1001-00006 · Ardent Capital Partners · Structure & Entity Selection

section-338h10-vs-754-analysis-memorandum.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

31 / 35 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION

From: Leonard Cross, Partner, Tax; Robert Jansen, Senior Associate, Tax — Calderwood & Harkness LLP, One Liberty Plaza, 45th Floor, New York, NY 10006

To: Marcus Pellegrino, Partner, Healthcare — Ardent Capital Partners III LP, 600 Lexington Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, NY 10022; Claire Ashworth, Co-Founder & Managing Partner — Ardent Capital Partners III LP, 600 Lexington Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, NY 10022

Date: February 28, 2024

Re: Section 338(h)(10) vs. Section 754 Election Analysis — Acquisition of Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC

Engagement No.: 1001-00006

Matter No.: 1001-00006

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

This memorandum analyzes and compares two alternative tax election approaches available in connection with the proposed acquisition by Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc. (the "Buyer" or "Intermediate Inc."), a newly formed Delaware C-corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Ardent Healthcare Holdings LLC ("Holdings LLC"), of one hundred percent (100%) of the membership interests of Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC ("Pinnacle" or "PHSG"). Holdings LLC is in turn owned by Ardent Capital Partners III LP ("Fund III") and certain rollover participants, as further described herein. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the deal team with a comprehensive comparison of the two election alternatives so that the acquisition structure can be finalized in advance of the execution of definitive transaction documents.

The proposed transaction contemplates a reverse merger of Ardent Healthcare Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub") with and into Pinnacle, with Pinnacle surviving as the wholly owned subsidiary of Intermediate Inc. The transaction has been negotiated at an enterprise value of $412,000,000 (representing a multiple of approximately 7.95x 2023 Adjusted EBITDA of $51.8 million). After accounting for $72,600,000 in net debt (comprising $81.3 million in funded debt offset by $8.7 million of cash on Pinnacle's balance sheet), the equity value payable to the sellers is $339,400,000. The economic terms and structure of the acquisition are described in greater detail in Part II below.

The two election alternatives analyzed in this memorandum are as follows:

1. Section 338(h)(10) Approach. This alternative would require Pinnacle to first file a Form 8832 check-the-box election under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3 to reclassify Pinnacle from a partnership to a corporation for federal income tax purposes, followed by a joint election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), to treat the stock acquisition as a deemed asset purchase. This approach would produce a full step-up in the tax basis of Pinnacle's assets to $412,000,000 (i.e., the aggregate deemed sale price), enabling the Buyer to claim enhanced depreciation and amortization deductions going forward.

2. Section 754 Approach. This alternative would maintain Pinnacle's existing classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Pinnacle would file a Section 754 election with its partnership tax return (Form 1065) for the taxable year of the acquisition, producing a Section 743(b) basis adjustment equal to the difference between the Buyer's outside basis (its purchase price of $412,000,000) and the Buyer's proportionate share of Pinnacle's inside basis ($187,600,000). This approach yields a basis step-up of $224,400,000 for the Buyer without requiring any change in Pinnacle's entity classification and without triggering incremental gain at the seller level.

Our recommendation is that Pinnacle make a Section 754 election. While the Section 338(h)(10) approach would generate a larger absolute basis step-up ($412.0 million vs. $224.4 million) and correspondingly greater annual amortization deductions for the Buyer, it would also trigger approximately $48.3 million in incremental seller-level gain arising from the mismatch between Pinnacle's inside basis in its assets ($187.6 million) and the sellers' aggregate outside basis in their membership interests ($291.1 million). The net present value of the Buyer's incremental amortization benefit under the Section 338(h)(10) approach over the Section 754 approach is approximately $31.7 million — an amount that is insufficient to offset the incremental tax costs to the sellers (estimated at approximately $12.1 million), the likely requirement for the Buyer to gross up the sellers for such costs, and the materially greater execution complexity and deal risk associated with the check-the-box conversion.

By contrast, the Section 754 election achieves a meaningful basis step-up of $224,400,000 for the Buyer without triggering any incremental seller-level gain, without requiring any change to Pinnacle's entity classification, and at a modestly lower but still substantial after-tax benefit to the Buyer. The Section 754 approach is also fully consistent with the recommended three-tier acquisition structure (Holdings LLC → Intermediate Inc. → Pinnacle as partnership) described in our Preliminary Tax Structure Memorandum dated February 12, 2024, which was delivered to Fund III under separate cover.

The analysis and conclusions in this memorandum are subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in Part VII below, including the preliminary nature of certain basis figures and tax rate assumptions.

II. Factual Background

A. The Target — Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC

Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company (EIN 82-1947632) formed on August 12, 2016. Pinnacle has not filed a Form 8832 entity classification election with the Internal Revenue Service at any point since its formation, and accordingly maintains its default classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3. Pinnacle is governed by an Operating Agreement dated August 12, 2016, as amended and restated on March 3, 2020 (the "Operating Agreement"). The Operating Agreement provides for the management and governance of Pinnacle, the allocation of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit among the members, and the distribution of cash and other property.

Pinnacle operates as an owner-operator of healthcare facilities across the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States. Its portfolio consists of thirty-four (34) urgent care clinics and eight (8) ambulatory surgery centers, for a total of forty-two (42) facilities located in five states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia. Pinnacle's corporate headquarters are located at 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 400, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, Pinnacle reported total revenue of approximately $287.4 million and Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the draft Merger Agreement) of approximately $51.8 million. As of year-end 2023, Pinnacle employed approximately 1,620 individuals, including 142 employed physicians and a substantial complement of advanced practice providers, nursing staff, and administrative personnel.

Pinnacle was co-founded in 2016 by Dr. Raymond Carvallo, who serves as Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Nadia Ostrowski, who serves as Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer. The current ownership of Pinnacle's membership interests is as follows:

Dr. Carvallo, Dr. Ostrowski, and Mr. Farnsworth (the "Rollover Sellers") have each agreed to reinvest a portion of their sale proceeds as rollover equity in Holdings LLC, as further described in Section II.B below. The fourteen minority physician-investors are selling one hundred percent (100%) of their respective membership interests for cash at closing and will not participate in the post-closing equity structure.

B. The Buyer Structure

Fund III. The acquiring sponsor is Ardent Capital Partners III LP ("Fund III"), a Delaware limited partnership with a 2022 vintage year and total committed capital of approximately $3.2 billion. Fund III's general partner is Ardent Capital GP III LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The managing partners of the Ardent Capital platform are Dominic Ferrera and Claire Ashworth. The Fund III deal team responsible for the Pinnacle acquisition is led by Marcus Pellegrino, Partner, Healthcare.

Acquisition Vehicles. In connection with the proposed acquisition, Calderwood & Harkness LLP formed the following acquisition vehicles, each organized under the laws of the State of Delaware:

(i) Ardent Healthcare Holdings LLC (File No. 7834219; EIN 93-2187445). Holdings LLC is classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and serves as the equity aggregator vehicle for the transaction. Holdings LLC will be capitalized with (a) $198.5 million of committed equity from Fund III, (b) $59.54 million of aggregate rollover equity from Dr. Carvallo, Dr. Ostrowski, and Mr. Farnsworth, and (c) management incentive equity (profits interests) to be issued to certain members of post-closing management. Holdings LLC is the sole member of Intermediate Inc.

(ii) Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc. (File No. 7834223; EIN 93-2187512). Intermediate Inc. is a Delaware C-corporation and is wholly owned by Holdings LLC. Intermediate Inc. serves as a "Blocker" entity interposed between the partnership-level equity aggregator and the target entity. Following the closing of the transaction, Intermediate Inc. will hold one hundred percent (100%) of the surviving membership interests of Pinnacle. The use of a C-corporation blocker at this level of the structure is consistent with the recommendations set forth in our Preliminary Tax Structure Memorandum dated February 12, 2024, and provides, among other benefits, the ability to utilize the amortization deductions generated by the Section 743(b) basis step-up against Intermediate Inc.'s taxable income at the corporate level.

(iii) Ardent Healthcare Merger Sub LLC (File No. 7834227). Merger Sub is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Intermediate Inc. Merger Sub was formed solely for the purpose of effecting the reverse merger contemplated by the transaction. Upon the closing of the merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into Pinnacle, with Pinnacle surviving as the wholly owned subsidiary of Intermediate Inc. Following the merger, Merger Sub will cease to exist.

The rationale for the three-tier structure (Holdings LLC → Intermediate Inc. → Pinnacle) was analyzed in detail in our Preliminary Tax Structure Memorandum dated February 12, 2024. In brief, this structure (a) provides pass-through treatment at the Holdings LLC level for the benefit of Fund III and its limited partners, (b) interposes a C-corporation blocker (Intermediate Inc.) to shield tax-exempt and foreign investors from UBTI and ECI concerns, respectively, and (c) preserves Pinnacle's partnership classification at the operating level to facilitate the Section 754 election and related basis step-up mechanisms analyzed herein.

C. Transaction Economics

The key financial terms of the proposed acquisition are summarized below:

Earnout. In addition to the base purchase price, the sellers are eligible to receive contingent earnout payments of up to $35,000,000, structured in two measurement periods as follows:

• Period 1: $15,000,000 payable if Pinnacle achieves Adjusted EBITDA of at least $58.0 million for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2025.

• Period 2: $20,000,000 payable if Pinnacle achieves Adjusted EBITDA of at least $65.0 million for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2026.

The earnout amounts are not included in the base purchase price for purposes of this analysis. The tax characterization of the earnout payments is addressed separately in the Earnout Tax Characterization Memorandum dated March 1, 2024.

Financing. The acquisition will be financed through a combination of equity contributions and third-party debt as follows:

(a) Senior Secured Term Loan B: $155,000,000, arranged and administered by Graystone National Bank, N.A. Interest rate of SOFR plus 425 basis points. Seven-year maturity.

(b) Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility: $35,000,000 (undrawn at closing), arranged by Graystone National Bank, N.A. Interest rate of SOFR plus 375 basis points. Five-year maturity.

(c) Mezzanine Notes: $30,000,000, provided by Cascadia Mezzanine Fund IV LP. Interest rate of 12.5% cash pay / 2.0% PIK. Eight-year maturity.

(d) Mezzanine Warrants: In connection with the mezzanine financing, Cascadia Mezzanine Fund IV LP will receive warrants for 2.5% of the fully diluted equity of Holdings LLC, exercisable at nominal value.

(e) Equity: $198,500,000 from Fund III plus $59,540,000 in aggregate rollover equity from the Rollover Sellers.

D. Seller Tax Basis Information

The analysis in this memorandum depends critically on the tax basis of both (i) Pinnacle's assets (the "inside basis") and (ii) the sellers' respective membership interests in Pinnacle (the "outside basis"). The relevant basis information has been provided by Brewer Stanfield & Associates LLP, Pinnacle's independent accounting firm, and has been reviewed and confirmed during the quality of earnings analysis conducted by Northmark Advisory Group LLC on behalf of the Buyer. We note that these figures are preliminary and are subject to final verification upon completion and review of Pinnacle's 2023 federal tax return (Form 1065) and the related Schedule K-1s. Any material changes in the basis figures could affect the conclusions reached in this memorandum.

The relevant basis figures are as follows:

The $103.5 million excess of outside basis over inside basis is a significant feature of this transaction and materially affects the comparative analysis of the two election alternatives. This disparity reflects the cumulative effect of prior taxable income allocations to the members in excess of cash distributions, as well as certain prior-year basis adjustments. Because the sellers' outside basis includes their allocable shares of Pinnacle's liabilities under Section 752, and because the sellers have been allocated substantial taxable income over the years (particularly during periods of rapid revenue growth) without commensurate cash distributions, the outside basis has grown to exceed the inside basis by a meaningful amount. As discussed in detail below, this disparity is the primary reason why the Section 338(h)(10) approach generates incremental seller-level gain that does not arise under the Section 754 approach.

III. Section 338(h)(10) Election Analysis

A. Mechanics of Section 338(h)(10) — General Overview

Section 338(h)(10) of the Code permits the buyer and the sellers of a target to make a joint election to treat a qualified stock purchase as a deemed asset purchase for federal income tax purposes. When a Section 338(h)(10) election is in effect, the transaction is recharacterized as though the target sold all of its assets at fair market value in a single transaction, recognized gain or loss on the deemed sale, and then distributed the net proceeds to its shareholders in a complete liquidation. The shareholders then recognize gain or loss on the deemed liquidating distribution based on their respective bases in the target's stock.

The principal benefit of a Section 338(h)(10) election to the buyer is the full step-up of the target's asset basis to fair market value — specifically, to the "Aggregate Deemed Sale Price" or "ADSP" as defined in Treasury Regulations § 1.338-4. This step-up allows the buyer to claim higher depreciation and amortization deductions on the target's assets going forward, reducing the buyer's taxable income and thereby reducing the buyer's tax liability over the depreciable/amortizable lives of the assets.

For a Section 338(h)(10) election to be available, the target entity must be a corporation — specifically, either an S-corporation or a member of a consolidated group of corporations — at the time of the qualified stock purchase. The election requires the joint consent of both the buyer and the sellers (in the case of an S-corporation target) or the common parent of the consolidated group (in the case of a target that is a member of a consolidated group). The election is made by filing a jointly executed Form 8023 (Elections Under Section 338 for Corporations Making Qualified Stock Purchases) with the Internal Revenue Service.

B. Prerequisite: Check-the-box Election on Pinnacle

Because Pinnacle is currently classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3, a Section 338(h)(10) election is not directly available in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle's membership interests. Section 338(h)(10) applies only to the acquisition of a target's stock, and partnership interests do not constitute "stock" for purposes of Section 338.

To utilize the Section 338(h)(10) mechanism, it would be necessary for Pinnacle to first file a Form 8832 (Entity Classification Election) under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3 to reclassify Pinnacle as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. This check-the-box election would need to take effect prior to (or simultaneously with) the closing of the acquisition, so that the purchase of Pinnacle's equity interests would be treated as a purchase of corporate stock eligible for a Section 338(h)(10) election.

Under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3(g)(1)(iii), when an eligible entity that is classified as a partnership elects to be classified as a corporation, the following deemed transactions are treated as occurring immediately before the close of the day prior to the election's effective date:

(a) The partnership is deemed to contribute all of its assets and liabilities to a newly formed corporation in exchange for all of the stock of the corporation.

(b) Immediately thereafter, the partnership is deemed to distribute the stock of the newly formed corporation to its members in liquidation of the partnership.

This sequence of deemed transactions is treated as a tax-free exchange under Section 351 of the Code, provided that the Section 351 requirements are satisfied (i.e., that the transferors are in "control" of the corporation immediately after the exchange, where "control" means ownership of stock possessing at least 80% of the total combined voting power and at least 80% of each class of nonvoting stock). In the case of Pinnacle, where all of the existing members would be deemed to contribute their interests and receive stock, the control requirement would be satisfied.

However, the deemed Section 351 transaction is not without risk. In particular, Section 357(c) of the Code provides that if, in a Section 351 exchange, the sum of the liabilities assumed by the transferee corporation exceeds the aggregate adjusted basis of the property transferred, the excess is treated as gain recognized by the transferor. Based on the preliminary data available, Pinnacle's inside basis of $187.6 million exceeds its funded debt of $81.3 million, so Section 357(c) gain should not be triggered. However, this analysis must account for all liabilities of Pinnacle, including contingent and unstated liabilities, obligations under operating leases that may be treated as liabilities for Section 357(c) purposes, and other items. A more detailed review of Pinnacle's complete liability profile would be required before the check-the-box approach could be pursued with confidence.

Additionally, the check-the-box election presents timing complexities. The election must be carefully coordinated with the closing of the acquisition to ensure that (i) the election takes effect before the qualified stock purchase occurs, (ii) the deemed Section 351 transaction does not produce unexpected tax consequences, and (iii) the acquisition qualifies as a "qualified stock purchase" within the meaning of Section 338(d)(3) (i.e., a purchase of at least 80% of the target's stock within a 12-month acquisition period). Any sequencing errors could jeopardize the availability of the Section 338(h)(10) election or produce unintended tax consequences for the sellers.

We also note that an alternative approach — electing S-corporation status for Pinnacle rather than C-corporation status — presents additional complications. Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc., as a C-corporation, would be an ineligible shareholder of an S-corporation under Section 1361(b)(1)(B) (which requires that all shareholders be individuals, estates, certain trusts, or certain tax-exempt organizations). Accordingly, an election to S-corporation status would be incompatible with the contemplated acquisition structure and is not further analyzed herein.

C. Tax Consequences of 338(h)(10) to the Sellers

Under a Section 338(h)(10) election, the old target (i.e., the newly formed deemed corporation resulting from the check-the-box election) is treated as having sold all of its assets at fair market value in a single transaction, recognizing gain or loss on the deemed sale. The gain or loss on the deemed asset sale is computed as follows:

• Aggregate Deemed Sale Price (ADSP): $412,000,000 (enterprise value)

• Less: Pinnacle's Aggregate Inside Basis in Assets: ($187,600,000)

• Deemed Asset-Level Gain: $224,400,000

Following the deemed asset sale, the old target is treated as distributing the net proceeds to its shareholders in a complete liquidation. The shareholders (i.e., the former Pinnacle members, who are now deemed to hold stock in the deemed corporation) recognize gain or loss on the deemed liquidating distribution based on the difference between the liquidation proceeds received and their respective bases in the deemed corporation's stock. For purposes of this analysis, the shareholders' bases in the deemed corporation's stock are equal to their former outside bases in their Pinnacle membership interests, as the deemed Section 351 transaction resulting from the check-the-box election generally preserves the transferors' bases under Section 358.

The critical issue for purposes of the seller-level tax impact is the interplay between the inside basis and the outside basis. In a simple case where inside basis equals outside basis, the Section 338(h)(10) mechanism would produce no incremental seller-level tax — the entity-level deemed sale gain would be offset by a corresponding basis step-up in the shareholders' stock, and the deemed liquidation would produce no additional gain. However, in the present transaction, the sellers' aggregate outside basis ($291,100,000) exceeds Pinnacle's inside basis ($187,600,000) by $103,500,000. This disparity creates a significant tax inefficiency under the Section 338(h)(10) approach.

More precisely, the tax consequences under the Section 338(h)(10) approach can be summarized as follows:

(a) Entity-Level Deemed Asset Sale. The deemed corporation recognizes $224,400,000 of gain on the deemed sale of all assets at the ADSP of $412,000,000 against inside basis of $187,600,000. This gain is taxable at the corporate level. While the deemed corporation is a newly formed entity with no prior tax history, the Section 338(h)(10) regulations treat this gain as recognized by the "old target" on the deemed sale, and the resulting tax liability is borne by the sellers as the former shareholders of the old target.

(b) Shareholder-Level Deemed Liquidation. The shareholders are treated as receiving liquidation proceeds equal to the equity value of $339,400,000 (i.e., the ADSP of $412,000,000 less net debt of $72,600,000, with adjustments). The shareholders' aggregate basis in the deemed corporation's stock is $291,100,000 (their former outside basis). The shareholders thus recognize gain of $339,400,000 − $291,100,000 = $48,300,000 on the deemed liquidation.

The net effect is that the sellers bear both (i) the corporate-level tax on the $224.4 million of deemed asset sale gain (which, under the fiction of the Section 338(h)(10) election, is treated as occurring while the sellers were the shareholders of the old target) and (ii) the shareholder-level gain of $48.3 million on the deemed liquidation. While the corporate-level tax effectively reduces the liquidation proceeds available to the shareholders, the total tax burden on the sellers is increased relative to a simple partnership interest sale.

To quantify the incremental seller-level gain attributable to the Section 338(h)(10) approach:

• In a direct partnership interest sale (without any check-the-box election or Section 338(h)(10) election), the sellers would recognize aggregate gain equal to the equity value minus their aggregate outside basis: $339,400,000 − $291,100,000 = $48,300,000.

• Under the Section 338(h)(10) approach, the dual-level taxation inherent in the check-the-box conversion and subsequent deemed asset sale produces incremental tax cost arising from the $103.5 million mismatch between inside basis ($187.6 million) and outside basis ($291.1 million). This mismatch, which is irrelevant in a partnership interest sale (where only outside basis matters), becomes a source of additional tax friction under the Section 338(h)(10) approach because the deemed asset sale is computed using the lower inside basis, while the deemed liquidation is computed using the higher outside basis — but the corporate-level tax on the deemed asset sale reduces the total after-tax proceeds available to the sellers without a corresponding offset.

• The incremental seller-level gain attributable to the Section 338(h)(10) approach is approximately $48,300,000, representing the additional taxable amount that would not have been recognized in a direct partnership interest sale.

This incremental gain would be borne by the individual sellers — Dr. Carvallo, Dr. Ostrowski, Mr. Farnsworth, and the fourteen minority physician-investors. Based on a blended capital gains tax rate of approximately 25% (comprising the federal long-term capital gains rate of 20%, the net investment income tax of 3.8% under Section 1411, and applicable state income taxes in the sellers' respective states of residence), the estimated incremental tax cost to the sellers is approximately:

$48,300,000 × 25% = $12,075,000 (approximately $12.1 million)

Impact on Deal Economics. The sellers, through their counsel Patricia Engelman of Whitford & Gaines LLP, have communicated that they will not agree to a transaction structure that increases their aggregate tax liability relative to a straight partnership interest sale. Any pursuit of the Section 338(h)(10) approach would therefore likely require the Buyer to "gross up" or otherwise compensate the sellers for the approximately $12.1 million in incremental tax costs. Such a gross-up obligation would directly reduce the Buyer's net economic benefit from the Section 338(h)(10) election and would introduce additional negotiating complexity and potential deal friction, particularly given that Dr. Carvallo and Dr. Ostrowski, as rollover participants with an ongoing economic relationship with the Buyer, have heightened sensitivity to any perception that the acquisition structure is being optimized solely for the Buyer's benefit at the sellers' expense.

D. Tax Consequences of 338(h)(10) to the Buyer

The principal benefit of the Section 338(h)(10) election to the Buyer is the full step-up of Pinnacle's asset basis from $187,600,000 (the existing inside basis) to $412,000,000 (the ADSP, equal to enterprise value). This step-up of $224,400,000 enables the Buyer to claim significantly higher depreciation and amortization deductions on Pinnacle's assets over the applicable recovery periods, reducing the Buyer's (specifically, Intermediate Inc.'s) taxable income and corporate tax liability.

The $412,000,000 of stepped-up asset basis would be allocated among Pinnacle's assets in accordance with the residual method prescribed by Section 1060 of the Code and Treasury Regulations § 1.338-6 and § 1.338-7. Based on the preliminary purchase price allocation analysis, the allocation across the seven asset classes is as follows:

The Class V intangible assets are further broken down as follows:

For purposes of this comparative analysis, we have used a 15-year blended amortization period for the NPV computation. This is a conservative assumption; the actual weighted-average useful life of the stepped-up basis, based on the preliminary allocation set forth above, is approximately 11.2 years. However, because the bulk of the intangible value (payor contracts, trade name, and goodwill/going concern value, collectively $273,900,000 or approximately 66% of the total) is subject to 15-year amortization under Section 197, the 15-year period provides a reasonable and conservative basis for comparison.

The annual amortization benefit to the Buyer under the Section 338(h)(10) approach is estimated as follows:

• Total stepped-up basis subject to amortization/depreciation: $412,000,000 (less $8,700,000 cash = $403,300,000 depreciable/amortizable, but for simplicity using the full $412,000,000 with the understanding that the cash component provides no incremental benefit)

• Annual amortization deduction (assuming 15-year blended period): $412,000,000 ÷ 15 = approximately $27,467,000 per year

• Annual tax benefit at 25% blended federal + state corporate tax rate: $27,467,000 × 25% = approximately $6,867,000 per year

• NPV of the annual tax benefit stream over 15 years, discounted at 8%: approximately $58,800,000

This $58.8 million NPV figure represents the total present value of the Buyer's amortization benefit under the Section 338(h)(10) approach. However, this figure must be compared against the amortization benefit achievable under the Section 754 alternative in order to determine the incremental benefit of the Section 338(h)(10) approach. That comparison is set forth in Section III.E below and in the detailed comparative analysis in Part V.

E. Net Cost-Benefit Analysis for 338(h)(10)

The net cost-benefit analysis for the Section 338(h)(10) approach must account for both the incremental benefit to the Buyer (the additional amortization deductions relative to the Section 754 alternative) and the incremental cost to the sellers (the additional tax liability arising from the inside/outside basis mismatch).

Incremental Amortization Benefit to the Buyer. The incremental amortization benefit of the Section 338(h)(10) approach over the Section 754 approach is attributable to the difference between the full $412.0 million asset step-up under Section 338(h)(10) and the $224.4 million basis step-up under Section 754:

• Section 338(h)(10) total asset basis: $412,000,000

• Section 754 basis step-up: $224,400,000

• Incremental basis available for amortization under 338(h)(10): $412,000,000 − $224,400,000 = $187,600,000

This $187.6 million represents the existing inside basis of Pinnacle's assets, which the Buyer effectively already "has" under the Section 754 approach (albeit at varying remaining depreciable/amortizable lives based on the partnership's existing depreciation schedules). Under the Section 338(h)(10) approach, this $187.6 million of existing inside basis would be "refreshed" and reallocated to current fair market values with new full recovery periods, producing additional amortization deductions relative to the Section 754 approach. The NPV of this incremental benefit, calculated using a 25% blended tax rate, 15-year amortization period, and 8% discount rate, is approximately $31,700,000.

Incremental Tax Cost to the Sellers. As described in Section III.C above, the Section 338(h)(10) approach triggers approximately $48.3 million in incremental seller-level gain. At a blended capital gains rate of approximately 25%, the estimated incremental tax cost to the sellers is approximately $12,100,000.

Seller Gross-Up. Because the sellers have indicated through counsel that they will not accept a structure that increases their tax liability, the Buyer would likely be required to provide a gross-up payment to the sellers in the amount of the incremental tax cost. Moreover, because the gross-up payment itself would constitute additional consideration taxable to the sellers, the gross-up would need to be "grossed up on the gross-up" — that is, the Buyer would need to pay an additional amount sufficient to cover the tax on the gross-up payment itself. This iterative gross-up computation would increase the Buyer's total cost above the initial $12.1 million estimate. Using a simplified gross-up formula:

Gross-up amount = Incremental tax cost ÷ (1 − tax rate) = $12,100,000 ÷ (1 − 0.25) = $16,133,000 (approximately)

Under this analysis, the Buyer's total out-of-pocket cost to implement the Section 338(h)(10) approach (including the grossed-up seller compensation) would be approximately $16.1 million, compared against an incremental amortization benefit of approximately $31.7 million in NPV terms. While the NPV of the benefit ($31.7 million) still exceeds the grossed-up cost ($16.1 million), the margin is significantly narrower than it first appears, and must be considered in light of additional factors including deal friction, execution risk, and the time-value mismatch between the immediate cash cost of the gross-up and the long-term nature of the amortization benefit (which accrues over 11.2 to 15 years).

