Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States

734 F. Supp. 176, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 760, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3628, 1990 WL 39039
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedApril 3, 1990
DocketCiv. A. 88-4846
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 734 F. Supp. 176 (Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States, 734 F. Supp. 176, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 760, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3628, 1990 WL 39039 (D.N.J. 1990).

Opinion

OPINION

SAROKIN, District Judge.

Introduction

This action involves the issue of whether the acquisition of existing paying subscribers as part of an ongoing group of newspapers warrants a tax deduction for the depreciation and amortization of the value of those subscribers as an asset separate and apart from goodwill.

The parties concede that the issue is a factual one, and that' in order to prevail plaintiff has the burden of proving that as of May 31, 1977, said subscribers had limited useful lives, the duration of which can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, and ascertainable values separate and apart from goodwill.

The court finds, as more specifically hereinafter set forth, that plaintiff has met its burden. In summary, it is self-evident that the subscribers themselves as of a certain date have limited useful lives, because the subscriptions by necessity will terminate upon the death of their respective subscribers. Secondly, plaintiff has presented competent evidence that the subscriptions also have limited useful lives and will terminate for a variety of other reasons prior to the death of their respective subscribers. Either based upon the inevitable death of the subscribers or the statistical evidence submitted by plaintiff and the uncontroverted expert opinions that the subscriptions have limited useful lives which can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, plaintiff has clearly established that the paying subscribers (or subscriptions) of the acquired newspapers had limited useful lives, the duration of which can be and has been estimated with reasonable accuracy. Indeed, the parties have entered into a stipulation establishing the useful lives of the subscribers for each of the newspapers involved, in the event that this court finds for the plaintiff.

As to the second prong, the court recognizes and accepts that goodwill is the expectancy that former customers will be retained- — -that there will be continued patronage. However, one must distinguish between a galaxy of customers who may or may not return, whose frequency is unknown, and whose quantity and future purchases cannot be predicted, against subscribers who can be predicted to purchase the same item, for the same price on a daily *177 basis. Although newspaper subscribers are under no legal obligation to continue their subscriptions, expert opinion and the evidence presented coupled with common sense and experience leads inescapably to the conclusion that the income derived from such paying subscribers will recur, which, in turn, permits the ascertainment of value separate and apart from goodwill. The income derived from the subscribers permits the calculation of value over the useful lives of the subscriptions or subscribers, and renders the subscribers acquired subject to valuation as an asset separate and apart from goodwill.

Discussion

The following shall constitute the court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

Plaintiff, Newark Morning Ledger Co. (“Morning Ledger”), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in Newark, New Jersey. Stip. para. a. Morning Ledger is a successor by merger to The Herald Company (“Herald”) which, prior to its merger into Morning Ledger, published daily newspapers in eight Michigan communities, inter alia (the “Booth newspapers”). Stip. para, b, c.

This income tax case involves Herald’s claim to depreciation deductions with respect to assets useful in its business, i.e., the existing relationships with the subscribers of the Booth newspapers acquired on May 31, 1977 (sometimes referred to as the “paid subscribers”). Herald claimed deductions for depreciation with respect to those subscriber relationships when it filed its tax returns for the taxable years 1977 through 1980. The Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) disallowed those deductions, thereby determining an increased tax liability for Herald for each of those years. The correctness of those depreciation deductions is the subject of this action.

During the period beginning February 12, 1976 and ending November 5, 1976, Herald purchased all the outstanding stock of Booth Newspapers, Inc. (“Booth”). Stip. para. e. Booth was a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Booth published the following daily and Sunday paid-circulation newspapers in eight Michigan communities: Ann Arbor News, Bay City Times, Flint Journal, Grand Rapids Press, Jackson Citizen Patriot, Kalamazoo Gazette, Muskegon Chronicle, and Saginaw News. Stip. para, c. On the May 31, 1977 acquisition date, these newspapers had a total of approximately 460,000 subscribers. Stip. para. j. In addition to publishing the Booth newspapers, Booth owned all the stock of the Parade Publications, Inc. (“Parade”), which published a nationally-distributed Sunday newspaper supplement called Parade. Stip. para. c.

Prior to Herald’s purchase of Booth, Booth's stock was publicly traded. Herald purchased two blocks of Booth stock through private sales, and later made a tender offer for all of the outstanding stock.

Herald did not obtain an appraisal of any of the Booth assets prior to purchasing the Booth stock. Generally, such appraisals are made subsequent to such a purchase according to Roger J. Grabowski 1 . Before purchasing Booth, however, Herald’s officers inquired into the financial and other relevant aspects of Booth’s operations and met with Booth’s Chief Executive Officer. The decision to purchase the Booth stock and the determination of the price to be paid for that stock were influenced by the fact that the Booth newspapers were paid-circulation newspapers and by the number of subscribers to those newspapers.

On May 31, 1977, Booth was liquidated into Herald by merger in a transaction governed by sections 332 and 334(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the “Code”). Stip. para. c. Subsequently, on June 30, 1987, Herald was *178 merged into Morning Ledger, making the operations of Herald and Booth unincorporated divisions of Morning Ledger. Stip. para. b.

As a consequence of the liquidation of Booth into Herald, pursuant to the rules set forth at section 1.334-1(c)(4)(vi)(b) of the Treasury regulations, Herald’s adjusted tax basis in the Booth stock had to be allocated among the assets of Booth in proportion to their respective fair market values as of May 31, 1977. In filing its tax returns for calendar and taxable years 1977 through 1980, Herald claimed depreciation deductions with respect to the paid subscribers of the Booth newspapers. These deductions were calculated by reference to Herald’s adjusted basis in the paid subscribers derived from the application of the foregoing rules. The Service disallowed those deductions. Herald paid the additional taxes and interest determined by the Service to be due. Stip. para. d.

Morning Ledger, as successor to Herald, filed a timely claim for refund of taxes and interest previously paid for taxable years 1977 through 1980. Stip. para. m.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meredith Corp. v. Commissioner
102 T.C. No. 15 (U.S. Tax Court, 1994)
Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. United States
507 U.S. 546 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Ithaca Indus. v. Commissioner
97 T.C. No. 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 1991)
Colorado Nat'l Bankshares, Inc. v. Commissioner
1990 T.C. Memo. 495 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
734 F. Supp. 176, 65 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 760, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3628, 1990 WL 39039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newark-morning-ledger-co-v-united-states-njd-1990.