Close
Close

Finder’s fee not deductible by acquisition target

RFP
Tax Hot Topics newsletter The Tax Court held in Plano Holding LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2019-140) that a success-based finder’s fee was not deductible by the target of an acquisition.

The taxpayer, Plano, was a corporation that was acquired by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (OTPP), a Canadian pension fund, in 2012. OTPP became aware of Plano when an investment bank, Robert W. Baird & Co., suggested Plano as an acquisition candidate. Baird sent an e-mail attempting to set up a lunch meeting between the OTPP and Plano’s controlling shareholder. Baird’s involvement with the transaction ceased after sending this e-mail, but OTPP and the controlling shareholder signed a merger agreement in November 2012.

Eight days after the signing of the merger agreement, OTPP entered into an agreement with Baird. Pursuant to that agreement, OTPP would pay Baird $1.5 million upon the successful closing of the transaction. The agreement stated that Baird’s services were rendered “solely for the benefit and use of OTPP’s management and directors in considering the transaction(s) to which they relate.” The agreement also specified that the parties’ obligations under the agreement could not be assigned by OTPP without Baird’s prior written consent.

When the transaction closed in December 2012, Plano paid Baird the $1.5 million fee. On its 2012 tax return, Plano deducted 70% of the fee and capitalized 30% of the fee, pursuant to an election under the Rev. Proc. 2011-29 safe harbor. The IRS challenged the deduction on the grounds that Plano was not the taxpayer that incurred the fee.

The Tax Court stated that Plano’s payment of the Baird fee was on behalf of another taxpayer because OTPP, not Plano, had agreed to pay Baird. Noting the general rule against deducting payment of another taxpayer’s expenses, the court applied an exception to that general rule in Lohrke v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 679 (1967), which allows a taxpayer to deduct the payment of another’s expense when 1) the taxpayer’s primary motive for paying the other’s obligation is to protect or promote the taxpayer’s own business; and 2) the expenditure is an ordinary and necessary expense of the taxpayer’s business.

The Tax Court held that Plano failed both prongs of the Lohrke test. With respect to the first prong, the court concluded that Plano did not have the proper motive in making the payment, emphasizing that it was not required to pay the fee and that its business faced no consequences from failing to pay the fee. With respect to the second prong, the Tax Court held that the payment to Baird was in the nature of a finder’s fee, and that such a fee was more likely to be ordinary and necessary to a large institutional investor like OTPP than to a manufacturing company like Plano.

In its ruling, the Tax Court distinguished Square D Co. v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 168 (2003), a case that stands for the proposition that, in certain circumstances, a taxpayer can deduct an expense that is 1) incurred on its behalf; and 2) paid or reimbursed by the taxpayer. Stating that, “OTPP agreed to the Baird payment for its own reasons and on its own behalf,” the Tax Court held that the Square D decision did not apply because the $1.5 million fee was not incurred by OTPP on behalf of Plano.
 
Based on this analysis, the Tax Court denied the deduction Plano took with respect to the Baird fee. The court also upheld the 20% accuracy-related penalties assessed by the IRS.

This case demonstrates the necessity of carefully analyzing the facts surrounding each expense when determining which taxpayer should take transaction costs into account. Taxpayers should be especially careful when one taxpayer pays an expense that may have been incurred by another taxpayer.

Contact
Bryan Keith
Managing Director
Washington National Tax Office 
T +1 202 861 4116

Evan Adams
Manager
Washington National Tax Office 
T +1 202 521 1591
 
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.