Timing Mismatch. The seller gross-up would be payable at closing (or shortly thereafter), representing an immediate cash outflow to the Buyer. By contrast, the incremental amortization benefit accrues over a 15-year period (or 11.2 years using the weighted-average useful life). The present value of the incremental amortization benefit is already discounted to reflect this timing difference, but the practical impact is that the Buyer would be advancing cash to the sellers today in exchange for a stream of tax savings that may or may not materialize in full (e.g., if the Buyer does not have sufficient taxable income to utilize the deductions, or if tax rates change).

Conclusion. Considering the totality of the quantitative analysis — the $31.7 million NPV of incremental amortization benefit versus the approximately $16.1 million grossed-up cost, further discounted by the execution risk and deal friction discussed in Part V.C below — Calderwood & Harkness does not recommend the Section 338(h)(10) approach.

IV. Section 754 Election Analysis

A. Mechanics of Section 754 — General Overview

Section 754 of the Code permits a partnership to elect to adjust the basis of partnership property upon the occurrence of certain triggering events, specifically (i) a transfer of a partnership interest (giving rise to an adjustment under Section 743(b)) or (ii) a distribution of partnership property (giving rise to an adjustment under Section 734(b)). The election is made by filing a written statement with the partnership's federal income tax return (Form 1065) for the taxable year in which the triggering event occurs.

Once a Section 754 election is made, it applies to all subsequent transfers and distributions unless the partnership obtains the consent of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the election. Accordingly, the decision to make a Section 754 election has implications beyond the immediate acquisition and should be considered in light of the partnership's long-term ownership structure and anticipated future transactions.

Section 743(b) of the Code provides the mechanism by which a transferee partner's share of the partnership's inside basis is adjusted when a Section 754 election is in effect. Specifically, Section 743(b) provides that the transferee partner's share of the adjusted basis of partnership property is adjusted by an amount equal to the excess of the transferee's outside basis in the partnership interest over the transferee's proportionate share of the partnership's existing inside basis (or, in the case of a downward adjustment, the excess of the proportionate inside basis over the outside basis). The formula is:

Section 743(b) Adjustment = Transferee's Outside Basis − Transferee's Share of Partnership Inside Basis

The Section 743(b) adjustment is a "special basis adjustment" that is personal to the transferee partner and does not affect the common basis of partnership property, the partnership's computation of income or loss, or any other partner's distributive share. The adjustment is allocated among the partnership's assets in accordance with the rules of Section 755 and Treasury Regulations § 1.755-1, which generally require allocation first to ordinary income property and then to capital gain property, based on the relative unrealized appreciation or depreciation in each category of property.

The practical effect of the Section 743(b) adjustment is that the transferee partner is entitled to additional depreciation and amortization deductions attributable to the basis step-up, reducing the transferee partner's distributive share of partnership taxable income. These deductions are allocable solely to the transferee partner and do not reduce the distributive shares of the other partners.

B. Application to the Pinnacle Acquisition

Under the recommended transaction structure, Pinnacle will retain its classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. No Form 8832 check-the-box election will be filed. The reverse merger of Merger Sub with and into Pinnacle will result in Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc. becoming the sole member of Pinnacle, holding one hundred percent (100%) of the surviving entity's membership interests.

The acquisition of one hundred percent (100%) of Pinnacle's membership interests by Intermediate Inc. constitutes a "transfer" of partnership interests within the meaning of Section 743(b), triggering the right to a basis adjustment if a Section 754 election is in effect. Pinnacle will file a Section 754 election statement with its Form 1065 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2024 (the year in which the closing is expected to occur). The election statement will be prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in coordination with Caldwell Pratt & Moorehouse LLP (the Buyer's accounting firm) and will be attached to the first partnership return filed by Pinnacle under Intermediate Inc.'s ownership.

The computation of the Section 743(b) basis adjustment is straightforward:

• Transferee's Outside Basis: $412,000,000. Intermediate Inc.'s outside basis in the Pinnacle membership interests is equal to the total purchase price paid for the interests, which includes both the cash consideration and the assumption of Pinnacle's liabilities. The enterprise value of $412,000,000 reflects the equity consideration of $339,400,000 plus the assumption of $72,600,000 in net debt. Under Section 752(d), when a partnership interest is purchased, the transferee's outside basis includes the transferee's share of partnership liabilities. Because Intermediate Inc. will be the sole member of Pinnacle post-closing, it will be allocated one hundred percent (100%) of Pinnacle's liabilities. Accordingly, Intermediate Inc.'s outside basis is $412,000,000.

• Transferee's Share of Partnership Inside Basis: $187,600,000. Because Intermediate Inc. will hold one hundred percent (100%) of Pinnacle's membership interests, its proportionate share of Pinnacle's inside basis is equal to the full aggregate inside basis of $187,600,000.

• Section 743(b) Basis Adjustment: $412,000,000 − $187,600,000 = $224,400,000

This $224.4 million upward basis adjustment will be allocated among Pinnacle's assets in accordance with Section 755 and the regulations thereunder, as described in Section IV.C below.

C. Allocation of Section 743(b) Adjustment

The $224,400,000 Section 743(b) basis adjustment must be allocated among Pinnacle's assets in accordance with Section 755 of the Code and Treasury Regulations § 1.755-1. The allocation methodology under Section 755 is generally consistent with the principles of the Section 1060 residual method, but is applied to the step-up amount (i.e., the $224.4 million adjustment) rather than to the full purchase price.

Under Treasury Regulations § 1.755-1(b), the Section 743(b) adjustment is allocated between two classes of partnership property:

(a) Ordinary Income Property — property that would give rise to ordinary income, short-term capital gain, or Section 1231(b) loss if sold by the partnership at its fair market value. This category includes accounts receivable, inventory, and depreciable or amortizable property to the extent of any ordinary income recapture under Sections 1245 and 1250.

(b) Capital Gain Property — all other partnership property, including goodwill, going concern value, and other capital assets and Section 1231 property (to the extent not treated as ordinary income property).

Within each class, the Section 743(b) adjustment is allocated among the individual assets in proportion to the difference between each asset's fair market value and the partnership's existing tax basis in that asset. The allocation serves to "equalize" the transferee partner's share of each asset's basis with the portion of the purchase price attributable to that asset, so that the transferee partner is in the same position as if it had purchased the individual assets directly.

A detailed allocation of the $224.4 million Section 743(b) adjustment among Pinnacle's specific assets will be prepared in coordination with the Purchase Price Allocation Schedule. The target delivery date for this detailed allocation is April 18, 2024. For purposes of this memorandum, we have relied on the preliminary allocation percentages derived from the same asset categories used in the Section 1060 analysis set forth in Part III.D above.

D. Amortization Benefit Under Section 754/743(b)

The $224,400,000 Section 743(b) basis adjustment generates additional depreciation and amortization deductions for Intermediate Inc. as the transferee partner. These deductions reduce Intermediate Inc.'s distributive share of Pinnacle's taxable income, thereby reducing Intermediate Inc.'s corporate tax liability.

The amortization and depreciation benefit under the Section 754/743(b) approach is estimated as follows:

• Total Section 743(b) basis step-up: $224,400,000

• Weighted-average useful life of step-up amount: Approximately 11.2 years. This blended rate reflects the allocation of the step-up across asset categories with varying recovery periods, including shorter-lived assets (assembled workforce at 3 years, non-compete agreements at 5 years) and longer-lived assets (payor contracts, trade name, and goodwill/going concern value at 15 years under Section 197). The weighted-average useful life is shorter than the 15-year period used for the Section 338(h)(10) analysis because the Section 743(b) adjustment is allocated based on unrealized appreciation in each asset, rather than being a flat allocation of the total purchase price, and certain shorter-lived assets have proportionally more unrealized appreciation.

• Annual amortization deduction: $224,400,000 ÷ 11.2 years ≈ $20,040,000 per year

• Annual tax benefit at 25% blended federal + state corporate tax rate: $20,040,000 × 25% = $5,010,000 per year

• NPV of amortization benefit stream: The present value of the annual tax benefit stream over the weighted-average useful life of 11.2 years, discounted at 8%, is substantial. The precise NPV will be computed upon finalization of the detailed asset allocation. Based on preliminary estimates, the NPV falls in the range of approximately $35 million to $40 million, with a central estimate of approximately $37.1 million.

These estimates assume that Intermediate Inc. will have sufficient taxable income to utilize the amortization deductions in each year of the recovery period. Based on the financial projections prepared by the deal team and reviewed by Northmark Advisory Group LLC, Pinnacle's projected taxable income is expected to exceed the annual amortization deduction in each year, so no limitation on the utilization of the deductions is anticipated. However, if Pinnacle's actual taxable income falls short of projections in any given year, the amortization deductions could create or increase a net operating loss for Intermediate Inc., which would defer (but not eliminate) the tax benefit.

E. Tax Consequences to the Sellers Under Section 754

A significant advantage of the Section 754 approach is that the Section 754 election has no effect on the sellers' tax treatment. The election is made by the partnership (Pinnacle), and the resulting Section 743(b) adjustment is personal to the transferee partner (Intermediate Inc.). The election does not alter the amount, character, or timing of the gain or loss recognized by the selling members on the disposition of their partnership interests.

