In Tax Case Against Yahoo Successor, IRS Goes After $1.5 Billion
The IRS told Altaba it owed $1.5 billion in unassessed income and employment tax liabilities after revising the claim once and then a second time after Altaba filed its 2019 income tax return in April.
June 18, 2020 at 06:10 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The U.S. government took legal action Tuesday in an attempt to collect the $1.5 billion it says Yahoo successor Altaba Inc. owes in taxes.
Counsel for Altaba, a Delaware corporation operating out of New York, wrote in a May Delaware Court of Chancery petition that the Internal Revenue Service's claim is inflated, with about $659 million being the amount the company is willing to hold back for federal tax liabilities while finalizing the dissolution its board agreed to last year.
Yahoo changed its name to Altaba in 2017 shortly after selling its internet operating business. The corporation was formerly dissolved within Delaware on Oct. 4, 2019, and reported the dissolution to the IRS several days later. It's currently not conducting any business other than what's required to wrap up the dissolution.
Altaba filed a petition May 28 asking the Delaware Court of Chancery to determine security amounts it should hold back to cover claims expected to come up during its dissolution. Among the known claims listed in the petition was the Internal Revenue Service's claim, which was first presented in December as $12.7 billion for tax years ranging from 2013 to 2029. Soon after, Altaba made about $5.76 billion in payments toward the claim for 2019 taxes. In February, the dissolved corporation notified the IRS it was rejecting part of the dissolution claim but reportedly did not specify which part.
After revising the claim once and then a second time after Altaba filed its 2019 income tax return in April, the IRS told Altaba it owed $1.5 billion in unassessed income and employment tax liabilities.
The federal government removed its case to the District of Delaware on Tuesday, asking the court to reduce the tax liability to a judgment of $1.5 billion plus interest and statutory additions, nearly all of which is stated to be for income tax liability. The Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs had no comment on the case Thursday.
"Altaba submits that, while the parties have made substantial progress on their discussions, the tax claims asserted by the IRS remain inflated and do not reflect amounts that the IRS would actually seek from Altaba after the IRS has fully considered the facts and circumstances regarding the tax matters in discussion," Altaba's attorney, Paul J. Lockwood, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, wrote in the Court of Chancery petition.
Lockwood, who did not respond for comment on the case, wrote that Altaba's petition is unusual in that while the company is being dissolved, it has assets in excess of what is expected to be necessary to pay out dissolution claims and plans to divide billions among stockholders. The company now has about $13 billion in assets, nearly all of which has been liquidated.
Altaba has requested the Court of Chancery make claim determinations in two steps in order to begin distributing funds not earmarked as possibly being needed to resolve claims to stockholders. The suggested process would involve Altaba first setting aside the full amounts requested by the various claimants, as well as a $250 million "cushion" for future claims, then negotiating the claims for which an agreement has not already been reached.
Claimants with which Altaba reported disputes included Verizon, which is requesting a $3.5 billion holdback, a number Lockwood wrote incorrectly includes duplicate costs for tax liabilities and a class action lawsuit addressed by other claims.
Documents filed with the Court of Chancery indicate Altaba plans to maintain a reserve of $7.3 billion for various claims and expenses, including an estimated $99.6 million in wind-down costs, but predicts about $1.4 billion of that reserve will ultimately be used.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250