Actually he doesn't have to pay taxes because they are unrealized gains. He only pays taxes on the portion he sells and makes a profit on.
www.autoblog.com
I don't short stock on principle (and because of the unlimited downside risk), but I've divested significantly over the past couple years as Elon has become more and more erratic. Tesla as a whole still has tremendous potential, but Elon's recent decisions have made achieving this full potential seem considerably less likely and more distant.
We (I) do not know exactly the type(s) of options that have been granted to Musk. In general, stock options have an exercise price based on a number of supposedly independent factors.
. S**t happens after four decades slogging along in this arena. And if he has personal losses on his tax returns, he might have made a §83 election to be taxed currently on the unexercised options as he bears a "substantial risk of forfeiture." This election establishes basis for gain or loss purposes if he does exercise the options.There is a lot of investment from oil companies into charging. They are energy companies first and petrol was the big ticket item. With legislation in place in US and Europe its obvious there will be a significant shift away from petrol and diesel so they want to grab a slice of that pie to stay relevant.
NACS is just a plug shape. Nothing to control there really.
Yeah like I mentioned later I thought they were gunning for the entire SC network.. I have no problem with them running their own
I still have 55 shares left, but will probably sell most/all of it depending on how the shareholder votes go. I started selling off shares as soon as the stalk-less Model S/X were unveiled, since that was the moment I realized the company leadership was becoming detached from reality.
Interesting reading and ad nauseum at the same time. This topic is filled with gaslights, speculation and mischaracterizations of all colors. Speculating based on others speculations supported from circular citations that are most likely fake. Challenges from those that don't know for proof supporting guesses from others that don't know.
You either have to pay taxes when grant is made or pay taxes when the stock vests. About a third of my pay is stock based…every time it vests (which is quarterly according to most plans) a portion of what is vested is sold to cover the taxes. From that point on, you don’t pay taxes until you sell the shares and then you pay either long term or short term capital gains (assuming there was a capital gain) or take a loss (I usually sell at loss to reduce my tax footprint) but you do have to pay taxes when you acquire the shares (either at grant, to reduce your costs basis, because you think the value is increasing; or when the shares vest). Since he’s paid largely in options, he’d owe taxes on the spread when he exercises them and then taxed again on any profit…but I’m not sure if we know if they are NSOs or ISOs which would determine the taxation
It's much more than just a shape difference. One of the significant innovations of NACS was that it uses the same physical pins for both AC and DC, whereas no previous connectors (including CCS) had attempted to do that. That's part of what allows NACS to have its compact form factor.
We (I) do not know exactly the type(s) of options that have been granted to Musk. In general, stock options have an exercise price based on a number of supposedly independent factors.
You are correct that as long as he does not exercise any of the options granted to him, there is no tax due. But any taxes that will be due upon exercising them will depend upon whether he ponies up the cash personally to purchase the stock at the exercise price or whether he leverages the transactions by immediately selling enough shares to get the cash to buy the shares he wants. Even if he ponies up the $$$, there still might be some tax due if there is a difference in the current market versus the market value when the options were granted.
So, if the exercise price is $150/share and he wants one million shares, then he either pays into Tesla $150 million (no taxes due possibly) or he has a simultaneous purchase and sale of an amount in excess of the $150 million so that he winds up with the stock.
Then, of course it depends whether these are qualified or non-qualified options. Most are reported on a W-2 with mandatory withholding (Social Security/Medicare) and voluntary withholding (income taxes.)
If he does exercise some of his options and retains the stock, he will have some income taxes due anyway. It remains to be seen if California will have its grubby hands out to get its share of any taxes as I believe these options were granted when he was still a California resident. We have some pretty stringent rules about the timing of reporting gains when a taxpayer moves out of state.
****Caveat: this area is something I dealt with a long time ago. Perhaps my memory is blurred or confused
From the reports on his lawsuit, he has not exercised any of his options, which is why I made that comment about him not paying taxes on them. Also the terms require him to hold the stock for minimum of 5 years after exercising, so it will be a long while before he pays any gains tax on it. I haven't looked into it in detail, but the gist I get is he does not have a Exercise-and-Sell-to-Cover option (which would result in paying taxes on the portion sold to cover).
Haven't even heard of that ranking until you linked it, I doubt he would care about that list, especially given #1 was given to the UAW president. The rumors of her pushing back against his order for doing layoffs is reason enough. All the reporting focused primarily on Tinucci, but note that Daniel Ho, head of the new vehicles program, and his entire team was also laid off for presumably the same reason (and apparently to set an example for other executives that might have been planning to push back against further layoffs).
I've mentioned it at least 3 times:
Daniel Ho was laid off, but not his entire team. Laying off the whole new vehicles team would be even bigger news than the superchargers.
I didn't read those comments (like most people I don't read every comment on every thread I have participated in), but my point is that ranking isn't really a well known ranking or influential person metric (unlike others like Forbes rankings, or Time person of the year). Put another way, if I read your comment first, it would still be the first time I have heard of it.
Like with Tinucci, when I say "his entire team" I mean the people working under him, which does not necessarily mean all the people working on new vehicles (aka his team is not the only ones working on new vehicle development). It was apparently mentioned in the same email that mentioned Tinucci. Everyone working under Tinucci was laid off, but there were other people that worked on superchargers that wasn't under her (for example the maintenance crew as brought up multiple times).
They can, just as V3 stalls can, but not by default. Its unlikely they will here in the US as long as the NACS standard agreements in place aren’t rescinded for any reason. The solution that almost all manufacturers are embracing is to provide DC adapters, which eliminates the need for Magic Dock.
