HIDE

Other Publications

Insights

Publications

Goodwill and Mister Donut – A Going Concern?

Goodwill and Mister Donut – A Going Concern?

· A sale of a business often involves an element of goodwill, a term that can have different meanings in different contexts, depending on whether the term relates to (i) purchase price allocations for financial statement purposes or income tax purposes or (ii) attempting to compute the source of income for foreign tax credit purposes. Compounding the definitional inconsistency, the meaning of the term has changed over time. In a 25-year old case, the overseas Mister Donut franchising business was sold to a foreign buyer in an asset-sale transaction. Although only intimated in the case, the taxpayer likely had significant amounts of deferred assets on its balance sheet arising from unused foreign tax credits. Because the seller was a U.S. company, gain from the sale of business generally results in the generation of domestic source income. Under the law in effect at the time, goodwill was sourced where business was carried on. Was that provision the key to access deferred foreign tax credits? The U.S. Tax Court said no. Sometimes, goodwill is not goodwill for foreign tax credit planning purposes. Michael Peggs and Wooyoung Lee look at the court’s reasoning and comment on certain contemporary aspects of the decision in light of provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and several I.R.S. pronouncements on goodwill.

Read More

Transfer of Business Contracts – I.R.S. Disagrees with Greenteam, No Capital Gains Without a Fight

Transfer of Business Contracts – I.R.S. Disagrees with Greenteam, No Capital Gains Without a Fight

In an Action on Decision (“A.O.D.”) published in late 2019, the I.R.S. announced its nonacquiescence to the Tax Court’s decision in Greenteam Materials Recovery Facility v. Commr.  The case involved Code §1253, the provision that standardizes the rules under which payments that are incident to the transfer of a franchise, trademark, or trade name may or may not be properly treated as capital gains.  The case was decided in the taxpayer’s favor because the taxpayer’s agreement avoided all the terms that would otherwise cause the sales proceeds to be characterized as ordinary income.  The nonacquiescence means that the I.R.S. will not follow the holding in cases appealable in Circuit Courts of Appeals other than the 9th Circuit.  The I.R.S. position is that the assets were limited-term contracts to provide services under fixed-term arrangements and looked more like a sale of future income than the sale of an appreciated asset.  Lisa Marie Singh and Stanley C. Ruchelman discuss the case and the nonacquiescence, cautioning that a franchise contract that cannot appreciate over time because the payments are fixed in amount or in scope of service is not an appreciating asset in the eyes of the I.R.S.

Read More