Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. & Subsidiaries - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
               At some point thereafter, Merrill Parent decided it wanted             
          to sell only the principal investments business of ML Leasing as            
          part of its tax strategy.  Merrill Parent did not want ML                   
          Leasing’s lease advisory business and certain other assets that             
          were not part of the principal investments business (collectively           
          referred to as the 1986 retained assets) to leave the                       
          consolidated group.  Merrill Parent decided to transfer the 1986            
          retained assets to other corporations within the consolidated               
          group in preparation for the sale of ML Leasing, leaving only the           
          principal investments business remaining in ML Leasing, including           
          the operating and leveraged lease assets.                                   
               On March 26, 1986, participants at an internal meeting of              
          petitioner discussed the possible sale of ML Leasing’s stock.               
          At the meeting, the participants discussed the estimated tax                
          basis of ML Leasing as of the end of 1985, the approximate value            
          of ML Leasing, whether the sale would be prohibited because of              
          various restrictions in the lease documents, the intangible                 
          effects of the sale of ML Leasing, the possibility of tax reform            
          being passed prior to late August 1986, the estimated after-tax             
          economic benefit of the sale of ML Leasing, and the estimated               
          after-tax book gain that would result from the sale of ML                   
          Leasing.  At the meeting, Jeffrey Martin, a member of                       
          petitioner’s Mergers & Acquisitions Group, was asked “to feel out           
          the market on a no-name basis inquiring if there are any                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011