Starting with a 46-page case soon after finishing tax
season may not have been my best idea.
Still, the case is a hoot.
Here is the Court:
Backstabbing, infidelity, and blackmail – not the first words that come to mind in relation to a baby products company.”
We are talking about Kaleb Pierce and his (ex) wife Ms. Bosco.
Early on Pierce sought to make money any way he could.
At age 16 he purchased an ice cream truck, for example. He met Bosco and they
married in 2000. Several children soon followed.
That ice cream truck was not going to suffice. He
switched to selling timeshares. He then switched to painting houses.
In 2005 they had another child. Bosco had an idea
relating to nursing newborns, and Pierce had his next business idea. He reached
out to Chinese manufacturers to make wristbands for nursing mothers. He set up
a website, attended tradeshows and whatnot.
His idea was not an initial success.
But there was someone at the tradeshow who was
successful. Pierce wanted to partner with them, but they were not interested,
Pierce then decided to duplicate their company and run them out of business.
The model was easy enough: he would manufacture the
product in China, undercut the existing retail price and then reduce that
already-undercut price to zero by use of promotional codes. Where is the money,
you ask? He would charge a shipping fee. Considering that the price was already
reduced to zero, he figured he could press his thumb on the shipping fee as his
profit point.
He was right, but not fully. In the early days, the
products were sometimes shipped to customers showing the actual shipping cost. Those
customers were not amused.
But Pierce could make money.
And the model was simple: appropriate someone’s
product, create a website to pitch it, have the product manufactured cheaply,
make money hand over fist. Mind you, the products were all directed at nursing
mothers, so the window to market and sell was limited. He had to strike hard
and fast. He also had to keep introducing new products, as he continually needed
something on which to hang a shipping charge.
The company was called Mothers Lounge (ML). ML sold
each product through a different subsidiary. This separation of business was
vital to give the appearance that the companies were unrelated. Even so, many
customers found that the same company was selling the products. They requested that
different orders be shipped together, which ML could not do, of course. ML had
reached a point where 97% of its revenues came from that free- just-pay-shipping
model.
How did it turn out?
In his own words:
He “never imagined that he was going to be this successful.”
But then ….
Pierce had an extramarital affair.
Someone added a tracker to Pierce’s software that
tracked his keystrokes and found out about the affair.
Someone sent a box with a letter demanding $100,000 by
the following week or said someone would tell Bosco about the affair.
Pierce told Bosco about the affair first. The news
shattered her. She no longer trusted him. She forbade him from attending
tradeshows. He responded by sending employees in his place, but it was not the
same. His employees were not as … creative … at recognizing … opportunities as
Pierce. Eventually he stepped down as CEO to deal with his family.
The business was not the same.
But Pierce and Bosco were still printing money. He did
what a nouveau-riche entrepreneur would do: he started estate planning.
It is here that we get back to tax.
They created a trust. The trust in turn created an
operating company. Pierce and Bosco each gifted 29.4% ownership to the trust.
They also sold a 20.6% interest to the operating company owned by the trust.
The tax lawyers were busy.
There was a gift tax return, which meant that ML needed
a valuation.
The IRS selected the gift tax returns (one by each
spouse) for audit.
Pierce and Bosco fired their valuation expert and
hired another.
That is different, methinks.
The new expert came in with a lower number. Pierce and
Bosco told the IRS that – if anything – they had overreported the gift. What
was the point of the audit?
The IRS was not buying this. The IRS argued that the
two had underreported the gift by almost $5 million. Remember that the gift tax
rate is 40%, so this disagreement translated into real money. The IRS also
wanted penalties of almost $2 million.
Off to Tax Court they went.
The Court discussed valuation procedures for over twenty
pages, the detail of which I will spare us. The Court liked some things about
Pierce and Bosco’s valuations (remember they had two) and also liked some
things about the IRS valuation. Then you had the unique facts of Mothers Lounge
itself, a business which was not really a business but was nonetheless quite profitable.
How do you value a business like that, and how do you adjust for the business decline
since the blackmail attempt? The IRS argued that ML could return to a more
traditional business model. The Court noted that ML could not; it was a
different animal altogether.
The decision is a feast for those interested in valuation
work. The Court was meticulous in going through the steps, but it was not going
to decide a number. Truthfully, it could not: there was too much there.
The Court instead made an interim decision under Rule
155, a Tax Court arcana requiring the two parties to perform – and agree to –
calculations consistent with the Court’s reasoning.
And the Court will review those results in a future
hearing.
Our case this time was Pierce v Commissioner,
T.C. Memo 2025-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment