The document discusses contingent liabilities in taxable asset acquisitions and distributions. It defines contingent liabilities and discusses factors for determining whether a liability is assumed by the buyer. For sellers, relief of contingent liabilities is included in the amount realized. However, the timing and amount of inclusion is uncertain for non-fixed contingent liabilities. The treatment of assumed contingent liabilities is also uncertain for sellers seeking a corresponding deduction or capitalization. The document provides examples of these issues for environmental remediation obligations and accrued vacation pay.
How has depreciation changed in your years of practice? Whether you have been in practice for 5 years or 40 years, the changes in the rules on depreciation have been staggering. Let’s walk down memory lane and see just where each of us gets lost in the Depreciation Maze.
Damages Calculations in Intellectual Property Cases in CanadaDuff & Phelps
In intellectual property cases, there are two types of monetary remedy: damages and an accounting of profits. Damages represent the patentee’s loss and are the default remedy in the sense that a court is obliged to award damages on proof of infringement and consequent loss. This publication focuses on damages in patent cases, although the reasoning generally applies in trade-mark and copyright cases.
Introduction to factoring, history, introduction to act, important features of the act, rights, obligation, responsibility, penality, shortcomings of the act.
How has depreciation changed in your years of practice? Whether you have been in practice for 5 years or 40 years, the changes in the rules on depreciation have been staggering. Let’s walk down memory lane and see just where each of us gets lost in the Depreciation Maze.
Damages Calculations in Intellectual Property Cases in CanadaDuff & Phelps
In intellectual property cases, there are two types of monetary remedy: damages and an accounting of profits. Damages represent the patentee’s loss and are the default remedy in the sense that a court is obliged to award damages on proof of infringement and consequent loss. This publication focuses on damages in patent cases, although the reasoning generally applies in trade-mark and copyright cases.
Introduction to factoring, history, introduction to act, important features of the act, rights, obligation, responsibility, penality, shortcomings of the act.
La resurrección es una esperanza bienaventurada para los que creen en la obra de nuestro Señor Jesucristo; pero representa desesperanza y condenación eterna para los impíos. CONCLUSION: La resurrección es una esperanza bienaventurada para los que creen en la obra de nuestro Señor Jesucristo; pero representa desesperanza y condenación eterna para los impíos.
Bankruptcy Claims Trading (Series: Bankruptcy Transactions: Advice for the Ad...Financial Poise
Claims Trading in bankruptcy cases has advanced and grown in sophistication swiftly in recent history. Companies and their advisors should be prepared before wading into these waters. How will a claim be treated once transferred? What steps should a company acquiring a claim take to ensure the claim is paid? How should a claim be valued? What kind of documentation will be needed to properly transfer the claim? If a dispute arises regarding the claim, how should the acquiring company defend itself? This webinar focuses on understanding these issues and addressing best practices for advanced reorganization practitioners and advisors working on the cutting edge of bankruptcy transactions.
To listen to this webinar on-demand, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/bankruptcy-claims-trading-2020/
To listen to this webinar on-demand, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/bankruptcy-claims-trading-2020/
Claims Trading in bankruptcy cases has advanced and grown in sophistication swiftly in recent history. Companies and their advisors should be prepared before wading into these waters. How will a claim be treated once transferred? What steps should a company acquiring a claim take to ensure the claim is paid? How should a claim be valued? What kind of documentation will be needed to properly transfer the claim? If a dispute arises regarding the claim, how should the acquiring company defend itself? For 2021, do the financial programs initiated under the CARES Act impact claims trading, and if so, how? This webinar focuses on understanding these issues and addressing best practices for advanced reorganization practitioners and advisors working on the cutting edge of bankruptcy transactions.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/bankruptcy-claims-trading-2021/
Claims Trading in bankruptcy cases has advanced and grown in sophistication swiftly in recent history. Companies and their advisors should be prepared before wading into these waters. How will a claim be treated once transferred? What steps should a company acquiring a claim take to ensure the claim is paid? How should a claim be valued? What kind of documentation will be needed to properly transfer the claim? If a dispute arises regarding the claim, how should the acquiring company defend itself? For 2022, do the financial programs initiated under the CARES Act impact claims trading, and if so, how? This webinar focuses on understanding these issues and addressing best practices for advanced reorganization practitioners and advisors working on the cutting edge of bankruptcy transactions.
Part of the webinar series: BANKRUPTCY TRANSACTIONS - 301: ADVICE FOR THE ADVANCED PRACTITIONER 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
Distressed asset sales both in bankruptcy and out-of-court alter Feb 2015 Polsinelli PC
Given the economic downturn of recent years, professionals' fees and costs have been a driving factor in conducting the acquisition of distressed assets. A majority of these transactions take place pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, out-of-court alternatives such as Receiverships, Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors, and Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code have gained momentum to bankruptcy as expeditious and cost-efficient alternatives.
This webinar focuses on the sale of distressed assets under each of these alternatives, including bankruptcy and a special emphasis on the sale or acquisition of distressed health care assets.
Structuring and Planning the M&A Transaction (Series: Private Company M&A Boo...Financial Poise
There is an old carpenters’ expression, “measure twice, cut once.” M&A work is just one of many areas in business and law where this expression resonates. Buyers and sellers, like chess players anticipating many moves in advance, should envision and plan the route to get a deal done, including anticipated detours, at the onset of the transaction.
This webinar discusses the similarities and differences between basic M&A transaction structures; purchase price payment concerns; the most common issues that arise in the early stages of M&A transactions of all kinds; the relationship between ostensibly unrelated sections of an M&A agreement; and transaction timeline. One focus of this episode is a threshold question in many deals: whether the buyer will buy equity or assets. This episode will, in summary form, cover many of the issues discussed in greater depth in subsequent episodes.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/structuring-and-planning-the-ma-transaction-2020/
When you are dealing with a problem loan, this process will help you gather and understand the facts, analyze the problem, and enable you to make a recommendation to correct the problem.
Defending Against Bankruptcy Avoidance Actions (Series: Complex Financial Lit...Financial Poise
In the event of a bankruptcy, the debtor or trustee may opt to take legal action in order to recover money or property that was transferred by the debtor prior to going bankrupt. These actions, whereby such transfers are effectively reversed, are referred to as “avoidance actions.” In this webinar, the expert panel discusses the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, common avoidance actions, and key considerations when planning for and defending against these actions.
To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/defending-against-bankruptcy-avoidance-actions-2021/
In the event of a bankruptcy, the debtor or trustee may opt to take legal action in order to recover money or property that was transferred by the debtor prior to going bankrupt. These actions, whereby such transfers are effectively reversed, are referred to as “avoidance actions.” In this webinar, the expert panel discusses the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, common avoidance actions, and key considerations when planning for and defending against these actions.
Part of the webinar series: COMPLEX FINANCIAL LITIGATION 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
Similar to May 2013 ABA Panel Contingent Liabilities 2013-05-10 (20)
May 2013 ABA Panel Contingent Liabilities 2013-05-10
1. Contingent Liabilities in Taxable
Transactions and Distributions
ABA Section of Taxation , 2013 May Meeting
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Panelists
Victor Penico, Deloitte Tax LLP, moderator
Daniel White, Bryan Cave LLP
Megan Fitzsimmons, Ernst & Young LLP
Richard Starke, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate), IRS
2. 1 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Introduction
- Definition of Contingent Liabilities 3
- Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability 4
Assumptions in Taxable Asset Acquisitions 11
- Seller Treatment 11
- Buyer Treatment 18
Assumptions in Section 301 Distributions 21
Assumptions in Section 304 Transactions 25
Contents
4. 3 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Definition of Contingent Liability
• Accrual basis taxpayer (I.R.C. §461(h)):
– “All events” have occurred which determine the fact of the liability (“fixed”),
– The amount of the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy
(“determinable”), and
– “Economic performance” has occurred.
