INDOPCO, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
503 U.S. 79 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expenditures incurred by a target corporation to facilitate a friendly takeover that produce significant long-term benefits are not deductible as 'ordinary and necessary' business expenses under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, but must instead be capitalized, even if the expenditures do not create or enhance a separate and distinct asset.
Facts:
- In October 1977, Unilever United States, Inc. (Unilever) expressed interest in acquiring National Starch and Chemical Corporation (National Starch) through a friendly transaction.
- National Starch's largest shareholders, Frank and Anna Greenwall, indicated they would only agree to the deal if it could be structured as a tax-free transaction for them.
- To satisfy the Greenwalls, lawyers devised a 'reverse subsidiary cash merger' structure for the acquisition.
- National Starch's board engaged the investment banking firm Morgan Stanley & Co. to evaluate the fairness of the proposed transaction to its shareholders.
- The board also utilized its law firm, Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons & Gates, for legal advice regarding their fiduciary duties in the transaction.
- Following negotiations, a final offer of $73.50 per share was deemed fair by Morgan Stanley and approved by National Starch's board.
- The transaction was consummated in August 1978, after which National Starch became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever.
- National Starch incurred over $2.2 million in fees to Morgan Stanley, over $500,000 in fees to its law firm, and over $150,000 in other miscellaneous expenses related to the acquisition.
Procedural Posture:
- On its 1978 federal income tax return, National Starch claimed a deduction for its investment banking fees.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deduction and issued a notice of deficiency.
- National Starch (petitioner) sought redetermination in the United States Tax Court, now also claiming deductions for the legal and miscellaneous expenses.
- The Tax Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner (respondent), finding the expenditures were capital in nature.
- National Starch (appellant) appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court's decision, holding that the long-term benefits to National Starch required the expenses to be capitalized.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are professional expenses, such as investment banking and legal fees, incurred by a target corporation during a friendly takeover that creates significant long-term benefits, deductible as 'ordinary and necessary' business expenses under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The professional expenses incurred by National Starch are not deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses; they are capital expenditures that must be capitalized. The court reasoned that the creation of a 'separate and distinct asset,' as discussed in Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn., is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for an expenditure to be classified as a capital expense. The primary inquiry is whether the expenditure creates significant benefits for the taxpayer that extend beyond the current taxable year. In this case, the acquisition by Unilever provided National Starch with substantial long-term benefits, including access to Unilever's vast resources, potential for business synergy, and the transformation from a publicly held corporation with many shareholders to a privately held subsidiary, which reduced shareholder-relations expenses. Because these expenses were incurred to change the corporate structure for the benefit of future operations, they must be capitalized.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the doctrine of capital expenditures by rejecting a narrow interpretation of prior precedent. It established the 'significant future benefits' principle as a key, independent justification for capitalizing an expense, moving beyond the more rigid 'separate and distinct asset' test. The ruling has had a major impact on the tax treatment of mergers and acquisitions, making it much more difficult for target corporations to deduct professional fees and other costs associated with being acquired. This case created what is often referred to as the 'INDOPCO rule,' which the IRS and courts have since applied broadly to require capitalization of a wide range of intangible expenditures that promise future benefits.
Unlock the full brief for INDOPCO, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE