Menu
Tax Notes logo

Company Contests Denial Of $7 Million In Amortization Deductions For Intangible Assets.

JAN. 31, 1994

Simunico Inc., et al. v. Commissioner

DATED JAN. 31, 1994
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Court
    United States Tax Court
  • Docket
    Docket No. 1802-94
  • Authors
    Rosow, Stuart L.
  • Code Sections
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 94-70758
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    94 TNT 54-104

Simunico Inc., et al. v. Commissioner

====== CASE NAME ======

SIMUNICO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES,

 

Petitioners,

 

v.

 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

 

Respondent.

====== SUMMARY ======

Simunico Inc. of Rutherford, N.J., is contesting the denial of more than $7 million in amortization deductions for certain intangible assets, which it claims have limited useful lives and are separate and distinct from goodwill.

Simcorp Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Simunico, was merged with and into Simmons Juvenile Products Co. Inc., which owned all of the issued and outstanding stock of Bloomcraft Inc., Century Curtain Co. Inc., Hausted Inc., Simmons Healthcare Inc., and Little Folks Inc.

Simuncio claims that the assets of Simmons were deemed purchased for $79,364,000, and that the fair market value of the identifiable tangible assets was approximately $45,500,000. It claims that the identifiable intangible assets of assembled work force, customer lists, product lines, engineering drawings, and computer software totaled $23,810,000, and that $10,000,000 was assigned to goodwill.

Simuncio claims that the indentifiable intangible assets are all wasting assets, separate and distinct from goodwill, with ascertainable values and limited useful lives, the duration of which can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy.

Periods and Amount at Issue: 1988 through 1991 -- $2,538,053

Applicable Code Sections: 167

====== FULL TEXT ======

PETITION

Petitioners hereby petition for a redetermination of the deficiencies set forth by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the "Commissioner") in his Notice of Deficiency bearing the symbols A:NWK:GF:GT:90D and dated November 18, 1993. As the basis for their case Petitioners allege as follows:

1. Petitioner Simunico, Inc. (22-2846869) ("Simunico") whose legal address is 301 Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey 07070, is the parent of a consolidated group that filed consolidated federal income tax returns for the 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 taxable years with the Internal Revenue Service Center in Holtsville, New York.

2. Petitioners Simmons Juvenile Products Company, Inc. (06-1012789), BLC Liquidating Corp., formerly Bloomcraft, Inc. (06-1012786), CCC Liquidating Corp., formerly Century Curtain Co., Inc. (13-2661223), Hausted, Inc. (06-1012791) and SHC Liquidating Corp. formerly Simmons Healthcare, Inc. (13-1967779), whose legal address is 301 Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey 07070, are, directly and indirectly, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Simunico and joined in the filing of the consolidated return with Simunico.

3. The statutory Notice of Deficiency (a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A") that was mailed to Petitioners was dated November 18, 1993 and was issued by the Office of the Internal Revenue Service in Newark, New Jersey.

4. The income tax deficiencies for the taxable years ending July 31, 1988, July 31, 1989, July 31, 1990 and July 31, 1991 as determined by the Commissioner and all of which are in dispute, are as follows:

      Taxable            Increase

 

     Year Ended           in Tax

 

     ----------         ----------

 

     7/31/88            $  229,428

 

     7/31/89            $  649,832

 

     7/31/90            $  780,102

 

     7/31/91            $  878,691

     TOTAL              $2,538,053

5. The Notice of Deficiency also assessed interest on the deficiencies at an increased rate, computed under section 6621(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"), which assessment is also in dispute.

6. The determinations of tax and interest set forth in the Notice of Deficiency is based on the following erroneous determinations:

(a) The Commissioner erred in disallowing deductions for

 

amortization of intangibles on Petitioners' 1988, 1989, 1990 and

 

1991 returns in the amounts of $1,971,820, $1,971,820,

 

$1,971,820 and $1,830,819, respectively.

(b) The Commissioner erred in determining that it has not

 

been established that the intangibles have a limited useful

 

life, the duration of which can be ascertained with reasonable

 

accuracy, and further that the intangibles have an ascertainable

 

value separate and distinct from goodwill or going concern

 

value.

(c) The Commissioner erred in determining that the alleged

 

underpayments of Petitioners' income taxes for the 1988, 1989,

 

1990 and 1991 taxable years are large corporate underpayments

 

under section 6621(c) of the Code and that the annual rate of

 

interest payable on Petitioners' taxes for the 1988, 1989, 1990

 

and 1991 taxable years should be 2% above the adjusted rate

 

established under section 6621(a)(2) of the Code for interest

 

accruing after December 31, 1990.

7. The facts upon which Petitioners rely as the basis for their case are as follows:

(a) Simunico and Simcorp, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary,

 

were formed in July, 1987.

(b) On August 5, 1987 Simcorp, Inc. was merged with and

 

into Simmons Juvenile Products Company, Inc. ("Simmons").

(c) At the time of the merger, Simmons owned all of the

 

issued and outstanding stock of Bloomcraft, Inc., Century

 

Curtain Co., Inc., Hausted, Inc., Simmons Healthcare, Inc. and

 

Little Folks, Ltd.

(d) Simunico and Wickes & Co., the former owner of Simmons,

 

jointly made an election under section 338(h)(10) of the Code.

(e) Pursuant to section 338 of the Code, Petitioners'

 

assets were deemed purchased for $79,364,000.

(f) Petitioners engaged an independent public accounting

 

firm to perform an appraisal of the assets to be acquired by

 

Petitioners in order to determine their fair market values.

(g) The fair market value of the identifiable tangible

 

assets was approximately $45,500,000.

(h) The fair market value of the identifiable intangible

 

assets (hereinafter referred to collectively as the

 

"Identifiable Intangible Assets") was as follows:

     assembled work force     -     $   448,000

 

     customer lists           -      17,800,000

 

     product lines            -       4,900,000

 

     engineering drawings     -         200,000

 

     computer software        -         462,000

 

                                     ----------

 

     TOTAL                          $23,810,000

(i) Under the residual allocation method, the excess of the

 

deemed purchase price of $79,764,000 over the value of the

 

identifiable tangible assets and Identifiable Intangible Assets

 

of approximately $10,000,000 was assigned to goodwill as its

 

fair market value.

(j) The Identifiable Intangible Assets are all wasting

 

assets, separate and distinct from goodwill, with ascertainable

 

values and limited useful lives, the duration of which can be

 

ascertained with reasonable accuracy.

(k) The remaining useful lives of the Identifiable

 

Intangible Assets at the time of the merger were as follows:

     assembled work force     -     10 years

 

     customer lists           -     18.25 years

 

     product lines            -     3-7 years

 

     engineering drawings     -     5 years

 

     computer software        -     5 years

(l) The statutory notice of deficiency was dated November

 

18, 1993 and the first letter of proposed deficiency was dated

 

October 19, 1992.

(m) Petitioners were never given an opportunity for

 

administrative review in the Internal Revenue Service Office of

 

Appeals.

8. Petitioners further assert that, in the event they should make any payment to Respondent of the deficiency set forth in the Notice of Deficiency (or any portion thereof) and it is subsequently determined they are not liable for the portion of the deficiency paid, Petitioners will then be entitled to a refund of the overpayment together with interest thereon as provided by law.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this Court try the case and:

1. Determine that there are no deficiencies in income tax for the years in issue.

2. Determine that Petitioners are not subject to the provisions of section 6621(c) of the Code with respect to large corporate underpayments.

3. Grant Petitioners such other and further relief to which they may be entitled.

DATED: January 26, 1994

Stuart L. Rosow

 

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman,

 

Hays & Handler

 

425 Park Avenue

 

New York, New York 10022

 

Attorneys for Petitioners
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Court
    United States Tax Court
  • Docket
    Docket No. 1802-94
  • Authors
    Rosow, Stuart L.
  • Code Sections
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 94-70758
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    94 TNT 54-104
Copy RID