W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner
| Decision Date | 07 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 15476-93. |
| Citation | 69 T.C.M. 2037 |
| Parties | W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
This case is before us on petitioner's motion for summary judgment under Rule 121.1 Respondent determined the following deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes based upon the allocation of royalty income to petitioner from Japan Gore-Tex, Inc. (JGT), pursuant to the provisions of section 482:
Year Deficiency
1984 ......................... $1,119,916
1985 ......................... 1,063,834
1986 ......................... 487,932
1987 ......................... 1,394,566
1988 ......................... 1,405,592
1989 ......................... 1,371,478
1990 ......................... 2,338,169
1991 ......................... 187,309
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show the absence of dispute as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 353 (1986); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner [Dec. 48,191], 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. [94-1 USTC ¶ 50,092] 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The factual materials and the inferences to be drawn from them must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Elias v. Commissioner [Dec. 49,084], 100 T.C. 510, 514 (1993); Naftel v. Commissioner [Dec. 42,414], 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). However, the party opposing the motion cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Rule 121(d); O'Neal v. Commissioner [Dec. 49,810], 102 T.C. 666, 674 (1994). Ultimately, if there exists any reasonable doubt as to the facts at issue, the motion must be denied. O'Neal v. Commissioner, supra at 674; Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 520. We will set forth a summary of facts relevant to our discussion which do not appear to be in dispute; they are stated solely for purposes of deciding the motion and are not findings of fact for this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 520.
Petitioner, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Newark, Delaware. It was founded in 1958 to manufacture electrical cables insulated with polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE). At all times, petitioner's stock has been owned by members of the Gore family, their friends and employees of the corporation, including since 1974 an employee stock ownership plan.
By 1967, petitioner had manufacturing operations in Newark, Delaware, Flagstaff, Arizona, Germany, and Scotland and was looking for an entry into the Japanese market. In June 1969, petitioner purchased a 33 1/3 percent interest in a Japanese corporation, Junkosha Ltd. (Junkosha), and concurrently sold its technology and patent rights for use in Japan to Junkosha. Petitioner's interest was later reduced to 30 percent to provide stock bonuses to Junkosha employees.
In 1969, petitioner discovered a new process for stretching PTFE that produced high strength, highly porous PTFE (ePTFE). In 1974, petitioner and Junkosha formed JGT, each owning 50 percent, to manufacture and sell ePTFE products in Japan. About this time, petitioner and JGT entered into a license agreement permitting JGT to practice ePTFE technology in Japan, for which JGT would pay a royalty of 4 percent to petitioner. In 1976, petitioner informed Junkosha, it would no longer assess any royalty on JGT.
In October 1982, Gore entered into an agreement with JGT whereby Gore granted the exclusive license to use the ePTFE technology in Japan on a royalty-free basis. JGT's rights to license the technology acquired from petitioner were severely circumscribed. The agreement also provided that, in case either petitioner or JGT improved or developed new ePTFE technology, each would promptly disclose such technology and grant a royalty-free license to use the technology to the other.2 There were similar royalty-free licensing agreements between JGT and Junkosha and between petitioner and Junkosha.
No employee, officer, or director of Junkosha or JGT has ever been an officer, director, or employee of petitioner.
Section 482 provides in pertinent part:
In any case of two or more organizations, trades, or businesses (whether or not incorporated, whether or not organized in the United States, and whether or not affiliated) owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, the Secretary may distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses, if he determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses. * * * [Emphasis added.]
Section 1.482-1(a)(3), Income Tax Regs., provides:
(3) The term "controlled" includes any kind of control, direct or indirect, whether legally enforceable, and however exercisable or exercised. It is the reality of the control which is decisive, not its form or the mode of its exercise. A presumption of control arises if income or deductions have been arbitrarily shifted.
This Court has described the requisite control under section 482 as one of "actual, practical control rather than any particular percentage of stock ownership." B. Forman Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 30,087], 54 T.C. 912, 921 (1970), affd. in part and revd. in part [72-1 USTC ¶ 9182] 453 F.2d 1144 (2d Cir. 1972). "The language of section 482 is broad and sweeping, and its application depends on a finding of either ownership or control." Collins Electrical Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 34,287], 67 T.C. 911, 918-919 (1977); Ach v. Commissioner [Dec. 26,743], 42 T.C. 114, 125 (1964), affd. [66-1 USTC ¶ 9340] 358 F.2d 342 (6th Cir. 1966).3
Thus, the question of control, which is the focus of petitioner's motion, involves a factually intensive inquiry, Procacci v. Commissioner [Dec. 46,451], 94 T.C. 397, 412 (1990), with attributes suggesting that a decision by summary judgment is inappropriate.4 Petitioner's position rests upon its reading of a pretrial order, dated May 20, 1994, in which the parties were ordered to submit memoranda setting forth their positions as to issues of fact and law involved herein, the theories underlying the same and restricting the trial to those positions and theories. Petitioner asserts that, by virtue of these conditions, the facts as set forth in respondent's memorandum, which petitioner concedes for the purposes of its motion, reveal that the necessary common control of petitioner and JGT, required by section 482, did not exist. Respondent opposes the motion on the ground that a trial would reveal additional facts, beyond those not in dispute, which would support the three bases for her determination that petitioner controlled JGT, namely: (1) petitioner's ownership of 50 percent of the stock of JGT and its ownership of 30 percent of Junkosha which owns the other 50 percent of JGT; (2) petitioner's managerial control of the use of ePTFE technology in Japan by JGT by virtue of the web of interlocking arrangements between petitioner, Junkosha, and JGT; and (3) the arbitrary shifting of income from petitioner to JGT resulting from the royalty-free transfer of ePTFE technology from petitioner to JGT pursuant to the October 1982 agreement.
We deal first with petitioner's view of the impact of our May 20, 1994, order. Petitioner argues that respondent's memorandum, submitted in response to that order, fails to put into issue reconsideration of the position we took rejecting a "common objective" standard under section 482 in B. Forman Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 30,087], 54 T.C. 912 (1970), on which we were reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, [72-1 USTC ¶ 9182] 453 F.2d 1144 (2d Cir. 1972). Petitioner therefore asserts that respondent is precluded from arguing now, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, that petitioner's 50-percent ownership of JGT and what respondent claims was a "common objective" of petitioner and Junkosha are enough to satisfy the section 482 control requirement, irrespective of petitioner's 30-percent ownership of Junkosha. We are satisfied that respondent's memorandum is broad enough to cover the "common objective" issue applied in the context of equal ownership of JGT by petitioner and Junkosha5 and consequently reconsideration of Forman does not constitute a new issue.
Nor are we persuaded that we should not take petitioner's 30-percent ownership of Junkosha into account because, as petitioner contends, the attribution rules do not apply for purposes of section 482. The fact of the matter is that, for purposes of determining common control, indirect ownership is an element which can properly be considered even if the usual standards for attribution of ownership, such as those found in section 318, are not met. See Bittker & Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders, par. 13.20[3][a] at 13-27 (6th ed. 1994). Zuckman v. United States [75-2 ustc ¶ 9778], 207 Ct. Cl. 712, 524 F.2d 729 (1975), cited by petitioner, did not construe section 482 and is therefore distinguishable.
Petitioner also argues that respondent has not, in her memorandum submitted in response to our May 20, 1994, order, set forth sufficient facts in respect of any managerial control exercised by petitioner over JGT. No representatives of petitioner participated in the affairs of JGT as an officer, director, or employee of JGT. Here again, we think respon...
To continue reading
Request your trial