Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Is Buying Duracell From Procter & Gamble

You may have read that Warren Buffett (through Berkshire Hathaway) is acquiring the Duracell battery line of business from Procter & Gamble in a deal worth approximately $4.7 billion. The transaction will be stock-for-stock, although P&G is stuffing approximately $1.7 billion of cash into Duracell before Berkshire takes over. Berkshire will exchange all its P&G stock in the deal. Even better, there should be minimal or no income tax, either to P&G or to Berkshire Hathaway.

Do you wonder how?

The tax technique being used is called a “cash rich split off.” Believe it or not, it is fairly well-trod ground, which may seem amazing given the dollars at play.

Let’s talk about it.

To start off, there is virtually no way for a corporation to distribute money to an individual shareholder and yet keep it from being taxable. This deal is between corporations, not individuals, albeit the corporations contain cash. Lots of cash.

How is Buffett going to get the money out? 

·        Buffet has no intention of “getting the money out.” The money will stay inside a corporation. Of course, it helps to be as wealthy as Warren Buffett, as he truly does not need the money.

·        What Buffett will do is use the money to operate and fund ongoing corporate activities. This likely means eventually buying another business.

Therefore we can restrict ourselves to corporate taxation when reviewing the tax consequences to P&G and Berkshire Hathaway.

How would P&G have a tax consequence?

P&G is distributing assets (the Duracell division) to a shareholder (Berkshire owns 1.9% of P&G stock). Duracell is worth a lot of money, much more money than P&G has invested in it. Another way of saying this is that Duracell has “appreciated,” the same way you would buy a stock and watch it go up (“appreciate”) in value.

And there is the trip wire. Since the repeal of General Utilities in 1986, a corporation recognizes gain when it distributes appreciated assets to a shareholder. P&G would have tax on its appreciation when it distributes Duracell. There are extremely few ways left to avoid this result.

But one way remaining is a corporate reorganization.

And the reorganization that P&G is using is a “split-off.” The idea is that a corporation distributes assets to a shareholder, who in turn returns corporate stock owned by that shareholder. After the deed, the shareholder owns no more stock in the corporation, hence the “split.” You go your way and I go mine.

Berkshire owns 1.9% of P&G. P&G is distributing Duracell, and Berkshire will in turn return all its stock in P&G. P&G has one less shareholder, and Berkshire walks away with Duracell under its arm.

When structured this way, P&G has no taxable gain on the transaction, although it transferred an appreciated asset – Duracell. The reason is that the Code sections addressing the corporate reorganization (Sections 368 and 355) trump the Code section (Section 311) that would otherwise force P&G to recognize gain.

P&G gets to buy back its stock (via the split-off) and divest itself of an asset/line of business that does not interest it anymore - without paying any tax.

What about Berkshire Hathaway?

The tax Code generally wants the shareholder to pay tax when it receives a redemption distribution from a corporation (Code section 302).  The shareholder will have gain to the extent that the distribution received exceeds his/her “basis” in the stock.

Berkshire receives Duracell, estimated to have a value of approximately $4.7 billion. Berkshire’s tax basis in P&G stock is approximately $336 million. Now, $336 million is a big number, but $4.7 billion is much bigger.  Can you imagine what the tax would be on that gain?

Which Berkshire has no intention of paying.

As long as the spin-off meets the necessary tax requirements, IRC Section 355 will override Section 302, shielding Berkshire from recognizing any gain.

Berkshire gets a successful business stuffed with cash – without paying any tax.

Buffett likes this type of deals. I believe he has made three of them over the last two or so years. I cannot blame him. I would too. Except I would take the cash. I would pay that tax with a smile.

There are limits to a cash-rich split off, by the way.

There can be only so much cash stuffed into a corporation and still get the tax magic to happen. How much? The cash and securities cannot equal or exceed two-thirds of the value of the company being distributed. In a $4.7 billion deal, that means a threshold of $3.1 billion. P&G and Berkshire are well within that limit.

Why two-thirds?

As happens with so much of tax law, somebody somewhere pushed the envelope too far, and Congress pushed back. That somebody is a well-known mutual fund company from Denver. You may even own some of their funds in your 401(k). They brought us IRC Section 355(g), also known as the two-thirds rule. We will talk about them in another blog.

Do You HAVE To Cash That Bonus Check (To Get A Tax Deduction)?

For (very) closely-held service companies, it is common to “bonus” enough profit to bring taxable income down to zero (or very close). There are two reasons for this:

(1)  The company is a personal services company (PSC), meaning that it will face a maximum corporate tax rate on whatever profit is left in the company. This is a tremendous impetus to not leave profit in the company.

(2)   There is one owner (or very few owners) and the majority of the money is going to him/her/them anyway.

In many cases the company is also cash-basis taxpayer, and the accountant normally pays very close attention to cash in-and-out during the last few days of the tax year. With electronic bank transfers becoming more commonplace, I have seen carefully-monitored tax planning destabilized by sizeable electronic customer transfers on the last day or two. It happens, as the customer may be doing cash-basis planning themselves, and payment to my client is a tax deduction to them.

There are limitations on how far this can be pushed, though. It is not acceptable to delay depositing customer checks, for example, in order to avoid income recognition. In addition, one has to be careful about writing so many checks that it creates a bank overdraft. A common way to plan around an overdraft is to have a line of credit available. The bank would then sweep funds from the line as necessary to cover any overdraft. One might also run an overdraft if he/she knows that a deposit will arrive early the following month, as that deposit would occur during the float period of any outstanding checks.  A business owner might “know” that check is coming because said check is already in the owner’s desk drawer, but we will not speak further of such absurd examples. It is not as though I have ever seen such a thing, of course.

Let’s talk about Vanney Associates, Inc. Robert Vanney is an architect with perilously close to 40 years experience. The firm has about 25 employees, and Robert is the sole shareholder. He is – without question – the key man. His wife, Karen, is a CPA with a retired license, and she takes care of the books and records.

In 2008 Mr. Vanney received $240,000 in monthly payroll. At the end of the year, he determined and paid employee bonuses, taking as a personal bonus whatever was left over. The leftover was $815,000. The withholdings on the leftover were approximately $350,000, leaving approximately $464,000 payable to Mr. Vanney.

Problem: there was only $389 thousand in the bank.

There was enough money to pay the withholding taxes, but there wasn’t enough to also pay Mr. Vanney. What to do? The Vanney’s did not need the money, so they decided not to borrow from the bank. Mr. Vanney instead endorsed the check back to the company, and that was the end of the matter.

But it wasn’t. The IRS looked at the business tax return and decided to disallow the $815,000 bonus and almost $12,000 in related employer payroll taxes.

Why? The government got their taxes, so why should they care? 

There is a legal concept when paying with a check. A check is referred to as a “conditional payment,” because writing the check is subject to a condition subsequent. That subsequent condition is the check clearing the bank. We take it for granted, of course, so we overlook that technically there are two steps. When the check clears, the two steps unify and become as one. This is why you can send a check to a charity on December 31 and claim the deduction in the same tax year. There is no chance that the charity is receiving that check and depositing it by December 31. Still, if it clears in the normal course of business, all parties – including the IRS – consider the check as having been written on December 31.

That is not what happened here. The check never cleared the bank.

Which is unfortunate, as the IRS now could argue that the check remained conditional. Being conditional there was never payment in 2008. This was fatal, as Vanney Associates was a cash-basis taxpayer.  

And the Court agreed.

Think about this for a moment. The corporation was disallowed a 2008 deduction for the $815,000. Whereas the Court did not address this point, that bonus was included on Mr. Vanney’s 2008 Form W-2. He would have reported that W-2 on his 2008 individual tax return.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

I suppose Vanney Associates could amend its 2008 payroll tax returns. It could reverse that bonus, as well as the related withholding taxes. It would get a refund, but it would be amending multiple federal and state (and possibly local) payroll returns.

Mr. Vanney would then amend his personal 2008 tax return.

But that is assuming we are within the statute of limitations to amend all those returns.

When then would Vanney Associates get its $815,000 bonus deduction?

Your first response might be the following year: in 2009. I believe you would be wrong. Why? Because Mr. Vanney did not cash his check in 2009. The check remained a conditional payment in 2009. Same answer for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. This case was decided September, 2014. Seems to me the first time Mr. Vanney could “cash” his check is this year – 2014.

Let me ask you another question: why didn’t the Court allow the (approximately) $350,000 in withholdings as a tax deduction? That check cashed, right?

I think I know. If the company did not “pay” the $815,000 in 2008, then there is no “bonus” for that withholding to attach to. From a tax perspective, the company overpaid its withholding taxes in 2008. The tax problem is that the overpayment is not a "deduction," as no payroll taxes were actually due. Payroll taxes attach to payroll, and there was no payroll. It was a "prepayment," waiting on Vanney to request a refund.

What is our takeaway?

Over the years I have heard more than one practitioner declare a tax outcome as “making no sense.” An unfortunate consequence is that the practitioner may not pursue a line of reasoning to conclusion. There are reasons for this, of course. First, an accountant has probably been exposed somewhere to generally accepted accounting principles. GAAP is a financial statement concept (think auditors, not tax accountants) and GAAP generally has some symmetry to it. The practitioner forgets that the IRS not bound by GAAP. The purpose of the IRS is to collect and enforce, and it does not consider itself bound by any symmetry should GAAP get in its way. The second is human: we respond to an absurd result by assuming we must have made a mistake in our reasoning. Many times we are right. In Vanney’s case, we were not.

