LBOs: loan fees deductible.In a case with potentially wide ramifications ramifications npl → Auswirkungen pl , the bankruptcy court bankruptcy court n. the specialized Federal court in which bankruptcy matters under the Federal Bankruptcy Act are conducted. There are several bankruptcy courts in each state, and each one's territory covers several counties. ruled expenses incurred in obtaining loans for a leveraged buyout leveraged buyout, the takeover of a company, financed by borrowed funds. Often, the target company's assets are used as security for the loans acquired to finance the purchase. (LBO LBO See: Leveraged buyout LBO See leveraged buyout (LBO). ) were ordinary and necessary business expenses (U.S.v. Kroy Ltd., U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona, 2/14/92). Because the LBO created an economic benefit to the business beyond the year in which the loan fees were incurred, the court ruled the expenses were eligible to be amortized over the term of the loan. The Internal Revenue Service argued the loan acquisition costs were capital expenditures because the purchase of stock merely affected the company's capital structure and was not meaningful to its ability to carry on its business. The court, however, disagreed. It found the expenses were to obtain loans that assisted the LBO, which (in this case) created substantial employee company ownership. Employee ownership, in turn, has the potential to enhance a corporation's ability to operate its business more profitably. The court also did not accept the argument that the loan fees were nondeductible under tax code section 162(k), which disallows expenses incurred in connection with stock redemption. (The LBO, structured as a "reverse cash merger," was regarded, for tax purposes, as a stock redemption under revenue ruling 78-25.) Section 162(k) was considered inapplicable in·ap·pli·ca·ble adj. Not applicable: rules inapplicable to day students. in·ap because * While the LBO's objective was to take the company private, it was not done to fend off an imminent hostile corporate takeover. * Section 162(k) was enacted to overrule The refusal by a judge to sustain an objection set forth by an attorney during a trial, such as an objection to a particular question posed to a witness. To make void, annul, supersede, or reject through a subsequent decision or action. the decision in Five Star Manufacturing Co. (355 F.2d 724, 5th Cir., 1966) and' to clarify that redemption costs are not deductible. The section was not intended to change the tax treatment of loan acquisition costs. * The fees were deductible under the "origin of transaction" doctrine. The loan was the origin of the transaction, and the court could not consider the 1oan's purpose, which was, of course, the redemption of stock. Observation: As with breakup fees, the bankruptcy court has given another taxpayer-friendly decision. However the facts in Kroy are somewhat narrow. If the LBO had not featured substantial employee ownership or had been the product of a hostile takeover Hostile Takeover A takeover attempt that is strongly resisted by the target firm. Notes: Hostile takeovers are usually bad news, as the employee moral of the target firm can quickly turn to animosity against the acquiring firm. , the court might not have reached the same conclusion. |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion