1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*76 P, an accrual method corporation, placed a letter of credit in trust to satisfy the estimated claims of a contested liability.
92 T.C. 1116">*1116 OPINION
These cases were assigned to Special Trial Judge Carleton D. Powell pursuant to the provisions of section 7456(d)(4) of the Code (redesignated section 7443A(b)(4) by section 1556 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2755) and
1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*77 92 T.C. 1116">*1117 OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
Powell,
Year | Deficiency |
1978 | $ 4,049,334 |
1979 | $ 3,526,506 |
1980 | 12,320,646 |
1981 | 44,604 |
1982 | 63,578 |
1983 | 274,480 |
The primary issue in the notices of deficiency relates to valuing eligible timber for purposes of section 631(a). In addition, petitioner deducted $ 20 million on its return for the taxable year ended December 31, 1981, under
By order of this Court dated July 16, 1987, the issue under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. Petitioner had its principal office1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*78 in Portland, Oregon, when it filed the petitions in these cases.
Prior to 1964, almost all plywood was manufactured in the Pacific Northwest. Most producers quoted a purchase or "delivered" price which consisted of an individually negotiated "mill" price (also known as the "base" or "index" price) plus a freight charge based upon the rail freight rate from the West Coast to the geographic zone of delivery (West Coast Freight).
92 T.C. 1116">*1118 In 1964, a technology to make plywood from Southern pine was developed. Georgia-Pacific Corp. opened the first plywood mill in the South and other plywood producers (Southern producers), including petitioner, soon followed. Southern producers adopted the same price quotation as the Western producers, that is, individually negotiated mill prices plus West Coast freight calculated according to "standard weights," rather than actual weights.
The Federal Trade Commission brought an action in April 1974 against several Southern producers, including petitioner. The complaint charged these producers with violating section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (
Prior to the decision of the Ninth Circuit, numerous private actions were filed against petitioner and other Southern plywood producers pursuant to section 4 of the Clayton Act (
The trial commenced before a jury in October 1978. In November 1978, the jury returned a verdict against petitioner, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Weyerhaeuser Co., finding that they had engaged in a conspiracy with all other Southern pine plywood manufacturers to use "West Coast freight" in plywood pricing. In addition, the jury found that defendants had engaged in a conspiracy with all other 92 T.C. 1116">*1119 softwood plywood manufacturers to use the "standard weight" system in the pricing of Western fir plywood. Although the jury did not determine the dollar amount of the liability, it did determine that the measure of damages should be the difference between West Coast freight and actual freight and between standard weights and actual weights.
The District Court denied a motion for a new trial and entered judgments based upon the jury's verdict. Following entry of the judgments, motions were filed for monetary judgments for treble damages based on the formulae contained in the jury verdict. The District Court granted these motions, ruled that no further trial would be necessary to determine the damages, and entered monetary judgments in favor of1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*81 four sample plaintiffs. Petitioner, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Weyerhaeuser Co. filed appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 2
On September 8, 1981, the Court of Appeals entered its opinion affirming the judgments based on the jury's verdict in all respects.
On December 28, 1981, petitioner applied to the Bank of America for a letter of credit in the amount of $ 20 million. The letter of credit was issued and transferred to a settlement trust on that date. The letter of credit and the trust became valid and enforceable on December 28, 1981. By its terms, the letter of credit was subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1974 revision).
The letter of credit required the Bank of1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*82 America to pay the amount of the letter to the trustee on December 31, 1986, if the letter was not drawn upon in full, prior to that date. The letter of credit also gave the Bank of America the discretion to pay the amount of the letter to the trustee at any time prior to the earlier of a draw or December 31, 1986.
92 T.C. 1116">*1120 A loan agreement appeared on the reverse side of the letter of credit. The agreement obligated petitioner to repay the bank within 90 days of withdrawal with interest at 103 percent of the prime rate. Petitioner paid the bank approximately $ 85,000 for the letter of credit and trustee fees.
By instrument dated December 28, 1981, petitioner also entered into a trust agreement with the Bank of America. The trust agreement obligated the trustee to draw on the letter of credit in the event of a final judgement against petitioner, whether that final judgment was entered as a result of a voluntary settlement agreement or the result of an adverse ruling.
In October 1982, petitioner entered into a reimbursement loan agreement with Bank of America, dated as of December 28, 1981, relating to the trust agreement and the letter of credit. The reimbursement loan agreement1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*83 replaced the loan agreement of December 29, 1981, signed by petitioner and the Bank of America, which appeared on the reverse side of the letter of credit. The reimbursement loan agreement permitted petitioner to repay any draws made on the letter of credit over a period of one year.
On March 2, 1982, petitioner, Georgia-Pacific Corp., and Weyerhaeuser Co., filed petitions with the Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On May 17, 1982, the petitions were granted.
While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the parties renewed settlement negotiations. On December 13, 1982, counsel for the respective parties met and agreed to recommend to their clients an overall settlement in the amount of $ 165 million. Based upon the plywood sales of each of the trial defendants during the years covered by the antitrust litigation, petitioner would pay 17.5 percent, Georgia-Pacific would pay 60 percent, and Weyerhaeuser would pay 22.5 percent.
The settlement was contingent on approval by the 1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*84 antitrust plaintiffs, the execution of a definitive agreement, and compliance with
On its 1981 tax return, petitioner claimed, under
Payments made to the antitrust plaintiffs by the Bank of America and petitioner were as follows:
Date | Amount |
1/28/83 | $ 5,250,000 |
1/30/84 | 10,395,000 |
1/30/85 | 9,605,000 |
1/30/85 | 3,388,750 |
The funds for the 1983 and the $ 3,388,750 1985 disbursements came directly from petitioner. The bank's 1984 and the $ 9,605,000 1985 disbursements resulted from draws against the letter of credit. Petitioner, however, on the same day as the draws paid the bank the amount of the payment.
OPINION
Generally, an accrual1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*85 basis taxpayer may deduct a liability expense only in the taxable year in which all events have occurred that determine the fact of the liability and only when the amount can be determined with reasonable accuracy.
92 T.C. 1116">*1122 In 1961, the Supreme Court eliminated this narrow exception to the general tax accounting rules.
Legislative relief was sought. Congress recognized that it was "unfortunate to deny taxpayers a deduction with respect to an item where the payment has actually been made, even though the liability is still being contested either as to amount or as to the item itself." S. Rept. 830, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964), 1964-1 C.B. (Part 2) 505, 604. The Committee felt that "allowing the deduction of items in the year paid, even though they are still being contested in the courts or otherwise, more realistically matches these deductions up with the income to which they relate than would the postponement of the deduction * * * until the contest is settled." S. Rept. 1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*87 830,
In 1964, Congress enacted
(1) the taxpayer contests an asserted liability, (2) the taxpayer (3) the contest with respect to the asserted liability exists after the time of the transfer, and 92 T.C. 1116">*1123 (4) but for the fact that the asserted liability is contested, a deduction would be allowed for the taxable year of the transfer (or for an earlier taxable year),
(c)
A deduction is allowed1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*89 only if all the requirements of
For purposes of this case, we are willing to assume (but we do not decide) that petitioner satisfied the requirements of
Petitioner urges that the transfer of the letter of credit constitutes a transfer of property within the meaning of 92 T.C. 1116">*1124
When a bank issues a letter of credit, the bank commits to provide funds when and if certain specified events occur. See
In order to put petitioner's position in proper perspective, let us assume the following hypotheticals. A taxpayer has assets of $ 100,000, uncontested liabilities of $ 20,000, and a contested liability of $ 20,000 for which there is a $ 20,000 estimated liability. A skeletal net worth or shareholder's equity would be: 3
Assets | Liabilities | ||
Cash, etc. | $ 100,000 | Uncontested | $ 20,000 |
Estimated contested to | 20,000 | ||
judgment creditor | |||
Equity | 60,000 | ||
Total assets | 100,000 | Total liabilities and equity | 100,000 |
If the hypothetical taxpayer transfers $ 20,000 to a trustee to pay the contested liability, the result would be: 92 T.C. 1116">*1125
Assets | Liabilities | ||
Cash, etc. | $ 80,000 | Uncontested | $ 20,000 |
Estimated contested | |||
Total assets | 80,000 | Equity | 60,000 |
Total liabilities and equity | 80,000 |
1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*92 Instead of transferring cash, assume the hypothetical taxpayer arranges for a letter of credit and transfers the letter to a trustee:
Assets | Liabilities | ||
Assets, etc. | $ 100,000 | Uncontested | $ 20,000 |
Estimated potential liability | |||
to bank | 20,000 | ||
Total assets | 100,000 | Equity | 60,000 |
Total liabilities and equity | 100,000 |
Thus, in the last hypothetical, the taxpayer substituted an estimated potential liability to the bank for the estimated contested liability to the judgment-creditor. From an economic standpoint of the taxpayer, therefore, there is no difference in the first or third hypotheticals. Compare
The first and third hypotheticals are identical to petitioner's position before and after December 28, 1981, when it obtained the letter of credit. Prior to that date, petitioner had a contested liability and an obligation to pay the antitrust plaintiffs only if it was held liable in the suit. After it obtained the letter of credit, petitioner was obligated to the bank if petitioner was held liable in the antitrust suit. 4 Petitioner thus exchanged a contingent liability to the antitrust1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*93 plaintiffs for a contingent liability to the bank.
This type of legerdemain does violence to both the letter and spirit of
Of course, there is no indication that Congress intended to provide a deduction by simply establishing a contingent liability reserve. Thus, the Senate Supplemental Report clearly statedthat a mere entry on the taxpayer's books, the purchase of a bond to secure eventual payment of a judgment, or transfer of funds to an account within the taxpayer's control did not qualify for a deduction. [Fn. ref. omitted.]
See also S. Rept. 830 (Part 2),
Furthermore, the purpose of
Moreover, in
92 T.C. 1116">*1127 Petitioner contends that
In sum, the trust arrangement here amounts to nothing more than the bank bonding the liability. This does not satisfy1989 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 76">*97 the requirements of
1. All section references are the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and in effect for the years in issue and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise noted.↩
2. The other defendants had settled with the antitrust plaintiffs.↩
3. We are aware that these figures are oversimplified and a balance sheet would reflect these hypotheticals differently. Nonetheless, from an economic standpoint they reflect pictures of what occurs.↩
4. The Bank of America was unconditionally obligated to pay the antitrust plaintiffs if petitioner was held liable.↩
5. See, however, discussion in