DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 38

                                        - 125 -                                       
          DHL’s interest.  A buyer could be financially burdened with                 
          perfecting its right to those registrations in some or all of the           
          195 countries.  The potential for delay, expense, inconvenience,            
          etc. could be immense and would present a huge potential for out-           
          of-pocket expenses or other costs to a potential willing buyer.             
               To adequately reflect those legal problems and potential               
          costs, a 50-percent marketability discount is appropriate.                  
          Because the international portion of the DHL network produces               
          about two-thirds of the business and/or profit, $100 million of             
          the $150 million fair market value of the DHL trademark can                 
          reasonably be attributed to that portion.  Applying a 50-percent            
          marketability discount to the $100 million foreign portion                  
          results in a discounted value for the DHL trademark of $100                 
          million worldwide, and we so hold.                                          
               1.  Effect of Section 482 Regulations on Allocation of                 
          Value                                                                       
               Next, we consider the parties’ collateral arguments                    
          concerning the amounts allocable under section 482 and underlying           
          regulations.  Petitioners rely on a portion of the regulations              
          that provide that when one member of a controlled group transfers           
          intangible property to another member of the group, the district            
          director may make “appropriate allocations to reflect an arm’s              
          length consideration for such property or its use.”  Sec. 1.482-            
          2(d)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs.  More specifically, petitioners                
          argue that the district director may not make such an allocation            
          unless or until the “developer” of the intangible property has              



Page:  Previous  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011