The sellers will recognize gain or loss on the sale of their Pinnacle membership interests under Section 741 of the Code. Section 741 provides that gain or loss recognized on the sale or exchange of a partnership interest is treated as gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset, except to the extent otherwise provided under Section 751 (relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items, commonly referred to as "hot assets").

The aggregate gain recognized by the sellers is computed as follows:

• Amount Realized (pro rata share of equity value): $339,400,000

• Less: Aggregate Outside Basis in Pinnacle Membership Interests: ($291,100,000)

• Aggregate Gain: $48,300,000

This $48.3 million of aggregate gain is the same amount that the sellers would recognize in a simple partnership interest sale, without regard to whether a Section 754 election is made. The Section 754 election is entirely transparent to the sellers and does not create any incremental tax liability for them.

With respect to the character of the gain, Section 751(a) of the Code provides that the amount of money or property received by a partner in exchange for a partnership interest that is attributable to "unrealized receivables" (as broadly defined in Section 751(c)) or "inventory items" that have appreciated substantially in value is treated as an amount received in exchange for property other than a capital asset — i.e., as ordinary income. A detailed Section 751(a) analysis, including identification and valuation of Pinnacle's "hot assets" and computation of the ordinary income component of the sellers' gain, will be prepared and delivered under separate cover. For purposes of this memorandum, it is sufficient to note that the Section 754 election does not affect the Section 751(a) analysis.

F. Tax Receivable Agreement Implications

The contemplated transaction structure includes a Tax Receivable Agreement (the "TRA") pursuant to which the Buyer will share a portion of the realized tax benefits attributable to the Section 743(b) basis step-up with the pre-closing Pinnacle members, including the rollover participants. TRA structures of this type are common in private equity-sponsored acquisitions of partnership targets and serve to align the economic interests of the sellers/rollover participants with the Buyer's interest in maximizing the tax benefit of the basis step-up.

Under the contemplated TRA terms, 85% of the realized tax benefits attributable to the Section 743(b) basis step-up will be payable to the TRA participants (the rollover participants and the pre-closing Pinnacle members, collectively). The remaining 15% of the realized tax benefits will be retained by the Buyer.

The estimated annual TRA economics are as follows:

• Annual tax benefit from Section 743(b) amortization: $5,010,000

• TRA payment (85%): 85% × $5,010,000 = $4,260,000 per year

• Retained by Buyer (15%): 15% × $5,010,000 = $751,500 per year

The TRA payments reduce the net after-tax benefit retained by the Buyer from the Section 754 election. However, the TRA economics are a separate negotiating point between the Buyer and the sellers and do not affect the comparative analysis between the Section 338(h)(10) and Section 754 approaches. Regardless of whether the Buyer elects Section 338(h)(10) or Section 754, a TRA would likely be part of the transaction structure, and the sharing percentage would be subject to negotiation.

We note that the initial draft of the Tax Receivable Agreement is targeted for delivery by March 20, 2024. The TRA drafting will be handled by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in coordination with Harcourt Shaw & DeVries LLP (the Buyer's M&A counsel).

V. Comparative Analysis: Section 338(h)(10) vs. Section 754

A. Side-by-Side Summary Table

The following table presents a side-by-side comparison of the key features, consequences, and considerations associated with each election alternative:

B. Quantitative Comparison

The quantitative comparison of the two alternatives can be summarized as follows:

Buyer's Perspective:

1. NPV of Amortization Benefit under 338(h)(10): Approximately $58,800,000.

2. NPV of Amortization Benefit under Section 754: Approximately $37,100,000.

3. Incremental NPV Benefit of 338(h)(10) over 754: Approximately $31,700,000.

4. Grossed-Up Cost of Seller Compensation: Approximately $16,100,000 (assuming the Buyer must compensate the sellers for their incremental tax cost of ~$12.1 million, grossed up to account for the taxability of the gross-up payment itself).

5. Net Benefit of 338(h)(10) after Seller Gross-Up: $31,700,000 − $16,100,000 = approximately $15,600,000.

While the net benefit of approximately $15.6 million appears positive in isolation, several factors significantly diminish this apparent benefit:

(a) Timing Mismatch. The gross-up payment of approximately $16.1 million would be an immediate cash outflow at or near closing. The $31.7 million of incremental amortization benefit, by contrast, accrues over 11.2 to 15 years and has already been discounted to present value at 8%. The immediate cash cost and the discounted future benefit are not apples-to-apples; the Buyer would be deploying capital at closing (or increasing the purchase price) in exchange for a stream of tax savings that is inherently uncertain and subject to change based on future tax rates, the Buyer's future taxable income, and other variables.

(b) Gross-Up Iteration. The $16.1 million gross-up estimate is simplified. In practice, the gross-up computation may be more complex, particularly if the sellers' individual tax rates vary and if the incremental gain has a mix of ordinary and capital gain character (reflecting the Section 751(a) hot asset analysis). The actual gross-up cost could be higher than estimated.

(c) Opportunity Cost. The $16.1 million of gross-up capital, if not spent on seller compensation, could be deployed in the business or used to reduce acquisition leverage, producing its own economic return. The opportunity cost of deploying this capital for tax gross-up purposes should be considered.

(d) Risk Adjustment. The $31.7 million NPV of incremental amortization benefit assumes that the Buyer will fully utilize the deductions and that tax rates remain constant. Any reduction in corporate tax rates, limitation on amortization deductions, or shortfall in the Buyer's taxable income would reduce the actual benefit below the estimated NPV.

Sellers' Perspective:

Under the Section 754 approach, the sellers' tax treatment is identical to a simple partnership interest sale. The sellers recognize aggregate gain of $48,300,000, taxable at applicable capital gains rates (subject to Section 751(a) recharacterization of the ordinary income portion). There is no incremental tax cost, no gross-up negotiation, and no disruption to the existing tax expectations that the sellers and their counsel have incorporated into the negotiated deal terms.

Under the Section 338(h)(10) approach, the sellers would bear approximately $12.1 million in additional tax costs absent a gross-up — a material increase that the sellers have indicated they would not accept. Even with a full gross-up, the sellers would face additional compliance complexity, potential timing uncertainties related to the check-the-box and deemed liquidation mechanics, and possible adverse state tax consequences that may not be fully addressed by the gross-up formula.

C. Qualitative Considerations

Beyond the quantitative analysis, several qualitative factors weigh heavily against the Section 338(h)(10) approach and in favor of the Section 754 election:

Seller Willingness. As previously noted, Patricia Engelman of Whitford & Gaines LLP has communicated that the sellers are unlikely to agree to a structure that increases their aggregate tax burden absent a full gross-up. Dr. Carvallo and Dr. Ostrowski, as rollover participants who will retain a meaningful economic interest in the post-closing enterprise through their equity in Holdings LLC, have particular sensitivity to any perceived tax shifting. Imposing incremental tax liability on these key individuals — who are also critical to the post-closing operational success of the business — risks introducing friction into the ongoing relationship between the sponsors and management. Given the importance of management continuity in the healthcare services sector, where physician leadership is integral to payor contract retention, regulatory compliance, and clinical operations, this relationship risk should not be underestimated.

Execution Risk. The Section 338(h)(10) approach requires a carefully sequenced check-the-box election to reclassify Pinnacle from a partnership to a corporation before the closing of the acquisition. This sequencing introduces several categories of execution risk:

(i) Form 8832 Timing. The check-the-box election must have an effective date that precedes the closing date of the acquisition by at least one day (to ensure that the purchase of Pinnacle's equity interests is treated as a purchase of corporate stock). The Form 8832 must be filed within 75 days of the desired effective date. Any delay or error in filing could invalidate the election or cause it to take effect on an unintended date.

(ii) Deemed Section 351 Analysis. The deemed contribution of assets to a newly formed corporation must be analyzed under Section 351, including a comprehensive review of all of Pinnacle's liabilities for Section 357(c) purposes. While our preliminary analysis indicates that Pinnacle's inside basis ($187.6 million) exceeds its funded debt ($81.3 million), a complete analysis must account for all liabilities, including contingent liabilities, deferred revenue obligations, and any amounts treated as liabilities under the broad definition in Treasury Regulations § 1.357-2. If total liabilities exceed inside basis, Section 357(c) gain would be triggered — an unintended and potentially significant adverse tax consequence for the sellers.

(iii) S-Corporation Ineligibility. As noted in Part III.B, electing S-corporation status for Pinnacle is not viable because Intermediate Inc. (a C-corporation) would be an ineligible shareholder. This eliminates one potential path and constrains the available options to C-corporation classification, which carries its own complications (including the risk of double taxation if the Section 338(h)(10) election is not properly executed).

(iv) IRS Challenge Risk. While the check-the-box regulations are well-established and the Section 338(h)(10) election process is a recognized planning tool, the combination of a same-day or near-day check-the-box election followed immediately by a Section 338(h)(10) election in the context of a private equity acquisition may attract IRS scrutiny, particularly given the significant dollar amounts involved. While we believe the approach is legally defensible, the risk of audit and challenge should be considered.

State Tax Complications. Pinnacle operates in five states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia. Converting Pinnacle from a partnership to a corporation for federal tax purposes would trigger separate state-level consequences in each of these jurisdictions, including:

• Potential state-level transfer taxes or entity conversion taxes in certain jurisdictions;

• Changes to state income tax apportionment methodology (partnership apportionment formulas may differ from corporate apportionment formulas);

• Loss of pass-through entity (PTE) election opportunities in states that have adopted elective PTE-level taxes as a workaround to the federal $10,000 SALT deduction limitation;

• Potential state-level recognition of the deemed Section 351 transaction or the deemed asset sale, even if these events are non-taxable or tax-deferred at the federal level (state conformity varies).

A detailed analysis of the state tax consequences is beyond the scope of this memorandum but is addressed in our State & Local Tax Memorandum dated February 20, 2024, and will be further developed in the State Tax Structuring Recommendations Letter to be delivered on March 18, 2024.

Consistency with Overall Structure. The recommended three-tier acquisition structure — Holdings LLC (partnership) → Intermediate Inc. (C-corporation blocker) → Pinnacle (partnership) — was designed to balance multiple competing objectives, including pass-through treatment at the equity aggregator level, blocker protection for tax-exempt and foreign limited partners, operating-level partnership flexibility, and the ability to achieve a meaningful basis step-up through the Section 754/743(b) mechanism. Electing to reclassify Pinnacle as a corporation would undermine the operating-level partnership flexibility that is a key element of this structure, converting the bottom tier from a partnership to a corporation and eliminating the benefits associated with partnership treatment at the operating level (including, without limitation, the ability to make special allocations, the absence of entity-level tax on current operations, and the flexibility to admit new partners or restructure the partnership in connection with add-on acquisitions without triggering corporate-level gain).

Future Flexibility. Maintaining Pinnacle as a partnership preserves the ability to make future Section 754 elections in connection with secondary transfers of partnership interests (e.g., if Fund III sells a portion of its indirect interest in Pinnacle to a co-investor or in a secondary transaction). It also facilitates tax-efficient add-on acquisitions, as assets acquired by a partnership can be stepped up through Section 743(b) or Section 734(b) adjustments in connection with future partnership-level transactions. If Pinnacle is converted to a corporation, these partnership-level tools would no longer be available, and any future basis step-up would require a separate Section 338 election or an actual asset purchase.

VI. Recommendation

Based on the analysis set forth in this memorandum, Calderwood & Harkness LLP recommends that Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC make a Section 754 election for the taxable year ending December 31, 2024, in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle's membership interests by Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc.

The Section 754 election will produce a Section 743(b) basis adjustment of $224,400,000 for Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc., generating estimated annual amortization deductions of approximately $20,040,000 and annual tax benefits of approximately $5,010,000 (computed at a 25% blended federal and state corporate tax rate). The NPV of the total amortization benefit is estimated at approximately $37.1 million (Discounted at 8% over a weighted-average useful life of approximately 11.2 years).

The Section 338(h)(10) alternative is rejected for the following reasons:

1. Incremental Seller-Level Gain Exceeds Incremental Buyer Benefit. The approximately $48.3 million in incremental seller-level gain generated by the Section 338(h)(10) approach, and the associated increme

