Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,558,467 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

New ruling on debt capital deductions.


The Tax Court decided in Fort Howard Fort Howard refers to the following:
  • Fort Howard (Maryland)
  • Fort Howard Veterans Hospital, a hospital in Fort Howard (Maryland)
  • Fort Howard (Wisconsin)
 Corp. v. Commissioner in August 1994 that fees incurred to obtain debt capital used to buy back stock could not be deducted. However, the court's decision directly contradicts a June 1994 Ninth Circuit Court ruling on the same issue (U.S. v. Kroy). If the Tax Court decision is upheld on appeal, the stage will be set for a Supreme Court resolution of the conflicting court decisions and a period of uncertainty pending adjudication The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. .

Although both cases dealt with leveraged buyouts 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. , the issue is broader because it extends to any debt-financed buyback of shares. The Fort Howard decision is in accordance with Internal Revenue Code The Internal Revenue Code is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes. These laws constitute title 26 of the U.S. Code (26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.  section 162(k), which says expenses cannot be deducted if they are incurred "in connection with" a buyback. Fort Howard argued the fees were an interest expense and thus were deductible That which may be taken away or subtracted. In taxation, an item that may be subtracted from gross income or adjusted gross income in determining taxable income (e.g., interest expenses, charitable contributions, certain taxes). . The court acknowledged that interest expense on debt incurred in connection with a buyback is deductible because interest is a financing cost. However, it concluded the section 162(k) prohibition on deduction extended to the financing costs associated with bridge loans and permanent financing Permanent financing

Long-term financing using either debt or equity.


permanent financing

The long-term financing that supports a long-term asset.
 because such debt was part of Fort Howard's redemption plan and the buyback and the permanent debt's issuance were only eight days apart. Thus, the fees for arranging the financing were part of the cost of raising the debt capital and not, as Fort Howard argued, a deductible interest expense.

Observation: Interest is compensation, and there is a relationship between it, the principal borrowed and the designated payment time period. The fees were received without regard to the dollar amount of debt capital purchased or the period during which the notes were outstanding. Therefore, they could not be characterized as rent for the use of funds and, in fact, were fees for services.
COPYRIGHT 1994 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Fort Howard Corp. v. Commissioner
Author:Willens, Robert
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Nov 1, 1994
Words:300
Previous Article:Proposed regulations clarify disallowance rule. (deduction disallowance for club membership fees) (Brief Article)
Next Article:Seminar cost planning checklist.
Topics:



Related Articles
Effect of the Supreme Court's decision in INDOPCO.
Takeover expenses: National Starch and the IRS add new wrinkles. (includes chronology of IRS cases)
The home office revisited.
Deductibility of loan fees in light of conflicting judicial opinions.
Deducting defense expenses.(Brief Article)
Congress clarifies denial of redemption expenses under sec. 162(k).
Loan fees in LBOs. (leveraged buyouts)(Brief Article)
INDOPCO and the tax treatment of reorganization costs.
Technical correction clarifies sec. 162(k) limit on stock reacquisition expenses.
Redeeming closely held stock.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles