Archive for the ‘Tax’ Category

Tax Risk and FIN 48 new disclosures

Thursday, May 24th, 2007

May 25, 2007

 

 

 

DOW JONES REPRINTS

Lifting the Veil on Tax Risk

New Accounting Rule Lays Bare
A Firm’s Liability if Transaction
Is Later Disallowed by the IRS

By JESSE DRUCKER
May 25, 2007

Hundreds of companies could be on the hook to the Internal Revenue Service and other authorities for tens of billions of dollars in back taxes due to transactions they believe could be challenged, newly required regulatory disclosures show.

Investors are getting a first peek into one aspect of the world of corporate taxes, thanks to a new accounting rule that took effect in January.

TAX THREAT

 

  The News: New accounting rules require companies to estimate what they could owe tax authorities if past tax benefits are challenged.

  Issue for Investors: Some companies could be forced to pay large amounts of cash to settle tax bills.

  Bottom Line: The disclosures are subjective estimates, but can provide valuable information.

The rule, known as FIN 48, forces companies to better disclose how much they have set aside, or reserved for financial-reporting purposes, to pay governments in case tax-saving transactions are successfully challenged by taxing authorities.

In the past, companies had to reveal little information about transactions that could face some risk in an audit by the IRS or other government entities. Now, companies are being required to disclose the amount they have put into tax reserves, along with other potentially challengeable amounts related to past tax benefits. These sums are being disclosed as a liability for “unrecognized tax benefits” in quarterly 10-Q reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most of the first such disclosures have been filed in the past few weeks.

A pair of new research papers, one by a group of accounting professors and the other by a pair of tax analysts at Credit Suisse Group, examine the new tax information, laying out how much money could be at stake.

The 361 large companies studied by Credit Suisse reported a combined $141 billion in such tax liabilities. To be sure, these aren’t necessarily related to aggressive tax transactions. Also, extra payments and refunds are part of the normal back-and-forth between corporations and tax authorities.

[Chart]As of Jan. 1, the company that could be on the hook for the biggest amount is Merck & Co., which had a potential tax liability of $7.4 billion, according to Credit Suisse tax and accounting analysts David Zion and Amit Varshney.

Other companies with big potential exposure, measured on an absolute basis, include General Electric Co., AT&T Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Pfizer Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., according to Credit Suisse.

Million-Dollar Questions

Here is what the disclosures mean: Say a company saves $100 million on its taxes — as a result of a tax credit, a tax shelter or some other transaction. However, the company is not completely sure that those savings will withstand scrutiny if it gets audited, so for financial-accounting purposes, it sets aside $40 million of those tax savings in a reserve. There is no requirement the actual cash be set aside. On its income statement, the company gets only a benefit of $60 million — or $100 million minus the $40 million set in reserve.

Until now, there was generally no way to know about the existence of that transaction or reserve. But the new accounting rule establishes fresh guidelines for creating such reserves, and also requires companies to disclose them as liabilities for “unrecognized tax benefits.” (The category is so named because it represents the portion of the tax benefits realized on a company’s tax return that hasn’t been recognized in its financial reporting.) This new category also includes other things besides reserves, including tax positions in which the timing of the benefit may be challenged, such as a depreciation-related deduction.

Investor Impact

For investors, those “unrecognized tax benefits” can be significant, because they provide a quantitative measure of the amount the company thinks might be at risk — in cash — if the IRS or another tax authority challenges it and prevails.

Credit Suisse’s analysts note that taking tax positions that could be subject to a challenge by the government can help a company’s cash flow in the short term, but puts the firm at risk of having to make big payouts later.

“The question for investors,” they wrote, “is are you willing to pay for companies to take on this type of risk?”

Merck’s reserve has dropped by about one-third since the start of the year, to $4.9 billion. The reason: In February, Merck announced a net $2.3 billion settlement with the IRS. Part of that payment stemmed from a Bermuda tax shelter used by Merck that was the subject of a page-one article in The Wall Street Journal last year. In a statement, a Merck spokeswoman said: “Based on Merck’s particular business situation and the time period covered, the company’s tax reserves are reasonable.”

Pharmaceutical companies like Merck often get big tax benefits from “transfer pricing” — the methods companies use to allocate costs and revenue between different tax jurisdictions. Merck is in the middle of a $1.87 billion transfer-pricing dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency, according to its SEC filings and a person familiar with the matter.

The new disclosures aren’t perfect. For one, the amount a company reserves against a tax benefit comes from a subjective management estimate. Different companies could reserve different amounts for the same transaction. Plus, a new tax bill in one jurisdiction could trigger a new tax deduction or credit elsewhere. But it isn’t always clear if the number disclosed by some companies is a net or a gross figure. Several companies, including AT&T, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup and GE, include significant amounts in their total unrecognized tax benefits that would be partially offset by deductions arising from the new payments or are related to timing.

Other At-Risk Firms

The absolute number contained in the reserve also doesn’t tell the full story about future tax risk. Mr. Zion compared the newly disclosed tax liability with other metrics, like companies’ average cash flow or their total liabilities. Based on that analysis, Mr. Zion found the companies most at risk if they get hit with a big demand for back taxes are PMC-Sierra Inc., Altera Corp., General Motors Corp. and Merck.

The unrecognized tax benefit at PMC-Sierra, for example, is equivalent to about 13 years’ worth of its typical cash flow from operations, according to Credit Suisse. A PMC-Sierra spokesman didn’t return phone messages.

A coming study by four accounting professors — Jennifer Blouin of the University of Pennsylvania, Cristi Gleason of the University of Iowa, and the University of Texas’ Lillian Mills and Stephanie Sikes — examined the newly disclosed tax liabilities at 100 large companies and compared those with their book assets. Merck’s total unrecognized tax benefit topped the list under that analysis, too, with an amount equal to 16.6% of its assets.

By contrast, GE’s total unrecognized tax benefit was a similar size, but it represented about 1% of its total assets. GE’s reported $6.8 billion liability doesn’t include $1.4 billion in accrued interest and penalties. An Exxon Mobil spokesman said its unrecognized tax benefit of $3.7 billion represented a fraction of last year’s tax bill of about $30 billion.

Write to Jesse Drucker at jesse.drucker@wsj.com1

 

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118005869184314270.html

 

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:jesse.drucker@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118005869184314270.html

Tax Consequences of Long-Run Pension Policy

Sunday, April 29th, 2007
The Tax Consequences of Long-Run Pension Policy

FISCHER BLACK
Sloan School of Management, MIT


Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 8-14, Winter 2006
Abstract:
A firm’s pension fund is legally separate from the firm. But because pension benefits are normally independent of fund performance, pension assets impact the firm very much as if they were firm assets.

Because they are worth more when times are good and less when times are bad, common stocks in the pension fund add to the sponsoring firm’s leverage. They cause contributions to a pension fund to be high just when the firm can least afford to pay them. Conversely, bonds in the pension fund will make it easier for the firm to avoid default on its own bonds when times are bad all over: The more bonds a pension fund buys, the more the firm can borrow.

The tax treatment accorded the pension fund differs notably from that accorded the firm. Some have argued that a firm can capitalize on the difference by accelerating the funding of its pension plan. The benefits of full funding are wasted, however, unless the added contributions to the fund are invested in bonds; higher pension contributions now mean lower contributions later, hence higher taxes later. The benefits come from earning, after taxes, the pretax interest rate on the bonds in the pension fund.If the firm wants to take advantage of the differing tax treatment of bonds without altering the level of its current pension contributions, it can (1) sell stocks in the pension fund and then buy bonds with the proceeds while (2) issuing debt in the firm and buying back its own shares with the proceeds. An investment in the firm’s own stock creates no more tax liability than an investment in stocks through the pension fund.

If the firm wants to take advantage of the differing tax treatment of bonds without altering the level of its current pension contributions, it can (1) sell stocks in the pension fund and then buy bonds with the proceeds while (2) issuing debt in the firm and buying back its own shares with the proceeds. An investment in the firm’s own stock creates no more tax liability than an investment in stocks through the pension fund.The tax treatment accorded the pension fund differs notably from that accorded the firm. Some have argued that a firm can capitalize on the difference by accelerating the funding of its pension plan. The benefits of full funding are wasted, however, unless the added contributions to the fund are invested in bonds; higher pension contributions now mean lower contributions later, hence higher taxes later. The benefits come from earning, after taxes, the pretax interest rate on the bonds in the pension fund.

Suggested Citation Black, Fischer, “The Tax Consequences of Long-Run Pension Policy” . Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 8-14, Winter 2006 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=921678 or DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2006.00071.x

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921678

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pension&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Hedge Funds as Big I.R.A.’s

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

NY Times - April 17, 2007

Managers Use Hedge Funds as Big I.R.A.’s

By JENNY ANDERSON

Many Americans squirrel away as much as they can into retirement investment accounts like 401(k)s and I.R.A.’s that allow them to compound their earnings tax free. The accounts also reduce what they owe when tax day rolls around. For the average person, however, the government strictly limits the contributions to about $20,000 a year.

And then there are people who work at hedge funds.

A lot of the hedge fund managers earning the astronomical paychecks making headlines these days are able to postpone paying taxes on much of that income for 10 years or more.

The key to the hedge fund tax boon is that many managers of these lightly regulated private pools of capital have the ability to earn the bulk of their compensation offshore and invest it in their funds, where it grows tax-free.

“If you could compound your compensation tax-free, why wouldn’t you?” asked Stewart Massey, founding partner of Massey & Quick, a consulting firm.

Few people know the power of compounding better than hedge fund managers. Consider the following calculation done by Financial Engines, a financial advisory and portfolio management firm: A hedge fund manager makes $10 million in fees and defers it for five years, earning a return of 10 percent a year. When he pays taxes at the end, he walks away with $10.5 million. Another manager who makes the same $10 million pays his taxes immediately. He still earns 10 percent on what’s left, but over the same period he accumulates just $8.9 million.

Elevate the comparison to $130 million, the minimum take-home pay needed to make it on Alpha magazine’s list of the 25 highest-paid hedge fund managers: the first manager receives $136.1 million; the second $115.8 million.

This closely guarded arrangement is completely legal; similar, but less generous deferrals have been commonly used by corporate executives for years. But thanks to the peculiarities of the structure of hedge funds and their enormous growth, the tax-deferred sums that hedge fund managers earn may be far outpacing even the compensation of the most well-paid corporate chieftains.

One of the flagship funds at Citadel, a $13.5 billion hedge fund, for example, has deferred at least $1.7 billion since it was founded at the end of 1990. And that does not count what might have been taken out already. Citadel declined to comment.

“We pile advantage on advantage for these managers and there doesn’t seem to be any economically logical basis for it,” said John C. Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group. “It’s a very well-gilded lily to allow these tax deferrals.”

This tax advantage is now coming under scrutiny in Washington, where Congress is looking for ways to reduce the budget deficit, to pay for the Iraq war and to help cover the exploding retirement and health care costs of aging baby boomers.

For now, many hedge fund managers are enjoying not only extraordinary profits but the extra benefit of a system almost encouraging them to set up offshore accounts.

Most hedge funds are private partnerships; managers are usually paid 2 percent of the money they manage plus 20 percent of the profits the partnership earns. If the fund operates in the United States, any deferral of the pay of the managers means investors lose the tax deduction associated with the compensation expense. As a result, deferred compensation in domestic funds is very uncommon.

By setting up an offshore fund, though, hedge fund managers avoid socking their investors with extra taxes. At the same time, it serves to attract tax-exempt investors like pension funds and endowments, as well as foreign investors, two of the most active groups investing in hedge funds today.

Once the offshore fund is established, managers can elect to have much of their compensation earned from the offshore fund deferred back into the fund, allowing it to grow tax-free until it is taken out. Managers have to decide ahead of time how much they will defer and they are required to follow a set formula for receiving the money. At the end of the deferral period, they pay ordinary income taxes.

There are downsides to this arrangement. For one, the money cannot be spent right away, which can be unfortunate for those looking to add to, say, their antique car collection. Moreover, the money is at risk.

Unlike 401(k)s and other so-called qualified plans, deferred compensation is not set aside for the individual but becomes a corporate liability. If the fund goes belly up, the deferred compensation is subject to claims from creditors.

“When someone defers money, the reason it’s not taxable to them is it’s not their money,” said Michael G. Tannenbaum, a lawyer with Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt. “It represents a debt in favor of that employee by the company.”

Many forces have worked to make hedge funds, as well as private equity funds — both called alternative investments — the darlings of the investment world. Pension funds are drawn to the promise of greater returns with supposedly fewer risks. Low interest rates and widely available financing have fueled a buyout boom largely run on demand from hedge funds for the debt issued to make the buyouts work.

But perhaps most notable about the spectacular growth is the huge compensation successful managers receive. Consider a relatively modest fund with $500 million in assets that posts a 16 percent return — on par with the market in 2006. The typical handful or fewer of professionals running the fund would share a management fee of $10 million, plus $16 million in “incentive compensation.”

A result is a new class of financial giants. The vast sums of money flowing to a relatively small number of individuals have inspired a vast interest in minimizing taxes.

“As long as you stay on the right side of the bright line, all forms of tax avoidance are very smart,” said Mark Yusko, president of Morgan Creek Capital Management, an investment advisory firm. “People pay good money for that.”

Offshore deferral arrangements have been around for decades. But in 2004, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act, and while a provision known as 409(a) restricted some practices, it also served to highlight their advantages.

“I don’t think 409(a) increased the number of deferrals, but it probably made more comfortable the arrangement because it codified what was going on,” Mr. Tannenbaum said.

Indeed, deferred-compensation agreements have continued to thrive under the new regulations. Mr. Massey, the consultant, estimates that 100 percent of managers do it; other investors err on the side of “most.”

The rationale for doing so is evident, especially as the funds and the compensation get bigger. An increase in the use of leverage — borrowed money to increase bets — has translated to outsize returns, and whopping pay packages, much of them comfortably multiplying in value offshore.

“These plans are used more and more in this market, especially with leveraged hedge funds because the more leveraged the fund, the bigger the profit component and the more valuable the deferral of the compensation,” said Mark J. Weinstein, a partner at Hogan & Hartson.

Now, Congress is taking a closer look. An amendment limiting deferred compensation to no more than $1 million or the average of the previous five years’ income was added to the Senate version of the minimum wage bill. Lawmakers from both the House and Senate are meeting to work out the differences.

Other tax advantages are under the microscope. For example, incentive income at private equity funds, called “the carry,” is taxed at a lower capital gains rate, which is often less than half the rates on ordinary income — a benefit being discussed.

To be sure, those who defer taxes face the risk that Congress will raise tax rates on the rich at some future date. But that does not seem to worry most hedge fund managers.

“My clients who have quantified the value of the deferral have never factored in the risk of a tax rate increase,” said Mr. Weinstein from Hogan & Hartson. The advantage of tax-free compounding is so strong, he said that “it doesn’t matter because the after-tax yield is still that much better.”