Meredith Corporation & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner , 108 T.C. No. 7 ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                        
    108 T.C. No. 7
    UNITED STATES TAX COURT
    MEREDITH CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
    Docket No. 18248-95.              Filed February 27, 1997.
    P moved for partial summary judgment, claiming
    that it is entitled to a $1,555,428 ordinary deduction
    in its TYE 1990 stemming from contingent asset
    acquisition costs that became fixed in that year, after
    the expiration of the useful life of the asset to which
    they correspond. R objected to P's motion and filed a
    cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing:
    (1) the contingent asset acquisition costs were not
    attributable to the subscriber relationships asset but
    must be allocated to nonamortizable intangibles; and,
    in the alternative, (2) the expiration of the useful
    life of the subscriber relationships bars any further
    cost recovery by P. Held: The contingent acquisition
    costs at issue are allocable to the basis of the
    subscriber relationships in P's TYE 1990. Meredith
    Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. 406
     (1994),
    followed. Held, further, P is entitled to an ordinary
    deduction in full in its TYE 1990 for contingent asset
    - 2 -
    acquisition costs incurred in that year, after the
    underlying asset had been fully amortized. Arrowsmith
    v. Commissioner, 
    344 U.S. 6
     (1952) and sec. 1.338(b)-
    3T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 
    51 Fed. Reg. 3592
     (Jan.
    29, 1986), applied.
    James L. Malone III, for petitioner.
    Lawrence K. Letkewicz and Jan E. Lamartine, for respondent.
    OPINION
    NIMS, Judge:   This matter is before the Court on
    petitioner's motion and respondent's cross-motion for partial
    summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121 on July 26, 1996, and
    November 8, 1996, respectively.   Petitioner moves for partial
    summary judgment in its favor, arguing that it is entitled to
    deduct contingent acquisition costs incurred after the asset to
    which they pertain has been completely amortized.   Respondent
    objects to petitioner's motion and also moves for partial summary
    judgment in her favor, arguing in part that the expiration of the
    useful life of the asset bars any further cost recovery by
    petitioner.   For the reasons detailed below, we shall grant
    petitioner's motion, and deny respondent's cross-motion for
    partial summary judgment.
    Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
    Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.   All section
    references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code in effect
    as of the date of the initial transaction underlying the dispute.
    - 3 -
    At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's principal
    place of business was Des Moines, Iowa.
    A motion for summary judgment or for partial summary
    judgment may be granted if no genuine issue of material fact
    exists and the decision can be rendered as a matter of law.    Rule
    121; Sundstrand Corp. & Consol. Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    98 T.C. 518
    , 520 (1992), affd. 
    17 F.3d 965
     (7th Cir. 1994); Shiosaki v.
    Commissioner, 
    61 T.C. 861
    , 862-863 (1974).   In their respective
    Statements of Undisputed Facts, the parties have agreed to fully
    incorporate the stipulation of facts that is part of the record
    in Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. 406
     (1994)
    (Meredith I).   The parties have also agreed to fully incorporate
    the facts as set forth in the Court's Opinion in Meredith I.
    This reference incorporates herein the Statements of Undisputed
    Facts and attached exhibits.   As such, there is no genuine issue
    of material fact, and this matter is ripe for resolution by means
    of summary judgment.   We shall repeat the facts as necessary to
    clarify the ensuing discussion.
    Background
    Meredith Corporation (petitioner or Meredith) was organized
    in 1902.   It is a diversified media company involved in magazine
    and book publishing, television broadcasting, real estate
    marketing, franchising, and until recently, printing.   Meredith
    has continued to expand its operations in the media industry over
    - 4 -
    the years through internal growth and acquisitions.    Petitioner
    is an accrual basis taxpayer that keeps its books and records,
    and files its Federal income tax returns, on a taxable year
    ending (TYE) June 30th.
    In connection with its January 3, 1986, purchase of the
    magazine Ladies' Home Journal (LHJ), Meredith assumed certain
    contingent obligations of the seller, Family Media, Inc. (FMI),
    relating to an intangible asset designated "subscriber
    relationships".   Meredith agreed to produce and deliver copies of
    LHJ to subscribers already existent on the acquisition date for
    the remainder of their subscription terms, necessarily entailing
    fulfillment costs for which Meredith was to receive no
    reimbursement from FMI.   Such costs included, but were not
    limited to, expenses associated with paper, printing, editorial
    salaries, and delivery (editorial costs).    The fulfillment costs
    were contingent for two reasons:    (1) The costs were variable;
    and (2) LHJ subscribers were permitted to request cash refunds
    for the remaining terms of their subscriptions at any time, for
    which FMI remained solely liable.    The contingent expenditures at
    issue herein were editorial costs incurred by Meredith during its
    TYE 1990.
    The years before the Court in Meredith I were petitioner's
    TYE 1986 and TYE 1987.    Meredith I addressed the issues of
    petitioner's entitlement to amortization deductions with
    - 5 -
    respect to three intangible assets acquired in its purchase of
    LHJ:    (1) A noncompetition agreement; (2) an employment
    relationship; and (3) the subscriber relationships.
    The parties stipulated in Meredith I that the useful life of
    the subscriber relationships was 42 months.    In addition, the
    parties stipulated that the actual editorial costs incurred by
    Meredith through June 30, 1991, stemming from its assumption of
    FMI's fulfillment obligation, were as follows:
    Present Value
    FYE            Editorial Costs      Discounted at 14%
    6/30/86        $8,324,660           $8,056,386
    6/30/87         7,827,573            6,866,292
    6/30/88         2,869,118            2,207,693
    6/30/89         1,462,368              987,057
    6/30/90           807,267              477,967
    6/30/91           321,780              167,122
    21,612,766           18,762,517
    On March 14, 1994, this Court issued its Opinion in Meredith
    I, and on June 16, 1994, a decision was entered.    In the Opinion,
    we decided that the assumed editorial costs composed part of the
    purchase price of the subscriber relationships, but that the
    costs could not be included in petitioner's basis of that asset
    as of the acquisition date due to their contingency.    Instead, we
    held that such costs (plus the present value of tax savings
    resulting from the amortization of such costs) must be added to
    the "basis of the subscriber relationships in the years in which
    * * * [they] are incurred".    Meredith Corp. & Subs. v.
    Commissioner, supra at 455.    The Court then permitted those costs
    - 6 -
    incurred in petitioner's TYE 1986 and TYE 1987 to be amortized
    over whatever remained of the stipulated 42-month useful life of
    the subscriber relationships.     Id. at 462-463.   No appeal was
    taken from the Court's decision.
    On April 9, 1993, Meredith filed a petition in this Court
    involving the same subscriber relationships issue for its TYE
    1988.   Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, docket No. 7166-93
    (Meredith II).   Meredith and respondent filed a Joint Motion for
    Continuance (Joint Motion) in Meredith II since the Meredith I
    opinion was not anticipated prior to the Meredith II trial date.
    In the Joint Motion, the parties stated:
    The amortization issues in the above-captioned case
    relate to the years subsequent to the year of the
    initial transaction, 1986, and as such, the parties
    anticipate that resolution of the amortization issues
    in the 1986 and 1987 taxable years will form the basis
    for settlement of the issues in this case.
    Meredith II was thereafter settled by the parties, using the
    exact methodology set forth by the Court in Meredith I.      This
    Court entered a decision in Meredith II on October 4, 1994.
    The same issue arising in Meredith's TYE 1989 was
    subsequently settled with the IRS Appeals Office in Des Moines,
    Iowa, applying, without dispute, the identical method used in
    Meredith I and Meredith II.     In a letter to petitioner dated June
    29, 1995, respondent notified Meredith that the Joint Committee
    on Taxation (Joint Committee) had officially informed her that it
    - 7 -
    had reviewed and "taken no exception" to the settlement reached
    by the parties for Meredith's TYE 1989.
    Meredith timely filed a Federal income tax return for its
    TYE 1990 prior to the Court's decision in Meredith I.     Based on
    Meredith I, petitioner later claimed an ordinary deduction for
    that year of $1,555,428 ($807,267 editorial costs plus tax
    savings) relating to the acquisition of the subscriber
    relationships.   On August 29, 1995, respondent issued a statutory
    notice of deficiency to Meredith in which, among other
    adjustments to income, Meredith's claimed deduction of $1,555,428
    for its TYE 1990 was disallowed completely, and a deficiency of
    $744,852 was determined.
    Discussion
    We must adjudge the proper tax treatment for contingent
    editorial costs and correlated tax savings that were allocable to
    the basis of the subscriber relationships in Meredith's TYE 1990.
    The issue of whether these costs should be allocated to the basis
    of that particular asset was resolved affirmatively in Meredith
    I.   Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. at 455
    .
    However, the subscriber relationships were completely amortized
    after the end of their stipulated 42-month useful life.
    In Meredith I, this Court established a methodology for
    determining Meredith's tax basis in its subscriber relationships.
    Critical to this method--and the current imbroglio--was our
    - 8 -
    conclusion that the fulfillment obligation assumed by Meredith on
    January 3, 1986, was contingent.
    The Court calculated petitioner's initial basis in the
    subscriber relationships asset as of January 3, 1986, by first
    finding that its value was $40,300,000 (including value
    attributed to tax savings).   This was determined by using the
    income approach of petitioner's expert (Grabowski), and by
    assuming an exclusion during the first 35 months of a portion of
    the advertising revenues of LHJ attributable to the efforts of
    the magazine's editor-in-chief (editor advertising exclusion).
    Using Grabowski's amortization factor of .37634, we calculated
    this value to be approximately $25,133,500 prior to the addition
    of tax savings.   The Court thereafter decreased this pretax
    savings figure by the present value of the stipulated editorial
    costs through June 30, 1991 (approximately $18,762,500) since
    these costs were contingent, and increased the resulting figure
    by the present value of the 35 months of the editor advertising
    exclusion (which we computed to be approximately $2,760,000).    We
    thus found petitioner's initial basis to be $14,641,000, after
    the addition of tax savings of $5,510,000.   Meredith Corp. &
    Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 463.   The Court reasoned that, to
    be consistent with the parties' stipulation requiring
    capitalization of the editorial costs and with the income
    approach, the proper treatment of the amounts was to charge them
    against revenues in determining petitioner's initial basis and to
    - 9 -
    add such amounts to the basis in the years in which they were
    incurred.    Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 454-
    455.
    Petitioner claims that respondent erred in disallowing the
    ordinary amortization deduction of $1,555,428 in its TYE 1990,
    inasmuch as the deduction reflects the portion of the LHJ
    purchase price and corresponding tax savings attributable to the
    acquired subscriber relationships for that year.    Since the 42-
    month useful life of the subscriber relationships had expired,
    Meredith argues that the entire additional purchase price
    becoming fixed during its TYE 1990 should be deducted in that
    year in order for it to adequately recover the cost of its
    investment.
    Respondent contends, on the other hand, that Meredith's
    annual recovery of the total cost of the subscriber relationships
    must be terminated.    Thus, respondent argues that petitioner is
    not permitted to deduct $1,555,428 in its TYE 1990 and that at
    least $807,267 (actual editorial costs exclusive of tax benefits)
    represents a nonamortizable capital expenditure.    She proposes
    June 30, 1989, as the cut-off date for petitioner's recovery of
    costs, even though not all of the costs of the subscriber
    relationships had been incurred as of that date.    Respondent
    states in the notice of deficiency:
    The court determined that the subscriber
    relationships acquired on January 3, 1986 had a useful
    life of 42 months in Meredith Corp. and Subs. v.
    - 10 -
    Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. 406
     (1994). As a result of the
    opinion and as a result of the determination of the
    Commissioner, it has been determined that the deduction
    * * * claimed as an amortization deduction with respect
    to amounts allocated to a subscription list included in
    the intangible assets acquired in the purchase of
    Ladies['] Home Journal, is disallowed in full because
    the amount paid was for non-amortizable intangibles,
    having an indeterminate useful life under Section 167
    of the Internal Revenue Code.
    We agree with petitioner.   Among other things, respondent
    misconstrues our holding in Meredith I regarding the contingent
    nature of all of the editorial costs described above and the
    resulting impact on petitioner's tax basis in the subscriber
    relationships.   She also disregards general principles of tax law
    concerning the treatment of contingent asset acquisition costs
    incurred after an asset has been disposed of or has exceeded its
    useful life.
    I. Meredith I Unequivocally Reasoned That Contingent Editorial
    Costs Were To Be Added to the Tax Basis of the Subscriber
    Relationships When They Were Incurred
    Respondent posits that the post-June 30, 1989, contingent
    costs do not increase petitioner's basis in the amortizable
    subscriber relationships, but "instead are allocated to the basis
    of going concern value or goodwill, neither of which is
    amortizable".    (The underlying transaction occurred prior to the
    effective date of section 197, as enacted by Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-66, section 13261(a), 
    107 Stat. 532
    .)
    - 11 -
    It is true, as respondent points out, that the allocable
    purchase price exceeded the fair market value of the acquired
    tangible and amortizable intangible assets of LHJ.     That does not
    dictate, however, that editorial costs incurred after the
    expiration of the 42-month useful life must be assigned to
    nonamortizable goodwill or going concern value.     As we stated in
    Meredith I, "the sole reason why the subscriber relationships are
    not treated as goodwill is that they can be valued and have a
    limited useful life which can be estimated with reasonable
    accuracy".     Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. at 460
    .    The aforementioned editorial costs were found to constitute
    part of the value of that asset, and not of goodwill.     In arguing
    to the contrary, respondent ignores our rationale in Meredith I
    that such contingent costs were to be added "to the basis of the
    subscriber relationships in the years in which such amounts are
    incurred".     Id. at 455 (emphasis added).
    The Court initially subtracted from Grabowski's income
    approach valuation of the subscriber relationships the present
    value of all of the stipulated editorial costs (including costs
    incurred during Meredith's TYE 1990 and TYE 1991) due to their
    contingency, and then prescribed adjustments for TYE 1986 and TYE
    1987 based on the actual costs incurred by Meredith in each of
    those years.     Id. at 463.   It would be inconsistent with the
    analysis in Meredith I to deny petitioner an increase in the
    - 12 -
    basis of its subscriber relationships for the editorial costs and
    associated tax benefits becoming fixed in its TYE 1990.
    II. Meredith I Does Not Preclude Petitioner's Deduction for
    Editorial Costs Incurred During Its TYE 1990
    Respondent alternatively contends that "Nothing in the
    Court's Opinion in Meredith I even remotely suggests that
    Petitioner is entitled to an ordinary deduction [in its TYE
    1990]" for additional contingent costs becoming fixed in that
    year.   Nothing, however, in our Opinion suggests otherwise.
    Respondent nonetheless claims that "strictly speaking, the
    Court's Opinion [in Meredith I] precludes the deduction claimed
    by * * * [Meredith] for the taxable year ended June 30, 1990
    * * * [because of the expiration of the stipulated 42-month
    useful life]".   She cites the following language from Meredith I
    to support her proposition:
    The amounts are not subject to a new depreciation
    schedule, but, rather, are to be depreciated over the
    remaining useful life of the subscriber relationships
    based on a useful life ending 42 months after the
    acquisition of the subscribers. * * * Meredith Corp.
    & Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. at 462
    -463.
    However, the language above is inapposite to Meredith's TYE 1990
    at issue in the instant matter.    Placed in context, the words
    "the amounts" refer to the 1986 and 1987 additions to basis only.
    The penultimate sentence before the quotation computes dollar
    amounts for 1986 and 1987.    Moreover, the sentence before the
    quoted language refers to "these amounts", meaning the 1986 and
    1987 sums.
    - 13 -
    In Meredith I, we reasoned that contingent acquisition costs
    incurred through TYE 1991 were to be added to the cost basis of
    the subscriber relationships when they became fixed, and we held
    only that those costs attributable to Meredith's TYE 1986 and TYE
    1987 were amortizable over whatever remained of the 42-month
    useful life ending June 30, 1989.   We did not address the
    deductibility of editorial costs incurred in any year after TYE
    1987 because such years were not before the Court.
    III. Contingent Acquisition Costs Attributable to Fully Amortized
    Assets Are Deductible as Incurred
    Furthermore, the expiration in mid-1989 of the useful life
    of the subscriber relationships does not foreclose a deduction
    for those editorial costs incurred by Meredith during subsequent
    taxable years.   General tax law principles enounced in
    regulations and case law provide that contingent asset
    acquisition costs that become fixed after the relevant asset is
    fully amortized are deductible as they are incurred.
    Section 1.338(b)-3T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 
    51 Fed. Reg. 3592
     (Jan. 29, 1986), as adopted in T.D. 8072, 1986-
    1 C.B. 111
    , concerns the treatment of adjustments to adjusted grossed-up
    basis (AGUB) for contingent events that occur after the close of
    a new target's first taxable year in certain stock acquisitions.
    If an acquisition date asset has been disposed of, or fully
    depreciated, amortized, or depleted before a contingent amount is
    taken into account in determining AGUB, the contingent amount
    - 14 -
    otherwise allocable to such asset is treated "under principles of
    tax law applicable when part of the cost of an asset (not
    previously reflected in its basis) is paid after the asset has
    been disposed of, depreciated, amortized or depleted."    Sec.
    1.338(b)-3T(d)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 
    51 Fed. Reg. 3593
    (Jan. 29, 1986).
    Section 1.338(b)-3T(j), Example (1)(vi), Temporary Income
    Tax Regs., 
    51 Fed. Reg. 3595
     (Jan. 29, 1986) considers the
    disposition of stock (a capital asset) before a liability became
    fixed and determinable.    Since the stock had been disposed of
    prior to the contingent liability's becoming fixed, no amount of
    the increase in AGUB attributable to such asset was allocable to
    any other asset, including goodwill and going concern value.      See
    discussion supra pp. 13-14.    Instead, the example directs the
    taxpayer to deduct the liability as a capital loss under the
    principles of Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, 
    344 U.S. 6
     (1952).
    In Arrowsmith, a corporation liquidated, and its
    shareholders reported their gain as capital.    In a later year, a
    judgment was rendered against the former corporation.    The
    erstwhile shareholders paid the judgment for the corporation
    because they were transferees of its assets.    They deducted the
    entire amount paid as an ordinary loss.    However, the Supreme
    Court determined that the losses that resulted from the payment
    of the judgment stemmed from a legal obligation arising out of
    the prior liquidation.    Since the original transaction was a
    - 15 -
    capital one, the Court held that the related transaction was also
    capital.   Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, supra at 8.
    Respondent gainsays the applicability of the foregoing
    discussion to the issue herein because, among other reasons,
    section 1.338(b)-3T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 
    51 Fed. Reg. 3592
     (Jan. 29, 1986), postdates Meredith's purchase of LHJ's
    assets, and Arrowsmith does not directly address the
    deductibility of contingent asset acquisition costs.
    We agree with respondent that the regulations and case law
    are not controlling authority.         Nevertheless, we think the
    general principles espoused therein comport equally well with the
    increase in basis of fully amortized subscriber relationships as
    they do with adjustments to AGUB of fully amortized or disposed
    assets under section 338.       For present purposes, we descry no
    reason to distinguish the two situations.
    Moreover, these tax law principles antedate petitioner's
    purchase of the assets of LHJ and are thus appropriately
    considered by the Court.    The Secretary states:
    These [section 1.338(b)-3T] rules provide for the
    incorporation of general principles of tax law which
    are applicable to the determination of the basis of
    assets acquired in actual asset purchases. * * *
    *    *      *      *      *    *    *
    For example, an amount of adjusted grossed-up basis
    otherwise allocable to a disposed of capital asset may
    be deducted by new target as a capital loss. [T.D.
    8072, 1986-
    1 C.B. 111
    , 114; citation omitted.]
    - 16 -
    The Secretary cites Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, supra, a case
    decided well before petitioner's acquisition of LHJ, as authority
    for that assertion.    See T.D. 8072, supra.
    We now apply the preceding analysis to the facts before us.
    Meredith is entitled to an increase in the basis of the
    subscriber relationships due to contingent acquisition costs
    becoming fixed in its TYE 1990.    The section 338 regulations
    supra provide a template for petitioner to treat the fully
    amortized subscriber relationships asset as if it had been
    disposed of before the increase in basis, and to determine the
    character of the resulting deduction pursuant to Arrowsmith v.
    Commissioner, supra.    Since the added basis would have resulted
    in ordinary amortization deductions if it had been included in
    the original acquisition cost, we hold that petitioner is
    entitled to an ordinary deduction in its TYE 1990 of the entire
    amount of the contingent editorial costs becoming fixed in that
    year.    See Meredith Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 
    102 T.C. at 455
    .
    IV. A Deduction for Contingent Costs Incurred During TYE June
    1990 Does Not Result in Excessive Cost Recovery for Petitioner
    Finally, respondent contends that, "implicit" in the Court's
    calculation of petitioner's initial basis in the subscriber
    relationships in Meredith I is a "maximum" "fair market value
    [basis] * * * as of January 3, 1986 of $44,725,488" and that
    since petitioner has already deducted $48,798,243, "over $4
    - 17 -
    million more than what its initial basis would have been if the
    Court had not excluded the present value of the assumed editorial
    costs," any additional deduction is unwarranted.    However,
    respondent's argument misses the mark.    As discussed earlier, we
    held that the tax basis of this intangible asset was $14,641,000
    as of January 3, 1986 and was to be increased as fulfillment
    costs were thereafter incurred, through petitioner's TYE 1991.
    Id. at 455.   What "would have been" if we had decided differently
    is irrelevant.
    Moreover, if we had determined in Meredith I that the
    editorial costs were not contingent subscriber expenditures, such
    that the "maximum" tax basis that respondent theorizes in fact
    applied, Meredith would have been entitled to amortize the entire
    amount of its editorial costs and associated tax savings through
    its TYE 1991 over the stipulated 42-month useful life of the
    asset.   Id. at 445.   The present controversy never would have
    materialized.    In Meredith I, respondent inveighed against such a
    result and prevailed.    Respondent cannot have it both ways.
    To reflect the foregoing,
    An appropriate order
    granting petitioner's motion
    for partial summary judgment
    and denying respondent's
    - 18 -
    cross-motion for partial
    summary judgment will be
    issued.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18248-95

Citation Numbers: 108 T.C. No. 7

Filed Date: 2/27/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2018