Contract analysis

From: Sylvia Hartwell <shartwell@calderwoodharkness.com> To: Leila Nazari <lnazari@calderwoodharkness.com> Cc: Robert Jansen <rjansen@calderwoodharkness.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 03:47:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Draft Should-Level Tax Opinion — Solstice Biomedical Devices Ltd. (Matter No. 1037-00007) — Partner Comments

Thank you for circulating the draft tax opinion letter dated April 10, 2024, addressed to the Board of Directors of Solstice Biomedical Devices Ltd. I have now had a chance to review the draft in full. On the whole, it is solid work — well-organized and clearly written, and the analytical framework is sound. That said, I have identified several areas that need to be strengthened or supplemented before we can finalize

**1. Strengthen the BEAT Analysis (IRC § 59A)**

The current discussion of the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax is too conclusory. We need a much more thorough treatment of the base erosion percentage calculation, walking the reader through the math explicitly rather than simply stating a conclusion.

Specifically: SMT Inc.'s projected annual royalty deduction under the License-Back Agreement is $15.136M (i.e., $189.2M net sales × 8.0% royalty rate). When we divide that by SMT Inc.'s FY2023 total deductions of $174.8M, we arrive at a base erosion percentage of approximately 8.66%. This clearly exceeds the 3.0% statutory threshold, and the opinion must forthrightly acknowledge that SMT Inc. will be an "applicable t

Beyond that threshold determination, please add a more detailed discussion of the following:

(a) The modified taxable income computation and how the BEAT minimum tax compares to SMT Inc.'s regular tax liability — the Board needs to understand the potential incremental tax cost, if any.

(b) Whether any base erosion payment exceptions apply. The services cost method exception under § 59A(d)(5) is worth addressing, though I expect we will conclude it is inapplicable to royalty payments. Walk through why.

(c) Practical mitigants the client should consider going forward — for example, monitoring the base erosion percentage over time if SMT Inc.'s deduction profile changes, and the potential impact of any future restructuring on the ratio.

The opinion should be clear that BEAT exposure does not negate the overall tax efficiency of the structure, but the client needs to understand the ongoing compliance obligation and should be planning for it.

**2. Interplay Between IRC § 367(d) Deemed Inclusions and License-Back Royalty Stream**

This is the area that needs the most additional work. The draft currently treats the § 367(d) analysis and the § 482 / license-back royalty analysis somewhat in isolation. We need an additional bridging discussion that addresses how these two regimes interact in the context of this structure.

To set the stage: the built-in gain on the transferred IP is $203.2M ($214.5M fair market value minus $11.3M adjusted tax basis). Under § 367(d), SMT Inc. is treated as receiving deemed annual royalty inclusions over the useful life of the IP — 12.8 years per the Whitmore Valuation Advisors report. Separately, SMT Inc. will actually pay an 8.0% arm's-length royalty back to SIP Holdings under the License-Back Agreemen

(i) Whether the deemed § 367(d) inclusions and the actual royalty payments are treated as separate items for U.S. federal income tax purposes;

(ii) Whether SMT Inc. gets a deduction for the actual royalty payments while simultaneously including the § 367(d) deemed amounts in income; and

(iii) Any potential for double-counting or offset, and how Treas. Reg. § 1.367(d)-1T addresses this issue.

I would also like the draft to discuss whether a useful-life election is advisable given the 12.8-year weighted-average useful life determined by Whitmore, and the relative merits versus the default 20-year inclusion period. The client may benefit from the shorter period, but the implications for annual inclusion amounts should be spelled out so the Board can make an informed decision.

This is the most technically nuanced piece of the opinion, so please take the time to get it right. I am happy to talk through the analysis with you — see my note below regarding a call.

**3. Confirm SMT Inc. Total Deductions Figure with Lattimore & Stern**

The $174.8M total deductions figure for SMT Inc. (FY2023) is central to the BEAT analysis. Before we finalize, please confirm that David Lattimore at Lattimore & Stern CPAs LLP (155 Federal Street, Suite 1400, Boston, MA 02110) has reviewed and signed off on this number.

