competitive market. This value is not always easy to determine. It reflects tangible things like assets, cash holdings, patents, property, and intangible things like goodwill, market conditions, and employee experience. But how do you actually get a number for this value? For a small company there are several practical approaches; it can use book value (the net value of assets over liabilities), use another formula, or hire a professional business appraiser (often costing $5,000 or more). ESOPs must get a formal valuation from an appraisser and have it updated annually. Although the cost is high, even when the plan is not an ESOP, a formal valuation is a good idea to prevent later legal disputes.
The basic objective of selling to employees is to find a way that provides the owner with a reasonable value while allowing employees to purchase the company with pretax dollars. An ESOP is an ideal mechanism for this, but if it is not practical for one reason or another, there are ways to sell to employees than can meet these criteria, albeit not as effectively. The seller can agree, for instance, to be paid out of the future earnings of the company, partially in return for consulting or as payments on a note. Both require ordinary income tax for the seller, however. The seller could lease assets to the employees with an option to buy, while selling goodwill or other intangibles. This would limit the amount of after-tax money employees would have to pay to buy shares because they could pay for the leased assets with corporate tax-deductible dollars. In general, while these approaches are available, they do not save a great deal in legal costs, however.
Copyright © 2002 by The National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) (phone 510/208-1300; email nceo@nceo.org; WWW http://www.nceo.org/). All rights reserved.
| Home | Reference | ESOPs | Options | Culture | About Us | Order Form |