See Treas. Reg. §1.461-1(a)(2)(i); Treas. Reg. §1.446-1(c)(1)(ii)(A).
• Cash basis taxpayer
– taken in account when paid (other than certain pre-payments)
• Contingent liability vs. Asset “defect”
5. 4 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability
-- Assumption Factors
1. Buyer’s operations
• Activity performed by the buyer
• Events under the buyer’s control
• Liability arising from buyers decision
• Goal is to separate the occurrence of the liability from the seller and the
acquisition (i.e., not a seller liability)
• If it does not relate to the seller’s operation of the business, then the Buyer can
deduct the payment
• Holdcroft Transportation Co. v. Commissioner, 153 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1946)
• Albany Car Wheel v. Commissioner, 333 F.2d 653 (2nd Cir. 1964) (liability arose
after acquisition due to buyer’s decision to close plant)
• TAM 9721002 – acquisition and severance pay
• llinois Tool Works v. Commissioner, 355 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004)
6. 5 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability
-- Assumption Factors
2. Where liability arises post-acquisition
• For example, certain employee benefit cases
– Where there is a contract in place at the time of the acquisition to pay death
benefits when an employee dies
– If employee dies after closing, then the liability should be a buyer liability
– Even though contract in place, it’s contingent because you know he will die
eventually
• If employee has already died and seller is obligated to pay, the buyer assumes
the obligation—No deduction.
• M. Buten & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner, 31 T.C.M. (CCH) 178 (1972)
• David R. Webb Company, Inc. v. Commissioner, 708 F.2d 1254 (7th Cir. 1983)
7. 6 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability
-- Assumption Factors
3. Whether the buyer was aware of the liability
• If buyer is aware of the claim at the time of the acquisition, there is no deduction
for payment of the claim but if buyer unaware, buyer may be able to deduct the
liability
• Pacific Transport v. Commissioner, 29 T.C.M. 133 (1970), rev’d per curiam 483
F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1973)
• But see Holdcroft. Court might not care whether the buyer knew of the liability
and may instead look to when the liability arose. If the liability relates to the
seller, then no deduction. See Illinois Tool Works v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 39
(2001), aff’d 355 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004).
8. 7 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability
-- Assumption Factors
4. Liability timing
• This factor can be used to explain the tort cases. Courts have stated that
legal liability for a tort arises when the tort occurs.
– Using this factor would lead a court to conclude that a pre-closing cause
of action is a liability of the seller. If the buyer pays the liability, there is
no deduction.
– Holdcroft and Pacific Transport support the notion that the contingent
nature of the tort is not relevant
• Compare this result to the contract cases where the liability represents a
contractual claim, not a tort.
• Albany Car Wheel Co.
9. 8 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability
-- Assumption Factors
5. Whether the contingent liability is reflected in the price
• If the purchase price was reduced, then the liability looks like an assumed
liability
• This factor comes up often where
– Purchase price based on balance sheet
– Reserve on balance sheet (e.g., for employee medical benefits)
• Allows IRS to argue that the liability was reflected in the price
10. 9 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Whether Liability is an Assumed Liability
-- Assumption Factors
6. Buyer’s express assumption
• If the buyer expressly assumes a liability of the seller, courts generally conclude
that the buyer is assuming the liability
• However, this factor alone is not fatal. In Albany Car Wheel the buyer expressly
assumed a collective bargaining liability (severance pay in the event of a plant
shutdown). However, the court said that the liability in fact was assumed
12. 11 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
• Relief of liabilities is included in amount realized on sale or exchange of
property. See 1.1001-2(a)(1).
• Contingent liabilities lacking only economic performance
– In connection with the sale of a business, if purchaser “expressly assumes”
liabilities arising out of business that would be incurred “but for” economic
performance, then economic performances is deemed to occur when the
liability assumption is included in amount realized. See 1.461-4(d)(5)(i).