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
From: Leonard Cross, Partner, Tax; Robert Jansen, Senior Associate, Tax — Calderwood & Harkness LLP, One Liberty Plaza, 45th Floor, New York, NY 10006
To: Marcus Pellegrino, Partner, Healthcare — Ardent Capital Partners III LP, 600 Lexington Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, NY 10022; Claire Ashworth, Co-Founder & Managing Partner — Ardent Capital Partners III LP, 600 Lexington Avenue, 38th Floor, New York, NY 10022
Date: February 28, 2024
Re: Section 338(h)(10) vs. Section 754 Election Analysis — Acquisition of Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC
Engagement No.: 1001-00006
Matter No.: 1001-00006
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
This memorandum analyzes and compares two alternative tax election approaches available in connection with the proposed acquisition by Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc. (the "Buyer" or "Intermediate Inc."), a newly formed Delaware C-corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Ardent Healthcare Holdings LLC ("Holdings LLC"), of one hundred percent (100%) of the membership interests of Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC ("Pinnacle" or "PHSG"). Holdings LLC is in turn owned by Ardent Capital Partners III LP ("Fund III") and certain rollover participants, as further described herein. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the deal team with a comprehensive comparison of the two election alternatives so that the acquisition structure can be finalized in advance of the execution of definitive transaction documents.
The proposed transaction contemplates a reverse merger of Ardent Healthcare Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub") with and into Pinnacle, with Pinnacle surviving as the wholly owned subsidiary of Intermediate Inc. The transaction has been negotiated at an enterprise value of $412,000,000 (representing a multiple of approximately 7.95x 2023 Adjusted EBITDA of $51.8 million). After accounting for $72,600,000 in net debt (comprising $81.3 million in funded debt offset by $8.7 million of cash on Pinnacle's balance sheet), the equity value payable to the sellers is $339,400,000. The economic terms and structure of the acquisition are described in greater detail in Part II below.
The two election alternatives analyzed in this memorandum are as follows:
1.  Section 338(h)(10) Approach. This alternative would require Pinnacle to first file a Form 8832 check-the-box election under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3 to reclassify Pinnacle from a partnership to a corporation for federal income tax purposes, followed by a joint election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), to treat the stock acquisition as a deemed asset purchase. This approach would produce a full step-up in the tax basis of Pinnacle's assets to $412,000,000 (i.e., the aggregate deemed sale price), enabling the Buyer to claim enhanced depreciation and amortization deductions going forward.
2.  Section 754 Approach. This alternative would maintain Pinnacle's existing classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Pinnacle would file a Section 754 election with its partnership tax return (Form 1065) for the taxable year of the acquisition, producing a Section 743(b) basis adjustment equal to the difference between the Buyer's outside basis (its purchase price of $412,000,000) and the Buyer's proportionate share of Pinnacle's inside basis ($187,600,000). This approach yields a basis step-up of $224,400,000 for the Buyer without requiring any change in Pinnacle's entity classification and without triggering incremental gain at the seller level.
Our recommendation is that Pinnacle make a Section 754 election. While the Section 338(h)(10) approach would generate a larger absolute basis step-up ($412.0 million vs. $224.4 million) and correspondingly greater annual amortization deductions for the Buyer, it would also trigger approximately $48.3 million in incremental seller-level gain arising from the mismatch between Pinnacle's inside basis in its assets ($187.6 million) and the sellers' aggregate outside basis in their membership interests ($291.1 million). The net present value of the Buyer's incremental amortization benefit under the Section 338(h)(10) approach over the Section 754 approach is approximately $31.7 million — an amount that is insufficient to offset the incremental tax costs to the sellers (estimated at approximately $12.1 million), the likely requirement for the Buyer to gross up the sellers for such costs, and the materially greater execution complexity and deal risk associated with the check-the-box conversion.
By contrast, the Section 754 election achieves a meaningful basis step-up of $224,400,000 for the Buyer without triggering any incremental seller-level gain, without requiring any change to Pinnacle's entity classification, and at a modestly lower but still substantial after-tax benefit to the Buyer. The Section 754 approach is also fully consistent with the recommended three-tier acquisition structure (Holdings LLC → Intermediate Inc. → Pinnacle as partnership) described in our Preliminary Tax Structure Memorandum dated February 12, 2024, which was delivered to Fund III under separate cover.
The analysis and conclusions in this memorandum are subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in Part VII below, including the preliminary nature of certain basis figures and tax rate assumptions.
II. Factual Background
A. The Target — Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC
Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company (EIN 82-1947632) formed on August 12, 2016. Pinnacle has not filed a Form 8832 entity classification election with the Internal Revenue Service at any point since its formation, and accordingly maintains its default classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3. Pinnacle is governed by an Operating Agreement dated August 12, 2016, as amended and restated on March 3, 2020 (the "Operating Agreement"). The Operating Agreement provides for the management and governance of Pinnacle, the allocation of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit among the members, and the distribution of cash and other property.
Pinnacle operates as an owner-operator of healthcare facilities across the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States. Its portfolio consists of thirty-four (34) urgent care clinics and eight (8) ambulatory surgery centers, for a total of forty-two (42) facilities located in five states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia. Pinnacle's corporate headquarters are located at 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 400, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, Pinnacle reported total revenue of approximately $287.4 million and Adjusted EBITDA (as defined in the draft Merger Agreement) of approximately $51.8 million. As of year-end 2023, Pinnacle employed approximately 1,620 individuals, including 142 employed physicians and a substantial complement of advanced practice providers, nursing staff, and administrative personnel.
Pinnacle was co-founded in 2016 by Dr. Raymond Carvallo, who serves as Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Nadia Ostrowski, who serves as Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer. The current ownership of Pinnacle's membership interests is as follows:
Dr. Carvallo, Dr. Ostrowski, and Mr. Farnsworth (the "Rollover Sellers") have each agreed to reinvest a portion of their sale proceeds as rollover equity in Holdings LLC, as further described in Section II.B below. The fourteen minority physician-investors are selling one hundred percent (100%) of their respective membership interests for cash at closing and will not participate in the post-closing equity structure.
B. The Buyer Structure
Fund III. The acquiring sponsor is Ardent Capital Partners III LP ("Fund III"), a Delaware limited partnership with a 2022 vintage year and total committed capital of approximately $3.2 billion. Fund III's general partner is Ardent Capital GP III LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The managing partners of the Ardent Capital platform are Dominic Ferrera and Claire Ashworth. The Fund III deal team responsible for the Pinnacle acquisition is led by Marcus Pellegrino, Partner, Healthcare.
Acquisition Vehicles. In connection with the proposed acquisition, Calderwood & Harkness LLP formed the following acquisition vehicles, each organized under the laws of the State of Delaware:
(i) Ardent Healthcare Holdings LLC (File No. 7834219; EIN 93-2187445). Holdings LLC is classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and serves as the equity aggregator vehicle for the transaction. Holdings LLC will be capitalized with (a) $198.5 million of committed equity from Fund III, (b) $59.54 million of aggregate rollover equity from Dr. Carvallo, Dr. Ostrowski, and Mr. Farnsworth, and (c) management incentive equity (profits interests) to be issued to certain members of post-closing management. Holdings LLC is the sole member of Intermediate Inc.
(ii) Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc. (File No. 7834223; EIN 93-2187512). Intermediate Inc. is a Delaware C-corporation and is wholly owned by Holdings LLC. Intermediate Inc. serves as a "Blocker" entity interposed between the partnership-level equity aggregator and the target entity. Following the closing of the transaction, Intermediate Inc. will hold one hundred percent (100%) of the surviving membership interests of Pinnacle. The use of a C-corporation blocker at this level of the structure is consistent with the recommendations set forth in our Preliminary Tax Structure Memorandum dated February 12, 2024, and provides, among other benefits, the ability to utilize the amortization deductions generated by the Section 743(b) basis step-up against Intermediate Inc.'s taxable income at the corporate level.
(iii) Ardent Healthcare Merger Sub LLC (File No. 7834227). Merger Sub is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Intermediate Inc. Merger Sub was formed solely for the purpose of effecting the reverse merger contemplated by the transaction. Upon the closing of the merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into Pinnacle, with Pinnacle surviving as the wholly owned subsidiary of Intermediate Inc. Following the merger, Merger Sub will cease to exist.
The rationale for the three-tier structure (Holdings LLC → Intermediate Inc. → Pinnacle) was analyzed in detail in our Preliminary Tax Structure Memorandum dated February 12, 2024. In brief, this structure (a) provides pass-through treatment at the Holdings LLC level for the benefit of Fund III and its limited partners, (b) interposes a C-corporation blocker (Intermediate Inc.) to shield tax-exempt and foreign investors from UBTI and ECI concerns, respectively, and (c) preserves Pinnacle's partnership classification at the operating level to facilitate the Section 754 election and related basis step-up mechanisms analyzed herein.
C. Transaction Economics
The key financial terms of the proposed acquisition are summarized below:
Earnout. In addition to the base purchase price, the sellers are eligible to receive contingent earnout payments of up to $35,000,000, structured in two measurement periods as follows:
•  Period 1: $15,000,000 payable if Pinnacle achieves Adjusted EBITDA of at least $58.0 million for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2025.
•  Period 2: $20,000,000 payable if Pinnacle achieves Adjusted EBITDA of at least $65.0 million for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2026.
The earnout amounts are not included in the base purchase price for purposes of this analysis. The tax characterization of the earnout payments is addressed separately in the Earnout Tax Characterization Memorandum dated March 1, 2024.
Financing. The acquisition will be financed through a combination of equity contributions and third-party debt as follows:
(a) Senior Secured Term Loan B: $155,000,000, arranged and administered by Graystone National Bank, N.A. Interest rate of SOFR plus 425 basis points. Seven-year maturity.
(b) Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility: $35,000,000 (undrawn at closing), arranged by Graystone National Bank, N.A. Interest rate of SOFR plus 375 basis points. Five-year maturity.
(c) Mezzanine Notes: $30,000,000, provided by Cascadia Mezzanine Fund IV LP. Interest rate of 12.5% cash pay / 2.0% PIK. Eight-year maturity.
(d) Mezzanine Warrants: In connection with the mezzanine financing, Cascadia Mezzanine Fund IV LP will receive warrants for 2.5% of the fully diluted equity of Holdings LLC, exercisable at nominal value.
(e) Equity: $198,500,000 from Fund III plus $59,540,000 in aggregate rollover equity from the Rollover Sellers.
D. Seller Tax Basis Information
The analysis in this memorandum depends critically on the tax basis of both (i) Pinnacle's assets (the "inside basis") and (ii) the sellers' respective membership interests in Pinnacle (the "outside basis"). The relevant basis information has been provided by Brewer Stanfield & Associates LLP, Pinnacle's independent accounting firm, and has been reviewed and confirmed during the quality of earnings analysis conducted by Northmark Advisory Group LLC on behalf of the Buyer. We note that these figures are preliminary and are subject to final verification upon completion and review of Pinnacle's 2023 federal tax return (Form 1065) and the related Schedule K-1s. Any material changes in the basis figures could affect the conclusions reached in this memorandum.
The relevant basis figures are as follows:
The $103.5 million excess of outside basis over inside basis is a significant feature of this transaction and materially affects the comparative analysis of the two election alternatives. This disparity reflects the cumulative effect of prior taxable income allocations to the members in excess of cash distributions, as well as certain prior-year basis adjustments. Because the sellers' outside basis includes their allocable shares of Pinnacle's liabilities under Section 752, and because the sellers have been allocated substantial taxable income over the years (particularly during periods of rapid revenue growth) without commensurate cash distributions, the outside basis has grown to exceed the inside basis by a meaningful amount. As discussed in detail below, this disparity is the primary reason why the Section 338(h)(10) approach generates incremental seller-level gain that does not arise under the Section 754 approach.
III. Section 338(h)(10) Election Analysis
A. Mechanics of Section 338(h)(10) — General Overview
