New ruling on debt capital deductions.The Tax Court decided in Fort Howard Fort Howard refers to the following:
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. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion