Square D Company and Subsidiaries - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
               merger assumed the subsidiary’s obligations.  P paid                   
               the legal fees directly.  S invoiced P for the full                    
               cost of the loan commitment fee, and P reimbursed S for                
               those costs in a subsequent year.                                      
                    Held, P is entitled to amortization deductions for                
               its payments for the loan commitment and legal fees                    
               because, by virtue of its merger with S’s subsidiary,                  
               the costs were incurred on P’s behalf and eventually                   
               paid by P.                                                             
                    In 1990, prior to S’s acquisition of P, certain                   
               executives of P who were “disqualified individuals”                    
               within the meaning of sec. 280G(c), I.R.C., obtained                   
               employment agreements (1990 agreements) under which                    
               they were entitled, upon a change in ownership or                      
               control of P, to certain lump-sum payments if they                     
               chose to terminate their employment during the 13th                    
               month after the acquisition or if their employment was                 
               involuntarily terminated within 3 years of the                         
               acquisition.  The lump-sum payments would have been                    
               parachute payments within the meaning of sec.                          
               280G(b)(2), I.R.C.                                                     
                    S’s acquisition of P in May 1991 triggered the                    
               executives’ rights to the parachute payments under the                 
               1990 agreements.  S sought to retain the executives’                   
               services for P beyond the 13th month after the                         
               acquisition, rather than have the executives terminate                 
               their employment at that time to obtain the parachute                  
               payments.  To that end, S negotiated new employment                    
               agreements (1991 agreements) with the executives.  The                 
               executives used their rights to parachute payments                     
               under the 1990 agreements as leverage to secure lump-                  
               sum payments under the 1991 agreements.  The lump-sum                  
               payments provided in the 1991 agreements were larger                   
               than the parachute payments and, further, were                         
               conditioned on the executives’ either remaining in                     
               petitioner’s employment, or ceasing employment only                    
               under specified circumstances, for approximately 3                     
               years through 1994.  The 1991 agreements were                          
               subsequently amended to accelerate the payment of the                  
               lump sums (in a reduced amount) to December 1992 in                    
               exchange for an extension of the employment term for an                
               additional year through 1995.                                          
                    Held, under the facts of this case, the lump-sum                  
               payments (excluding a portion conceded by R to be                      





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