What could Vanney have done?

Simple.

He could have had a line of credit in place. He could have cashed that check.

BTW I almost invariably recommend my cash-basis clients have a line of credit, even if they have no intention of using it. This costs them money, as the bank may charge a flat fee (say $100 or $250) annually for keeping the line of credit available. In addition, many a bank will require at least one draw over a month-end annually in order to keep the line open. This means there will be some interest expense.

Why do I recommend it? It is cheap insurance against nightmares like this.

Pushing Accounting Methods Too Far

Way back when, when I was attending a one-room tax schoolhouse, some of the earliest tax principles we learned was that of accounting methods and accounting periods. An accounting method is the repetitious recording of the same underlying transaction – recording straight-line depreciation on equipment purchases, for example. An accounting period is a repetitious year-end. For example, almost all individual taxpayers in the U.S. use a December 31 year-end, so we say they use a calendar accounting period.

Introduce related companies, mix and match accounting methods and periods and magical things can happen.  Accountants have played this game since the establishment of the tax Code, and the IRS has been pretty good at catching most of the shenanigans.

Let’s talk about one.

Two brothers own two companies, India Music (IM) and Houston-Rakhee Imports (HRI). Mind you, one company does not own the other. Rather the same two people own two separate companies. We call this type of relationship as a brother-sister (as opposed to a parent-subsidiary, where one company owns another). IM sold sheet music. It used the accrual method of accounting, which meant it recorded revenues when a sale occurred, even if there was a delay in receiving payment. It bought its sheet music from its brother-sister HRI. Under accrual accounting, it recorded a cost of sale for the sheet music to HRI, whether it had paid HRI or not.

Let’s flip the coin and look at HRI. It used the cash basis of accounting, which meant it recorded sales only when it received cash, and it recorded cost of sales only when it paid cash. It is the opposite accounting from IM.

Both companies are S corporations, which means that their taxable income lands on the personal tax return of their (two) owners. The owners then commingle the business income with their other personal income and pay income taxes on the sum.

From 1998 to 2003 IM accrued a payable to HRI of over $870,000. This meant that its owners got to reduce their passthrough business income by the same $870,000.

But….

Remember that the other side to this is HRI, which would in turn have received $870,000 in income. That of course would completely offset the deduction to IM. There would be no tax “bang” there.

What to do, what to do?

Eureka! The two brothers decided NOT to pay HRI. That way HRI did not receive cash, which meant it did not have income. Brilliant!

The IRS thought of this accounting trick back when the tax Code was in preschool. Here is code Section 267:

             (a) In general

(1) Deduction for losses disallowed

No deduction shall be allowed in respect of any loss from the sale or exchange of property, directly or indirectly, between persons specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (b). The preceding sentence shall not apply to any loss of the distributing corporation (or the distributee) in the case of a distribution in complete liquidation.

(2) Matching of deduction and payee income item in the case of expenses and interest

If—

(A) by reason of the method of accounting of the person to whom the payment is to be made, the amount thereof is not (unless paid) includible in the gross income of such person, and

(B) at the close of the taxable year of the taxpayer for which (but for this paragraph) the amount would be deductible under this chapter, both the taxpayer and the person to whom the payment is to be made are persons specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (b),  then any deduction allowable under this chapter in respect of such amount shall be allowable as of the day as of which such amount is includible in the gross income of the person to whom the payment is made (or, if later, as of the day on which it would be so allowable but for this paragraph). For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of a personal service corporation (within the meaning of section 441 (i)(2)), such corporation and any employee-owner (within the meaning of section 269A (b)(2), as modified by section 441 (i)(2)) shall be treated as persons specified in subsection (b).

What the Code does is delay the deduction until the related party recognizes the income. It is an elegant solution from a simpler time.

Our two brothers were audited for 2004, and the IRS immediately brought Section 267 to their attention. The IRS disallowed that $870,000 deduction to IM, and it now wanted $295 thousand in taxes and $59 thousand in penalties.

The brothers said “No way.” Some of those tax years were closed under the statute of limitations. “You cannot come back against us after three years,” they said.

What do you think? Do the brothers have a winning argument?

Let me add one more thing. To a tax practitioner, there are a couple of ways to increase income in a tax audit:

(1)  An adjustment

This is a one-off. You deducted your vacation and should not have. The IRS adds it back to income. There is no concurrent issue of repetition: that is, no  issue of an accounting method.

(2)  An accounting method change

There is something repetitious going on, and the IRS wants to change your accounting method for all of it.

The deadly thing about an accounting method change is that the IRS can force all of it on you in that audit year. In our case, the IRS forced IM to give back all of its $870,000 for 2004. It did not matter that the $870,000 had accreted pell mell since 1998.

With that sidebar, do you now think the brothers have a winning argument?

You can pretty much guess that the brothers were arguing that the IRS adjustment was a category (1): a one-off. The IRS of course argued that it was category (2): an accounting method change.

The case went to the Tax Court and then to the Fifth Circuit. The brothers were determined. They were also wrong. The brothers advanced some unconvincing technical arguments that the Court had little difficulty dismissing . The Court decided this was in fact an accounting method change. The IRS could make the catch-up adjustment. The brother owed big dollars in tax, as well as penalties.

The case was Bosamia v Commissioner, by the way.

My thoughts?

The brothers never had a chance .  Almost any tax practitioner could have predicted this outcome, especially since Section 267 has a long history and is relatively well known. This is not an obscure Code section.

The question I have is how the brothers found a tax practitioner who would sign off on the tax returns. The IRS can bring a CPA up on charges (within the IRS, mind you, not in court) for unprofessional conduct. The IRS could then suspend – or bar – that CPA from practice before the IRS. To a tax CPA – such as me – that is tantamount to a career death sentence. I would never have signed those tax returns. It would have been out of the question.

The Sysco Merger and the Double Dummy

Recently a financial advisor called me to discuss investments and, more specifically, Sysco’s acquisition of U.S. Foods.  I had to read up on what he was talking about.

The Sysco deal is a reverse triangular merger. It is not hard to understand, although the terms the tax attorneys and CPAs throw around can be intimidating. Let’s use an example with an acquiring company (let’s call it Big) and a target company (let’s call it Small).

·        Big creates a subsidiary (Less Big).

·        Less Big merges into Small.

·        Less Big ceases to exist after the merger.

·        Small survives.

·        Big now owns Small.

Voila!

This merger is addressed in the tax Code under Section 368, and the reverse triangular is technically a Section 368(a)(2)(E) merger. Publicly traded companies use Section 368 mergers extensively to mitigate the tax consequences to the companies and to both shareholder groups.

In an all-stock deal, for example, the shareholders of Small receive stock in Big. Granted, they do not receive cash, but then again they do not have tax to pay. They control the tax consequence by deciding whether or not to receive cash (up to a point).

Sysco used $3 billion of its stock to acquire U.S. Foods. It also used $500 million in cash.

And therein is the problem with the Section 368 mergers.

It has to do with the cash. Accountants and lawyers call it the “basis” issue. Let’s say that Sysco had acquired U.S. Foods solely for stock. Sysco would acquire U.S. Foods' “basis” in its depreciable assets (think equipment), amortizable assets (think patents) and so on. In short, Sysco would take over the tax deductions that U.S. Foods would have had if Sysco had left it alone.

Now add half a billion dollars.

Sysco still has the tax deductions that U.S. Foods would have had.

To phrase it differently, Sysco has no more tax deductions than it would have had had it not spent the $500 million.

Then why spend the money? Well… to close the deal, of course. Someone in the deal wanted to cash-out, and Sysco provided the means for them to do so. Without that means, there may have been no deal.

Still, spending $500 million and getting no tax-bang-for-the-buck bothers many, if not most, tax advisors.

Let’s say you and I were considering a similar deal. We would likely talk about a double dummy transaction.

The double dummy takes place away from Section 368. We instead are travelling to Section 351, normally considered the Code section for incorporations.  

 

Let’s go back to Big and Small. 

·        Big and Small together create a new holding company.

·        The holding company will in turn create two new subsidiaries.

·        Big will merge into one of the subsidiaries.

·        Small will merge into the other subsidiary.

In the end, the holding company will own both Big and Small.

How did Small shareholders get their money? When Big and Small created the new holding company, Small shareholders exchanged their shares for new holding company shares as well as cash. Was the cash taxable to them? You bet, but it would have been taxable under a Section 368 merger anyway. The difference is that – under Section 362 – the holding company increases its basis by any gain recognized by the Small shareholders.

And that is how we solve our basis problem.

The double dummy solves other problems. In a publicly traded environment, for example, a Section 368 merger has to include at least 40% stock in order to meet the continuity-of-interest requirement. That 40% could potentially dilute earnings per share beyond an acceptable level, thereby scuttling the deal. Since a double dummy operates under Section 351 rather than Section 368, the advisor can ignore the 40% requirement.

The double dummy creates a permanent holding company, though. There are tax advisors who simply do not like holding companies.

Sysco included $500 million cash in a Section 368 deal. Assuming a combined federal and state tax rate of 40%, that mix cost Sysco $200 million in taxes. We cannot speak for the financial “synergies” of the deal, but we now know a little more about its tax implications.