Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States
1993 U.S. LEXIS 2979, 507 U.S. 546, 113 S. Ct. 1670 (1993)
Rule of Law:
An intangible asset, such as a customer list or subscriber base, is depreciable under Section 167 of the Internal Revenue Code if the taxpayer proves the asset has an ascertainable value and a limited useful life, the duration of which can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, regardless of whether it relates to the expectancy of continued patronage (goodwill).
Facts:
- The Herald Company purchased substantially all the outstanding shares of Booth Newspapers, Inc., a publisher of daily and Sunday newspapers in eight Michigan communities, in 1976.
- Herald and Booth merged on May 31, 1977, and Herald continued to publish the eight papers under their original names.
- Herald allocated approximately $67.8 million of its adjusted income tax basis in the Booth shares to an intangible asset denominated 'paid subscribers'.
- This 'paid subscribers' asset consisted of 460,000 identified subscribers to the Booth newspapers as of the merger date.
- The $67.8 million figure represented Herald's estimate of future profits expected from these at-will subscribers, who were expected to continue their subscriptions.
- The customer relationship with these subscribers was terminable at will by the subscribers, meaning they had not paid in advance or committed to a set subscription term.
Procedural Posture:
- Newark Morning Ledger Co., after merging with Herald, filed timely claims for refund with the IRS for additional taxes paid for the years 1977-1980.
- Upon the IRS's inaction for the prescribed 6-month period, Newark Morning Ledger Co. sued the United States in the District of New Jersey to recover the erroneously assessed and collected taxes and interest.
- The District Court ruled in favor of Newark Morning Ledger Co., finding that the 'paid subscribers' asset was not self-regenerating, had a limited useful life, and was separate and distinct from goodwill.
- The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, concluding that 'paid subscribers' was essentially goodwill and therefore nondepreciable.
- The Court of Appeals denied Newark Morning Ledger Co.'s suggestion for rehearing en banc, with two judges dissenting.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve an issue of substantial importance under the Internal Revenue Code and to settle a perceived conflict among circuits.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have the authority to treat an intangible asset as nondepreciable solely because it considers the asset to be goodwill as a matter of law, even when the taxpayer proves the asset has an ascertainable value and a limited useful life that can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No, the IRS may not treat an intangible asset as nondepreciable simply because it classifies it as goodwill if the taxpayer can prove the asset has an ascertainable value and a limited useful life. Section 167(a) of the Code permits depreciation for property subject to exhaustion or wear and tear, including obsolescence. While Treasury regulations state that 'no deduction for depreciation is allowable with respect to goodwill,' the underlying premise for this prohibition is that goodwill has no determinate useful life of specific duration. This justification evaporates when a taxpayer can demonstrate that an asset, even one related to customer patronage, wastes over a reasonably ascertainable period. The Court affirmed the two-part test from Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. United States, requiring the taxpayer to prove that the intangible asset (1) has an ascertainable value separate and distinct from goodwill, and (2) has a limited useful life, the duration of which can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy. The Court rejected the government's argument that 'paid subscribers' was inherently goodwill and therefore nondepreciable as a matter of law. In this case, Newark Morning Ledger successfully proved that the 460,000 'paid subscribers' constituted a finite set of subscriptions existing on a particular date, not a self-regenerating mass asset. Expert testimony, which the government stipulated regarding useful life estimates, showed that the individual subscriptions had limited useful lives estimated with reasonable accuracy based on actuarial factors. The value was appropriately calculated using an 'income approach,' which the government failed to rebut with evidence, instead relying on the 'cost approach' for a different asset (new subscribers). The Court concluded that the factual findings demonstrated the asset's value diminished over an ascertainable period, making it depreciable under § 167.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes, the intangible asset referred to as 'paid subscribers' is indistinguishable from goodwill and is therefore nondepreciable as a matter of law. Justice Souter argued that the long-established meaning of goodwill, rooted in Justice Story's definition, refers to 'the expectancy of continued patronage' or 'the probability that old customers will resort to the old place.' Ledger's 'paid subscribers' asset, valued by predicting future net revenues from existing at-will subscribers, perfectly fits this definition. The Treasury regulation explicitly bars depreciation of goodwill, a rule consistently upheld by courts. The majority's decision to allow depreciation based on a measurable life effectively redefines goodwill as an 'accounting leftover,' which oversteps the Court's role by rewriting a 65-year-old Treasury regulation and overturning settled statutory interpretation. Furthermore, even if the majority's new definition were accepted, Ledger failed to meet its evidentiary burden. Dr. Glasser's expert testimony, which predicted the average remaining lives of existing subscriptions, was flawed. His predictions were based on the assumption that the total number of subscriptions would remain stable over time and that the newspaper's management would continue to act intelligently to maintain subscriber satisfaction. This assumption meant his estimate reflected the combined effect of pre-sale goodwill and post-sale satisfaction, not solely the wasting life of the purchased date-of-sale goodwill. Thus, Ledger failed to show the definite duration of the purchased goodwill necessary for depreciation under Section 167(a).
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered the landscape of intangible asset depreciation, particularly for customer-based intangibles. By shifting the inquiry from a per se legal classification of 'goodwill' to a factual assessment of ascertainable value and limited useful life, the Court opened the door for businesses to amortize a broader range of acquired intangible assets. This ruling encouraged more precise valuation and 'lifing' studies for assets like customer lists, subscriber bases, and core deposits, significantly impacting mergers and acquisitions, tax planning, and financial reporting. It places a substantial, but achievable, burden on taxpayers to demonstrate the quantifiable nature and finite existence of such assets.