• Contingent liabilities lacking fixed amount raise questions as to timing and
amount of inclusion:
– Value at closing, include at closing? or
– Value once fixed, include once fixed?
13. 12 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
• Does relief of the liability give rise to a deduction at closing? Once fixed?
– See US v. Hendler, 303 U.S. 564 (1938); Pierce v. Comm’r, 326 F.2d 67 (8th
Cir. 1964); Commercial Security Bank, 77 TC 145 (1981).
• Contingent liabilities lacking “all events”; events occurring after closing. Cf
Holdcroft (post-closing events gave rise to deduction).
14. 13 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
• Why does Seller care?
– Character
• Seller has capital losses
• Seller is an S Corporation or partnership.
– Timing
• A rule may defer corresponding deduction, e.g. 404(a)(5)
15. 14 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
Example of assumed non-fixed contingent liability
• In Year 1, S sells its business to P. The assets of the business include an office
building located on contaminated land. No further contamination is continuing.
The cost to remediate the land is unknown but is estimated by S and P to equal
$20X.
• In Year 3, P settles the environmental remediation obligation for $50X.
– Does S include $20X in amount realized in Year 1? If so, can S deduct (or
capitalize) the remediation expense? If not, can it do so in Year 3?
– Does S include $50X in amount realized in Year 3? Can S deduct (or
capitalize) the remediation expense?
• See Commercial Security Bank, 77 TC 145 (1981), acq. 1986-2 C.B. 1
16. 15 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
Example of assumed non-fixed contingent liability (Compensation)
• At the end of Year 1, S sells its business to P. The liabilities of the business
include a liability for accrued vacation pay assumed by the Buyer. The
estimated balance for accrued vacation pay is $20X.
• Over the course of Year 2, P’s actual obligations paid related to the pre-
acquisition accrued vacation pay is $50X.
• Under 404(a)(5), a deduction is generally denied under a nonqualified deferred
compensation arrangement until the year in which the employee includes the
compensation in income.
– Does S include $20X in amount realized in Year 1? If so, can S deduct the
compensation expense in Year 1? In Year 2?
– Does S include $50X in amount realized in Year 2?
• See TAM 8932002 (June 15, 1989)
17. 16 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
Assumed liabilities lacking reasonable measurement
• Examples
– Environmental claims
– Product liability claims
– Deferred revenue (see James M. Pierce, 326 F.2d 67 (8th Cir. 1964); Rev.
Rul. 68-112)
– Unfunded deferred compensation (see Section 404(a)(5); TAM 8939002)
– Unfunded qualified pension liability (David Webb, 708 F.2d 1254 (7th Cir.
1983); G.C.M. 39274)
– Retiree medical
– Executory contracts with above-market terms (Cf. Rev. Rul. 55-674, Ex. C).
18. 17 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Taxable Transactions
-- Seller Treatment
Installment Sale Issues
• Section 453 generally permits reporting gain on the installment method if at
least 1 payment is received in a year of the seller after the year of sale.
– If contingent liabilities are taken into account under the “wait and see”
approach and liabilities are included in amount realized, is the assumption
of contingent liabilities (constituting qualifying indebtedness) eligible for the
installment method? Cf. Treas. Reg. §15a.453-1(b)(2)(iii). If so, how is
basis recovered? See, e.g., Treas. Reg. §15a.453-1(c)(7 )(basis recovery
with neither maximum price nor maximum term)
– If these are not taken into account under the installment method, are
contingent liabilities under a “wait and see” treated like other liabilities
assumed, generally increasing the gross profit ratio? See Treas. Reg.
§15a.453-1(b)(2)(i).
– Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 (1931) – are these circumstances “rare and
unusual”?
19. 18 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Contingent Liabilities
-- Buyer Treatment
Basis
• Treat liability as cost of the assets.
• Add to the assets’ basis when the liability becomes fixed, determinable, and
economic performance satisfied.
