The report added that Mr Jobs did not benefit financially from the backdating programme because he returned all the stock options granted to him during the period under investigation.

However, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US market regulator, which is already investigating the stock options scandal at more than 100 companies, including Apple, told The Times that an executive could be found guilty of backdating without benefiting from the award.

A spokesman for the SEC, who was unable to comment directly on the Apple investigation, said: “An executive does not have to benefit personally from stock options backdating to be found to have violated the rules . . . Past cases show that personal gain is not a precondition to any action by this office.”

The SEC would not confirm whether the company or Mr Jobs was under investigation, but it is understood that investigators from the regulator’s enforcement division next month will begin to look into more than one million pages of evidence gathered by Apple during its internal review of the stock options affair.

The Justice Department is also said to be looking into the backdating of options at Apple. It declined to comment.

Iowans are being warned about stepped up scams in email that may look like they're from the Internal Revenue Service. IRS spokesman Christopher Miller says the schemes have been around for months but they've picked up again in recent weeks.

Miller says the fraudulent e-mails are designed to trick the recipients into disclosing personal and financial information, usually credit card numbers, PINS, Social Security numbers and account numbers, which could be used to steal their identity and financial assets. Identity theft is a growing crime that's costing tens of thousands of Americans millions of dollars.

Miller says the agency's investigators have identified about a hundred different e-mail scams involving the IRS, many with similarities. The language of the e-mails is typically the same, saying after the latest calculations, they've determined the person is due a tax refund of 63dollars and 80cents -- which Miller says is significant because many of the scams use that same total. Miller says the tax collection agency never makes it a practice to email Iowans to ask for this sort of information.

Miller says the IRS typically uses regular mail or sometimes phone calls but they make sure to verify the individual they're talking to by using information only they would know. He says they've seen a recent rise in complaints about these bogus emails and taxpayers in Iowa who want to make sure they're not ignoring the real thing -do- have an alternative.

Administrative Law Judge Lillian A. McEwen has announced that she is retiring from her position with the SEC, effective Jan. 3, 2007. Since her appointment in September 1995, Judge McEwen has presided over, and issued initial decisions in, scores of administrative proceedings brought by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. She also served on multiple occasions as the SEC delegate to the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and was a founding member of Judicial Council, which is affiliated with the Washington Bar Association.

Prior to her appointment to the SEC, Judge McEwen served as an administrative law judge with the Social Security Administration in Fresno, Calif., from July 1994 to March 1995, at which time she was promoted to Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge in New Haven, Conn. Judge McEwen began her legal career in 1975 as an Assistant United States Attorney in Washington, D.C. From 1979 to 1982, she was counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where she worked extensively with Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., on criminal forfeiture and racketeering legislation. Judge McEwen then practiced criminal law privately from 1983 to 1989 and 1993 to 1994. During 1989 through 1992, she was an Assistant Professor of Law at the District of Columbia School of Law.

The decision to accept the case was unanimous among the court's seven justices, although a date for oral arguments has yet to be set. Conservative groups had hoped the court would decline the appeal and allow a lower court ruling against gay marriage to stand.

At issue is a California law passed by voters in 2000 that protects the natural, traditional definition of marriage. Known as Proposition 22, it passed with 61 percent of the vote.

“The people of California spoke in 2000, and the people’s voice should be heard," Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a statement.

ADF supports allowing the current law to stand.

“Political special interests shouldn’t trump their voice regarding what’s in the best interests of families and children. This is the question the California courts will ultimately be deciding: Who is more important—our children and the voice of the people or politicians and special interest groups?"

Massachusetts remains the only state to recognize gay marriage, although Maryland's highest court heard a gay marriage case in December and could issue a decision in early 2007. Also, Connecticut's highest court is considering whether to accept an appeal of a gay marriage case.

The California Supreme Court's announcement further highlights a divide among conservative groups over a proposed constitutional marriage amendment. Conservatives had hoped to place an amendment prohibiting gay marriage on the ballot in 2006, but could not agree on the proposal's language. They subsequently divided into two competing groups and began gathering signatures. In the end, though, both amendments fell short of the requirement.

That division could prove to be significant. The California court likely will rule on the issue before an amendment can be placed on the ballot. If the court legalizes gay marriage, any statewide campaign to adopt a marriage amendment could be much tougher.

But the court's Dec. 20 announcement also could make it easier to collect signatures to qualify an amendment for the ballot.