If this figure is based on the FY2023 filed return, we should note that in the opinion. If it is instead a projected or estimated figure, we need to include a caveat that the actual BEAT calculation will depend on final return figures. This is important because even small changes to the denominator could affect the base erosion percentage — though at 8.66% there is substantial headroom above the 3.0% threshold, so I

**4. Section 291A TCA 1997 Discussion Should Cross-Reference Harrington & Cahill Analysis**

The Irish tax section addressing SIP Holdings' entitlement to capital allowances on specified intangible assets under Section 291A TCA 1997 is competent — the approximately €13.12M per year figure (based on IP cost of approximately €196.8M at €1 = $1.09, amortized over the 15-year statutory period) appears correct — but it reads as somewhat standalone.

Since Harrington & Cahill (specifically Niamh O'Sullivan, Tax Partner) is advising on the Irish-side tax treatment, our opinion should explicitly note that we have reviewed and are consistent with their analysis on the Section 291A qualification. More importantly, we should state clearly that our opinion on Irish tax matters is informed by, and should be read in conjunction with, the advice of Harrington & Cahill as

Additionally, please verify that Niamh's team has confirmed SIP Holdings' Irish tax residency and that the management and control of SIP Holdings will be exercised in Ireland. This is foundational to the entire structure and to the U.S.-Ireland Treaty Limitation on Benefits analysis. If we have not received written confirmation on this point, we should request it before finalizing.

**5. Add Discussion of Cost-Plus R&D Services Agreement as Substance Indicator**

The draft does not currently discuss the Cost-Plus R&D Services Agreement under which SMT Inc. will continue to perform contract R&D services for SIP Holdings at cost plus an 8.0% mark-up. This is a significant omission. Please add a paragraph — likely in the § 482 / transfer pricing section and also in the substance discussion — explaining how this agreement supports the bona fide nature of the overall arrangement.

- It demonstrates that SIP Holdings is the economic owner of the IP and bears the cost (and risk) of ongoing R&D enhancement. - It supports the characterization that SMT Inc. is a service provider / licensee rather than the true economic owner post-transfer. - The cost-plus 8.0% mark-up should be benchmarked as arm's-length — please confirm whether Whitmore Valuation Advisors addressed this in their transfer-pricing

- **Pinnacle board approval.** Please confirm that Pinnacle Growth Equity Partners Fund III, L.P. board-level approval for the transaction has been obtained. Under the shareholders' agreement, this is required for material intercompany transactions exceeding €10M, and the IP transfer at $214.5M (~€196.8M) far exceeds that threshold. The final opinion should note that this approval was obtained.

- **Whitmore report citation.** Double-check all cross-references to the Whitmore Valuation Advisors draft report dated January 29, 2024. We should confirm whether a final version has been issued and, if so, update the citation throughout. We should not be relying on a draft in the final opinion if a final is available.

- **Representations letter.** The Factual Assumptions and Representations Letter from Dr. Cathal Morrissey and Fiona Gallagher dated March 8, 2024 should be explicitly referenced in the reliance section of the opinion. Please confirm it covers all factual predicates we rely on. If there are gaps, we need a supplemental letter.

- **Treaty Article 12 / LOB.** Verify that the Treaty discussion on Article 12 (Royalties) adequately addresses the 0% withholding rate and the Limitation on Benefits qualification for SIP Holdings. I believe the current draft touches on this, but I want to make sure it is a substantive discussion rather than a passing reference. Given the importance of LOB qualification to the structure, this warrants more than a se

- **Dalton Byrne & Partners coordination.** Please reference coordination with Dalton Byrne & Partners (Séamus Dalton) regarding the IP Assignment Agreement documentation and SIP Holdings formation matters, to the extent we relied on their confirmation of proper Irish corporate formalities.

Leila, please incorporate all of the above comments and circulate a revised draft to me, Leonard, and Robert by **Monday, April 22, 2024**. Our target for delivery of the final opinion to the SBD board is the week of April 22, so this timeline is firm and I would like to avoid slippage if at all possible.

If it would be helpful, I am happy to set up a call to walk through any of these comments — particularly the § 367(d) / royalty interplay point (Comment 2), which is the most technically nuanced and may benefit from us talking through the mechanics together before you start redrafting.

I want to acknowledge the excellent work by both you and Robert on the research memoranda that underpin the draft. The quality of the underlying analysis is evident, and that makes the revision process much more straightforward. Thank you both.

**Sylvia Hartwell** Partner, Tax Calderwood & Harkness LLP 599 Lexington Avenue, 36th Floor New York, NY 10022 Direct: (212) 554-7831 Email: shartwell@calderwoodharkness.com

*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other applicable law. This communication is intended exclusively for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any unaut