• Capitalization approach has the greatest support in the case law
– See Webb v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1134 (1981), aff’d, 708 F.2d 1254 (7th
Cir. 1983). Unfunded pension liability assumed in asset acquisition;
payments treated as cost of acquired assets
– See also Holdcroft, Pacific Transport, M. Buten & Sons.
• Uncertain whether buyer can treat a portion of the payments as interest
20. 19 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Contingent Liabilities
-- Buyer Treatment
Deduction
• Buyer gets a deduction when the liability is fixed
• Albany Car Wheel, 333 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1964)
– Agreement specifically said liability to pay severance in the event of a
plant shutdown was assumed
– But court said that facts showed that the liability was not assumed and
the buyer had made a decision that resulted in the liability to pay
severance (i.e., shutting down the plant).
• United States v. Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Co., 260 F.2d 663 (8th
Cir. 1958)
– Suggests deductibility method but can also be read as saying nothing
was assumed
• F&D Rentals, Inc., 365 F.2d 34 (7th Cir. 1966)
– Court said in dicta that taxpayer could deduct if payment had been
made
22. 21 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Distributions
-- Distributing Corporation Treatment
Effect on transfer of assets
• No effect on gain recognized under 311(b) or gain or loss recognized under 336
– Gain (or loss) is recognized based on asset fmv.
• But see 311(b)(2) and 336 (b) (asset fmv is not less than amount of liabilities
assumed)
– Query whether assumed contingent liabilities included in 311(b)(2) and
336(b) determination
– Query effect if amount of liability once fixed, determinable and economic
performance satisfied is different from amount in initial determination
Deductibility
• Pre-General Utilities repeal authorities do not permit deduction.
– See Rev. Rul. 59-228, Arcade Restaurants 7 TCM 563 (1948), GCM 38,271
• Query whether gain recognition/deemed sale model of 311(b) and 336(a)
militate for deductibility
23. 22 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Distributions
-- Distributee Treatment
Effect on transfer of assets
• No effect on basis of assets received under 301(d) and 334(a)
– Basis is determined by reference to asset fmv
Deductibility
• No deduction allowed. Sole effect is to reduce amount of distribution. Rev. Rul.
72-137. See also GCM 38271 (“Consequently, since no payment or adjustment
is specifically made here as compensation for liability assumption, since no
payment or adjustment is justified, and since none is required, we believe it
improper to treat one as having been effected.”)
24. 23 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Distributions
-- Distributee Treatment
Effect on amount of distribution
• Reduces amount of distribution under 301(b)(2)
– 1.301-1(g) requires that liability be assumed within meaning of 357(d)
• For 331 liquidations, assumed liability be “known” at time of distribution. Rev.
Rul. 72-137
– Query whether this is an accrual “fixed and determinable” standard. Query
also whether economic performance must be satisfied at time of
distribution. Rev. Rul. 59-228 allows reduction for present value of a future
liability.
• For 331 liquidations, distributee allowed a capital loss in year liability becomes
fixed, determinable and economic performance satisfied to extent liability did
not previously reduce amount of distribution. Rev. Rul. 72-137.
• Query whether similar principles apply for 301 distributions. Since 301 is to
determine economic benefit to shareholders, perhaps assumed contingent
liabilities should reduce amount of distribution at time of distribution.
26. 25 Contingent Liabilities in Taxable Asset Acquisitions & Distributions
Assumptions in Section 304 Transactions
-- Transferor Corporation Treatment
Effect on amount of distribution
• Query whether 357(c) has any relevance for whether assumption of a
contingent liability should be taken into account under 304
• Maher indicates no dividend to transferor at time of assumption when transferor
remains secondarily liable because economic benefit to transferor is “too
speculative”
– Query whether incorporation of section 357(d) principles into 301 under
1.301-1(g) for assumptions flowing in opposite direction suggest a different
answer
– Query whether contingent liabilities for which transferor does not retain
secondary liability are also “too speculative”
• If assumption of contingent liability results in distribution of some amount at time
of assumption, query result when assumed liability once fixed, determinable,
and economic performance satisfied differs in amount. Can there be increases
or decreases to the amount of the distribution at the later date.
Editor's Notes
Holdcroft Transportation Co. v. Commissioner, 153 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1946)
Corporation acquires assets of partnership in exchange for stock and assumption of liabilities—including two tort claims filed against the partnership
Corporation pays on the claims and deducts the payments
Corporation argues it should be treated as stepping into the shoes of the partnership and therefore should be able to deduct the payments
Corporation also argues it should be able to deduct the payments because the claims were contingent
Court holds: (i) claims did not arise out of buyer’s business; (ii) rather, expenses related to the seller’s business; (iii) buyer cannot deduct costs relating to seller; (iv) fact that liability was contingent does not matter; (v) buyer assumed the liability as part of the costs of the assets; (vi) section 381 – step into the shoes does not apply to section 351 transactions.
TAM 9721002 – acquisition and severance pay
“To summarize, in the precedent requiring the buyer to capitalize, rather than deduct, the payment of an obligation, the events most crucial to creation of the obligation occur before the acquisition. Under these circumstances, the obligation is treated as a liability of the seller. By contrast, in cases allowing the buyer to take a deduction, the events most crucial to creation of the obligation occur after the acquisition. Under these circumstances, the obligation is a liability of the buyer. The difference in the cases is therefore the degree to which the obligation was fixed at the time of the acquisition.”
“In the instant case, a liability for severance payments to Target's employees could arise only if employees were involuntarily terminated. As no employee had been terminated by the date of acquisition, no liability existed for New Target to assume. Further, Buyer neither expressly nor impliedly agreed to pay, as part of the acquisition, any severance payments it might later incur. Buyer was free to decide after the acquisition whether to terminate employees and become liable. Finally, some employees would not be entitled to severance under either the termination protection agreements or the personnel policy if other suitable jobs could be found for them.”
Illinois Tool Works v. Commissioner, 355 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004)
Because the taxpayer knew of the pending patent infringement lawsuit, and agreed to pay that contingent liability in exchange for purchasing the company, the taxpayer was not entitled to currently deduct the judgment as a business expense.
M. Buten & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner, 31 T.C.M. (CCH) 178 (1972)
Corporation agreed to assume liabilities of partnership in section 351 transaction, including death benefits to surviving widows
Court held no deduction for payments to widow of employee who died before the acquisition; Payments were deductible if employee died after the acquisition
David R. Webb Company, Inc. v. Commissioner, 708 F.2d 1254 (7th Cir. 1983)
Buyer assumed sellers obligation to make pension payments to wide of previously deceased employee
Court no deduction to buyer
In Pacific Transport v. Commissioner, 29 T.C.M. 133 (1970), rev’d per curiam 483 F.2d 209 (9th Cir. 1973), a parent corporation liquidated its subsidiary (section 334(b)(2) and took assets and assumed the liabilities of the subsidiary, including a lawsuit that was asserted against the subsidiary.
The parent corporation believed its risk exposure on the claim was remote.
The parent corporation’s risk assessment was wrong and it ultimately had to pay the claim.
Tax court held that a deduction should be allowed because the claim was speculative and remote.
Appeals court reversed and held that contingency was irrelevant. Because the buyer was aware of the liability, payment of the claim was a cost of acquiring the assets.
No exception to capitalization for bad bargains.
Albany Car Wheel Co. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 831 (1963), aff’d 333 F.2d 653 (2nd Cir. 1964)
There was a collective bargaining agreement that required payment of severance wages to employees upon a plant shutdown.
The purchase agreement called for an express assumption of the severance pay liabilities.
After the assets were transferred, the plant was shut down and severance payments were made by the buyer.
Court held that the liability did not arise until after the closing when the plant shut down. Therefore the liability arose on the buyer’s side.
Contract required payment upon certain contingent, future events. Liability arose when the event occurred.