The lawsuit was filed by the city of San Francisco and a host of liberal legal groups, including Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. They won at the trial court level, but lost 2-1 at the appeals court level. That appellate decision was handed down in October.

“Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage," Justice William R. McGuiness wrote for the majority in October. "... The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat."

The Justice Department has brought suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago against a Seneca, Ill., couple, Royanne and Neal Reddy, and their businesses, Royanne’s Tax Services and Royanne & Company, seeking to bar them permanently from preparing federal tax returns for others. According to the government complaint, the Reddys, operating their businesses in Marseilles and Princeton, Ill., have prepared more than 9,000 returns since 2002.

The complaint states that the IRS examined 70 income tax returns prepared by the Reddys or employees under their direct supervision. It’s further alleged that all of these returns required adjustments, and 64 returns contained improper deductions of as much as $30,000. The complaint alleges that average under-reported tax on these 70 returns was $2,775, and states that the IRS estimates the total cost to the Treasury of the Reddys’ and their employees’ improper income tax return preparation to be more than $13 million.

The government’s suit alleges that the Reddys fraudulently fabricate or inflate business expenses for customers to reduce their reported income. The Reddys also allegedly fabricate income for some customers to get them Earned Income Tax Credits to which they are not entitled. It is further alleged that the Reddys have provided fabricated documents to IRS agents auditing their customers’ returns.

The suit asks the court to order the Reddys to give the government a list with their customers’ names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers.

The headline business news of this morning is the Steve Jobs Apple Computer (NASDAQ: AAPL) stock options situation. The Financial Times reported that a full board meeting at Apple Computer to authorize the issuance of over 7.5 million stock options to Apple CEO Steve Jobs back in 2001 was falsified.

So they are reporting that the meeting that was documented as taking place never did and even though Steve Jobs did surrender those stock options and did not receive any direct benefit from those options he is still in the line of fire.
Lets talk about Steve Jobs for a moment, he is the person that brought Apple Computer from the brink of extinction and made it what it is today, a mammoth of a company. He orchestrated the deal with Disney (NYSE: DIS) to put him the position of being the largest shareholder at Disney all the while building Apple as the hands down leader in the portable MP3 market.

Through his efforts Apple Computer went from a $10 stock in 2001 to a stock that is on its way to triple digits, investors in Apple have done very well and continue to do so. The concern on the Street is that Steve Jobs is Apple Computer, he is the primary component in Apple’s success and there is no doubt about that. If this situation forces him to step down it will indeed have a very large negative impact on this company.

Now is this going to come to that, its doubtful, because the issuance of stock options at that moment in time was probably boiler plate, of course a board meeting should taken place and not have been falsified but how many companies both private and public have done just that and not been crucified for it?, not yet anyway.

Steve Jobs is the envy of many CEO’s worldwide, he did in his tenure what most investors would want a CEO in a company that they invested in to do. I’ve always said that he is the poster child for CEO’s and will continue to be for some time to come.  

It is unclear as to whether Jobs was aware that a board meeting at Apple Computer was falsified but lets look at some facts, this was back in 2001 and those options were given back to the company already. The company is healthier than it’s ever been and investors are in Apple Heaven.

The SEC may launch a formal probe and Jobs has already secured an outside attorney to represent him just in case. In my opinion the SEC should have more important things on their mind, one being Sarbanes-Oxley, and not crucifying Jobs for a situation that he may or may not have known about, but think about it why would he risk his future for something so ridiculous as those options would have been granted to him anyway.

This is the media on the prowl for a story but at the end of the day it’s my opinion that Steve Jobs will walk away without a mark. It’s year end and perhaps some profit taking will aid in Apple being knocked down a bit but when the dust settles institutions, fund managers, brokerage firms and investors will come to realize that Apple Computer is still growing and once Jobs is cleared they will be more at ease.

The lawsuits are coming fast and furious against Yum! Brands subsidiary Taco Bell after the E .coli incident hit many New York area Taco Bell restaurants. The latest lawsuit comes from the law firm of Marler Clark on behlaf of one of the victims Michael Notar, a Clinton, New York, resident, who according to reports fell ill with an E. Coli infections shortly after dining at Taco Bell. Notar was Hospitalized for over four days.
The lawsuit was filed in  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and coincides with a tour that is taking place today at a Taco Bell location in Philadelphia by Taco Bell President Greg Creed and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell