A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Decision Date | 11 September 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 20225–92.,20225–92. |
Citation | 105 T.C. No. 14,105 T.C. 166 |
Parties | A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This case concerns the proper tax treatment of investment bankers' fees and printing costs incurred by petitioner in response to a series of unsolicited (but eventually successful) offers to acquire petitioner's stock. Petitioner's board of directors rejected the first two offers made by the acquirer. Ultimately, however, the board unanimously (1) approved a plan of merger with the acquirer and (2) recommended the acquirer's third offer to shareholders. Petitioner claims that, since the takeover was hostile, this case is distinguishable from National Starch & Chem. Corp. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 67 (1989) (, )affd. 918 F.2d 426 (3d Cir.1990), affd. sub. nom. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992), and Victory Mkts. & Subs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 648 (1992) (similar). We disagree.
Held: The expenditures in question are capital expenditures; no deduction is allowable under either sec. 162(a) or sec. 165, I.R.C.
Dan Burt, Forbes Maner, Henry B. Miller, and David G. Tripp, for petitioner.
Darrell C. Weaver and Michael W. Bitner, for respondent.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,544,166 in petitioner's Federal income tax for the October 1, 1987, to May 31, 1988, tax year. After concessions, the sole issue for decision concerns the proper tax treatment of investment bankers' fees and printing costs incurred by petitioner in response to a series of unsolicited (but eventually successful) offers to acquire petitioner's stock.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner's principal office was located in Decatur, Illinois.
Petitioner, A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. and Subsidiaries, was an affiliated group of corporations, formerly named Staley Continental, Inc. and Subsidiaries (SCI). The predecessor of both petitioner and SCI was A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (AES), which was incorporated in Delaware in 1906.
From its organization until November 1984, the primary business of AES consisted of storing and marketing corn and soybeans and of milling, processing, and refining corn and soybeans. Through a process called “corn wet milling”, AES produced sweeteners, starches, oils, and other ingredients for the food and beverage industry. The principal product of AES was high fructose corn syrup, which is a sweet syrup made from corn that can be used as a substitute for cane or beet sugar in food production and industrial applications. By the mid–1980's, high fructose corn syrup became the leading sweetener in the U.S. food and beverage market, especially in the soft drink industry. However, corn wet milling was a cyclical business, because it was dependent on the supply, price, and perishable nature of a single commodity, corn.
As of 1975, Donald E. Nordlund (Nordlund) was the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of AES. In 1984, the board of directors and management of AES made a long-term strategic decision to diversify into the food service business, which they believed had significant growth potential. AES sought growth opportunities in the food service business, because AES management believed that the high fructose corn syrup market was a mature market that had little growth opportunity and thought that earnings from the food service business would provide a hedge against the cyclical corn-based business. As part of this growth strategy, in 1984, AES acquired CFS Continental, Inc. (CFS), a leading supplier to the food service industry.
AES reorganized in 1985 to emphasize the changes in the company and its new business strategy and, also, to consolidate the management of its corn wet milling business and food service businesses; SCI was formed and became the parent company of AES and CFS. SCI moved its corporate headquarters from Decatur to Rolling Meadows, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. The objective of SCI was to modernize the corn wet milling plants to make them more efficient so as to reduce costs and to use the revenues from corn wet milling to pursue growth in the food service business. As part of this objective, SCI acquired Smelkinson Bros. Corp., a Baltimore–Washington food service distributor; Garden Products, Inc., a Portland produce distributor; Bit O'Gold, a Chicago food service distributor; the HAVI Corp. and Fresh Start Bakeries, suppliers to the McDonald's restaurant chain; Collins Foodservice, Inc.; Churchill, Inc., a Florida coffee roasting operation; Interstate Shortening; and Full Sail Products, Inc., a Los Angeles produce distributor. In 1986, SCI disposed of its soybean processing plants, because they no longer fit within the strategic plan of the company.
Tate & Lyle PLC (Tate & Lyle), a publicly held United Kingdom corporation, was the largest refiner and distributor of sugar in the world. The chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of Tate & Lyle was Neil M. Shaw (Shaw). As of April 1988, Tate & Lyle was not involved in corn refining or the production of corn sweeteners, except for its interest in the Cereal Science and Technology Group (CST Group).
The CST Group consisted of Amylum N.V., a Belgian corporation, and Tunnel Refineries, Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation, and was involved in research and refining of starches, sweeteners, and related corn, wheat, and other small grain products. Tate & Lyle, SCI, and Compagnie Industrielle et Financiere des Produits Amylaces, S.A. (Compagnie Industrielle), a Belgian corporation, each owned 33.33 percent of the CST Group. Nordlund and Shaw were on the board of directors of Amylum N.V. and of Tunnel Refineries, Ltd.
Sometime around 1986, SCI became concerned that it could become a potential target of a hostile takeover. Its concern stemmed in part from the mergers and acquisitions “climate” at that time and in part from actions allegedly taken by Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (Drexel). On February 19, 1987, SCI filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Drexel, charging Drexel with extortion and securities fraud, in violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. In its complaint, SCI alleged that, in the fall of 1986, it planned to make a public offering of new common stock to raise capital and that Drexel deliberately accumulated SCI stock and threatened to sabotage the stock offering unless SCI abandoned its offer and agreed to a leveraged buy-out of SCI that would be managed by Drexel.
SCI hired the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Skadden Arps), which recommended that SCI adopt “antitakeover” devices. SCI adopted some antitakeover measures such as stockholder rights plans (“poison pills”) and management retention agreements.
SCI also hired two investment banking firms, the First Boston Corp. (First Boston) on January 6, 1987, and Merrill Lynch Capital Markets (Merrill Lynch) on February 13, 1987. The retainer agreement with Merrill Lynch provided that Merrill Lynch was retained as a “financial advisor” to SCI “in connection with certain merger or acquisition situations.” Among other services, the Merrill Lynch retainer agreement provided that Merrill Lynch would provide (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lychuk v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...capital expenditures if they are “associated with” facilitating a capital transaction), revg. on other grounds and remanding 105 T.C. 166, 1995 WL 535269 (1995); Central Tex. Sav. & Loan Association v. United States, 731 F.2d 1181, 1184 (5th Cir.1984) ( “expenditures incurred in the acquisi......
-
Metrocorp, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...(1933); see also A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 119 F.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir.1997), revg. and remanding 105 T.C. 166, 1995 WL 535269 (1995). When an expense creates a separate and distinct asset, it usually must be capitalized. See, e.g., Commissioner v. Lincoln Sav. &......
-
A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. and Subsidiaries v. C.I.R.
...judges dissenting, that neither the investment bankers' fees nor the printing costs were deductible. See A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 166, 1995 WL 535269 (1995). Judge Halpern, writing for the majority, relied upon the Supreme Court's recent decision, INDOPCO, Inc. v. Comm......
-
Square D Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , 6067–97.
...Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 112 S.Ct. 1039, 117 L.Ed.2d 226 (1992); [121 T.C. 194] A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 166, 1995 WL 535269 (1995), revd. and remanded 119 F.3d 482 (7th Cir.1997). Petitioner asserts that the costs at issue are loan acquisition costs......
-
Tax Treatment of Reorganization Costs
...an expense may be deducted. See, e.g., Victory Markets, Inc. v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 648 (1992); A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 166 (1995), rev'd 119 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. (iv) Note: The Southern District of Ohio in In re Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 171 Bankr. 603, 94-2 U.S.......
-
Deductibility of exit and entrance fees paid to the FDIC.
...not appeal Metrocorp. It was appealable to the Seventh Circuit, which decided A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 119 F3d 482 (1997), rev'g and remd'g 105 TC 166 (1995). In that case, the court concluded that certain legal and investment banking fees incurred to defend a taxpayer against a hostile takeov......
-
The proposed section 355(e) regulations: broadening the traditional notions of what constitutes a plan.
...Proposals 62 (Feb. 1997). (87) See A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 97-2 U.S.T.C. (CCH) [paragraph] 50,521 (7th Cir. 1997), rev'g 105 T.C. 166 (1995), where the Tax Court and Seventh Circuit disagreed over whether a transaction was hostile or non-hostile in the context of the deductibi......
-
The new anti-Morris trust and intragroup spin provisions.
...Tax Committee). (66) Id. (67) Id. See A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 97-2 U.S.T.C. (CCH) [paragraph] 50,521 (7th Cir. 1997), rev'g 105 T.C. 166 (1995), where the Tax Court and Seventh Circuit disagreed over whether a transaction was hostile or non-hostile, in the context of the deduc......
-
263.00-00. Capital Expenditures (Deductible v. Not Deductible)
...with general activities not directly related to the capital transaction must be treated differently. 119 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 1997), revg 105 T.C. 166 (1995). Accordingly, the Termination Fee should not be required to be capitalized under § 1.263(a)-5 as facilitative of the Based solely on th......