ES NPA Holding, LLC v. Comm’r
The Tax Court ruled that the class C units were a profits interest because, when applying the fair market value of the LLC at the time of receipt, the partner would not receive any proceeds from a liquidation at that time. Any proceeds in excess of fair market value would be speculative. No accuracy penalty was appropriate either.
On Liquidation Tax Matters, Partner Would Not Receive Any Proceeds, Interest Received Would Be Nontaxable Profits Interest
The Tax Court ruled that the class C units were a profits interest because, when applying the fair market value of the LLC at the time of receipt, the partner would not receive any proceeds from a liquidation at that time. Any proceeds in excess of fair market value would be speculative. No accuracy penalty was appropriate either.
Court uses old transaction to value a dental practice
In a North Carolina divorce case, the wife’s stake in a dental practice was valued based on what she paid for it two years before she and her husband separated in 2015 (the valuation date).
Logue v. Logue
In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.
North Carolina Appellate Court Values a Dental Practice Based on a Two-Year-Old Purchase of an Interest in the Practice
In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.
Recent Developments in Delaware Valuation Cases
This article discusses current developments in Delaware case law as they relate to valuation. It reviews all relevant Delaware Supreme Court decisions since 2017 and all relevant Court of Chancery decisions since 2019. We discuss the emphasis being placed by the Delaware courts on using discounted cash flow for valuations in related party transactions, as well as the substantial reliance on transaction price as the valuation measure in arm's-length transactions that have a satisfactory negotiation ...
Coca-Cola Co. v. Comm'r
Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 198, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!
2020’s Most Important Transfer Pricing Case—Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 1986, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!
BVU News and Trends December 2019
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Details of the CUT method used in the Amazon case
Last week’s BVWire covered the 9th Circuit decision in the Amazon case that affirmed the U.S. Tax Court’s 2017 decision in favor of the company in a transfer pricing case.
Tax Court’s Amazon valuation ruling stands up to 9th Circuit scrutiny
The 9th Circuit recently affirmed the U.S. Tax Court’s 2017 decision in favor of Amazon in this key transfer pricing case, finding the governing regulations limited the definition of “intangible” to independently transferrable assets.
9th Circuit Upholds Tax Court’s Valuation of Intangibles in Big Transfer Pricing Case
Appeals court affirms Tax Court ruling favoring taxpayer’s CUT method over IRS’ DCF to value various intangible assets transferred to European subsidiary; governing regulations limit definition of “intangible” to independently transferrable assets, excluding residual business assets, court says.
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Commissioner (II)
Appeals court affirms Tax Court ruling favoring taxpayer’s CUT method over IRS’ DCF to value various intangible assets transferred to European subsidiary; governing regulations limit definition of “intangible” to independently transferrable assets, excluding residual business assets, court says.
Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. (Aruba III)
Delaware Supreme Court overturns Court of Chancery’s fair value determination based on unaffected market price and awards petitioners deal price minus synergies as determined by company; trial court’s analysis rested on “inapt” agency-costs theory and raised due process and fairness concerns.
Delaware Supreme Court Reproves Chancery’s Use of Unaffected Market Price in Aruba
Delaware Supreme Court overturns Court of Chancery’s fair value determination based on unaffected market price and awards petitioners deal price minus synergies as determined by company; trial court’s analysis rested on “inapt” agency-costs theory and raised due process and fairness concerns.
Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. (Aruba II)
Court of Chancery denies petitioners’ motion for reargument, finding that, in light of high court’s Dell and DFC decisions, the decision to use the unaffected market price as the fair value indicator was not so “ridiculous” or “absurd” as to indicate the Court of Chancery misapprehended the law.
Chancery Defends Use of Market Price Citing Recent High Court Rulings
Court of Chancery denies petitioners’ motion for reargument, finding that, in light of high court’s Dell and DFC decisions, the decision to use the unaffected market price as the fair value indicator was not so “ridiculous” or “absurd” as to indicate the Court of Chancery misapprehended the law.
Court of Chancery disregards deal price where sales process is not ‘Dell compliant’
Recent rulings from the Delaware Supreme Court make it seem as if the discounted cash flow analysis has lost its top ranking among valuation methodologies in statutory appraisals involving publicly traded companies. Not exactly.
Court of Chancery exalts stock price as most accurate indicator of fair value
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently had an opportunity to put into practice the directives the state’s high court had issued in DFC Global and Dell in terms of calculating fair value in a statutory appraisal proceeding.
In re AOL Inc.
In statutory appraisal, court finds sales process was not “Dell compliant” and declines to assign any weight to deal price; court agrees with parties’ experts that DCF best captures fair value on valuation date and arrives at final value below deal price.
Chancery Relies on DCF Where Deal Process Is Not ‘Dell Compliant’
In statutory appraisal, court finds sales process was not “Dell compliant” and declines to assign any weight to deal price; court agrees with parties’ experts that DCF best captures fair value on valuation date and arrives at final value below deal price.
CUT Method Prevails in Amazon’s Transfer Pricing War With IRS
In transfer pricing case, Tax Court says Amazon more accurately determined buy-in and cost-sharing payments by using CUT method to value separately three types of intangible assets; IRS’s DCF analysis results in improper enterprise valuation, court says ...
Chancery Says Solid Sales Process Lends Credibility to Deal Price
In appraisal action, Chancery says final merger consideration best represents fair value, noting sales process led to “meaningful price discovery”; court says with DCF too much depends on assumptions; small changes may have outsize impact on value range.
Court of Appeals Sides With Taxpayers on Right to Vet IRS Expert Valuation
Court of Appeals finds Tax Court held mistaken view of burden of proof and erred in declining to evaluate taxpayers’ multiple challenges to IRS’s expert valuation; on remand, Tax Court may consider new valuation evidence, appeals court says.
CUT Method Prevails in Amazon’s Transfer Pricing War With IRS
In transfer pricing case, Tax Court says Amazon more accurately determined buy-in and cost-sharing payments by using CUT method to value separately three types of intangible assets; IRS’s DCF analysis results in improper enterprise valuation, court says.