Section 338(h)(10) of the Code permits the buyer and the sellers of a target to make a joint election to treat a qualified stock purchase as a deemed asset purchase for federal income tax purposes. When a Section 338(h)(10) election is in effect, the transaction is recharacterized as though the target sold all of its assets at fair market value in a single transaction, recognized gain or loss on the deemed sale, and then distributed the net proceeds to its shareholders in a complete liquidation. The shareholders then recognize gain or loss on the deemed liquidating distribution based on their respective bases in the target's stock.
The principal benefit of a Section 338(h)(10) election to the buyer is the full step-up of the target's asset basis to fair market value — specifically, to the "Aggregate Deemed Sale Price" or "ADSP" as defined in Treasury Regulations § 1.338-4. This step-up allows the buyer to claim higher depreciation and amortization deductions on the target's assets going forward, reducing the buyer's taxable income and thereby reducing the buyer's tax liability over the depreciable/amortizable lives of the assets.
For a Section 338(h)(10) election to be available, the target entity must be a corporation — specifically, either an S-corporation or a member of a consolidated group of corporations — at the time of the qualified stock purchase. The election requires the joint consent of both the buyer and the sellers (in the case of an S-corporation target) or the common parent of the consolidated group (in the case of a target that is a member of a consolidated group). The election is made by filing a jointly executed Form 8023 (Elections Under Section 338 for Corporations Making Qualified Stock Purchases) with the Internal Revenue Service.
B. Prerequisite: Check-the-box Election on Pinnacle
Because Pinnacle is currently classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3, a Section 338(h)(10) election is not directly available in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle's membership interests. Section 338(h)(10) applies only to the acquisition of a target's stock, and partnership interests do not constitute "stock" for purposes of Section 338.
To utilize the Section 338(h)(10) mechanism, it would be necessary for Pinnacle to first file a Form 8832 (Entity Classification Election) under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3 to reclassify Pinnacle as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. This check-the-box election would need to take effect prior to (or simultaneously with) the closing of the acquisition, so that the purchase of Pinnacle's equity interests would be treated as a purchase of corporate stock eligible for a Section 338(h)(10) election.
Under Treasury Regulations § 301.7701-3(g)(1)(iii), when an eligible entity that is classified as a partnership elects to be classified as a corporation, the following deemed transactions are treated as occurring immediately before the close of the day prior to the election's effective date:
(a) The partnership is deemed to contribute all of its assets and liabilities to a newly formed corporation in exchange for all of the stock of the corporation.
(b) Immediately thereafter, the partnership is deemed to distribute the stock of the newly formed corporation to its members in liquidation of the partnership.
This sequence of deemed transactions is treated as a tax-free exchange under Section 351 of the Code, provided that the Section 351 requirements are satisfied (i.e., that the transferors are in "control" of the corporation immediately after the exchange, where "control" means ownership of stock possessing at least 80% of the total combined voting power and at least 80% of each class of nonvoting stock). In the case of Pinnacle, where all of the existing members would be deemed to contribute their interests and receive stock, the control requirement would be satisfied.
However, the deemed Section 351 transaction is not without risk. In particular, Section 357(c) of the Code provides that if, in a Section 351 exchange, the sum of the liabilities assumed by the transferee corporation exceeds the aggregate adjusted basis of the property transferred, the excess is treated as gain recognized by the transferor. Based on the preliminary data available, Pinnacle's inside basis of $187.6 million exceeds its funded debt of $81.3 million, so Section 357(c) gain should not be triggered. However, this analysis must account for all liabilities of Pinnacle, including contingent and unstated liabilities, obligations under operating leases that may be treated as liabilities for Section 357(c) purposes, and other items. A more detailed review of Pinnacle's complete liability profile would be required before the check-the-box approach could be pursued with confidence.
Additionally, the check-the-box election presents timing complexities. The election must be carefully coordinated with the closing of the acquisition to ensure that (i) the election takes effect before the qualified stock purchase occurs, (ii) the deemed Section 351 transaction does not produce unexpected tax consequences, and (iii) the acquisition qualifies as a "qualified stock purchase" within the meaning of Section 338(d)(3) (i.e., a purchase of at least 80% of the target's stock within a 12-month acquisition period). Any sequencing errors could jeopardize the availability of the Section 338(h)(10) election or produce unintended tax consequences for the sellers.
We also note that an alternative approach — electing S-corporation status for Pinnacle rather than C-corporation status — presents additional complications. Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc., as a C-corporation, would be an ineligible shareholder of an S-corporation under Section 1361(b)(1)(B) (which requires that all shareholders be individuals, estates, certain trusts, or certain tax-exempt organizations). Accordingly, an election to S-corporation status would be incompatible with the contemplated acquisition structure and is not further analyzed herein.
C. Tax Consequences of 338(h)(10) to the Sellers
Under a Section 338(h)(10) election, the old target (i.e., the newly formed deemed corporation resulting from the check-the-box election) is treated as having sold all of its assets at fair market value in a single transaction, recognizing gain or loss on the deemed sale. The gain or loss on the deemed asset sale is computed as follows:
•  Aggregate Deemed Sale Price (ADSP): $412,000,000 (enterprise value)
•  Less: Pinnacle's Aggregate Inside Basis in Assets: ($187,600,000)
•  Deemed Asset-Level Gain: $224,400,000
Following the deemed asset sale, the old target is treated as distributing the net proceeds to its shareholders in a complete liquidation. The shareholders (i.e., the former Pinnacle members, who are now deemed to hold stock in the deemed corporation) recognize gain or loss on the deemed liquidating distribution based on the difference between the liquidation proceeds received and their respective bases in the deemed corporation's stock. For purposes of this analysis, the shareholders' bases in the deemed corporation's stock are equal to their former outside bases in their Pinnacle membership interests, as the deemed Section 351 transaction resulting from the check-the-box election generally preserves the transferors' bases under Section 358.
The critical issue for purposes of the seller-level tax impact is the interplay between the inside basis and the outside basis. In a simple case where inside basis equals outside basis, the Section 338(h)(10) mechanism would produce no incremental seller-level tax — the entity-level deemed sale gain would be offset by a corresponding basis step-up in the shareholders' stock, and the deemed liquidation would produce no additional gain. However, in the present transaction, the sellers' aggregate outside basis ($291,100,000) exceeds Pinnacle's inside basis ($187,600,000) by $103,500,000. This disparity creates a significant tax inefficiency under the Section 338(h)(10) approach.
More precisely, the tax consequences under the Section 338(h)(10) approach can be summarized as follows:
(a) Entity-Level Deemed Asset Sale. The deemed corporation recognizes $224,400,000 of gain on the deemed sale of all assets at the ADSP of $412,000,000 against inside basis of $187,600,000. This gain is taxable at the corporate level. While the deemed corporation is a newly formed entity with no prior tax history, the Section 338(h)(10) regulations treat this gain as recognized by the "old target" on the deemed sale, and the resulting tax liability is borne by the sellers as the former shareholders of the old target.
(b) Shareholder-Level Deemed Liquidation. The shareholders are treated as receiving liquidation proceeds equal to the equity value of $339,400,000 (i.e., the ADSP of $412,000,000 less net debt of $72,600,000, with adjustments). The shareholders' aggregate basis in the deemed corporation's stock is $291,100,000 (their former outside basis). The shareholders thus recognize gain of $339,400,000 − $291,100,000 = $48,300,000 on the deemed liquidation.
The net effect is that the sellers bear both (i) the corporate-level tax on the $224.4 million of deemed asset sale gain (which, under the fiction of the Section 338(h)(10) election, is treated as occurring while the sellers were the shareholders of the old target) and (ii) the shareholder-level gain of $48.3 million on the deemed liquidation. While the corporate-level tax effectively reduces the liquidation proceeds available to the shareholders, the total tax burden on the sellers is increased relative to a simple partnership interest sale.
To quantify the incremental seller-level gain attributable to the Section 338(h)(10) approach:
•  In a direct partnership interest sale (without any check-the-box election or Section 338(h)(10) election), the sellers would recognize aggregate gain equal to the equity value minus their aggregate outside basis: $339,400,000 − $291,100,000 = $48,300,000.
•  Under the Section 338(h)(10) approach, the dual-level taxation inherent in the check-the-box conversion and subsequent deemed asset sale produces incremental tax cost arising from the $103.5 million mismatch between inside basis ($187.6 million) and outside basis ($291.1 million). This mismatch, which is irrelevant in a partnership interest sale (where only outside basis matters), becomes a source of additional tax friction under the Section 338(h)(10) approach because the deemed asset sale is computed using the lower inside basis, while the deemed liquidation is computed using the higher outside basis — but the corporate-level tax on the deemed asset sale reduces the total after-tax proceeds available to the sellers without a corresponding offset.
•  The incremental seller-level gain attributable to the Section 338(h)(10) approach is approximately $48,300,000, representing the additional taxable amount that would not have been recognized in a direct partnership interest sale.
This incremental gain would be borne by the individual sellers — Dr. Carvallo, Dr. Ostrowski, Mr. Farnsworth, and the fourteen minority physician-investors. Based on a blended capital gains tax rate of approximately 25% (comprising the federal long-term capital gains rate of 20%, the net investment income tax of 3.8% under Section 1411, and applicable state income taxes in the sellers' respective states of residence), the estimated incremental tax cost to the sellers is approximately:
$48,300,000 × 25% = $12,075,000 (approximately $12.1 million)
Impact on Deal Economics. The sellers, through their counsel Patricia Engelman of Whitford & Gaines LLP, have communicated that they will not agree to a transaction structure that increases their aggregate tax liability relative to a straight partnership interest sale. Any pursuit of the Section 338(h)(10) approach would therefore likely require the Buyer to "gross up" or otherwise compensate the sellers for the approximately $12.1 million in incremental tax costs. Such a gross-up obligation would directly reduce the Buyer's net economic benefit from the Section 338(h)(10) election and would introduce additional negotiating complexity and potential deal friction, particularly given that Dr. Carvallo and Dr. Ostrowski, as rollover participants with an ongoing economic relationship with the Buyer, have heightened sensitivity to any perception that the acquisition structure is being optimized solely for the Buyer's benefit at the sellers' expense.
D. Tax Consequences of 338(h)(10) to the Buyer
The principal benefit of the Section 338(h)(10) election to the Buyer is the full step-up of Pinnacle's asset basis from $187,600,000 (the existing inside basis) to $412,000,000 (the ADSP, equal to enterprise value). This step-up of $224,400,000 enables the Buyer to claim significantly higher depreciation and amortization deductions on Pinnacle's assets over the applicable recovery periods, reducing the Buyer's (specifically, Intermediate Inc.'s) taxable income and corporate tax liability.
The $412,000,000 of stepped-up asset basis would be allocated among Pinnacle's assets in accordance with the residual method prescribed by Section 1060 of the Code and Treasury Regulations § 1.338-6 and § 1.338-7. Based on the preliminary purchase price allocation analysis, the allocation across the seven asset classes is as follows:
The Class V intangible assets are further broken down as follows:
For purposes of this comparative analysis, we have used a 15-year blended amortization period for the NPV computation. This is a conservative assumption; the actual weighted-average useful life of the stepped-up basis, based on the preliminary allocation set forth above, is approximately 11.2 years. However, because the bulk of the intangible value (payor contracts, trade name, and goodwill/going concern value, collectively $273,900,000 or approximately 66% of the total) is subject to 15-year amortization under Section 197, the 15-year period provides a reasonable and conservative basis for comparison.
The annual amortization benefit to the Buyer under the Section 338(h)(10) approach is estimated as follows:
•  Total stepped-up basis subject to amortization/depreciation: $412,000,000 (less $8,700,000 cash = $403,300,000 depreciable/amortizable, but for simplicity using the full $412,000,000 with the understanding that the cash component provides no incremental benefit)
•  Annual amortization deduction (assuming 15-year blended period): $412,000,000 ÷ 15 = approximately $27,467,000 per year
•  Annual tax benefit at 25% blended federal + state corporate tax rate: $27,467,000 × 25% = approximately $6,867,000 per year
•  NPV of the annual tax benefit stream over 15 years, discounted at 8%: approximately $58,800,000
This $58.8 million NPV figure represents the total present value of the Buyer's amortization benefit under the Section 338(h)(10) approach. However, this figure must be compared against the amortization benefit achievable under the Section 754 alternative in order to determine the incremental benefit of the Section 338(h)(10) approach. That comparison is set forth in Section III.E below and in the detailed comparative analysis in Part V.
E. Net Cost-Benefit Analysis for 338(h)(10)
The net cost-benefit analysis for the Section 338(h)(10) approach must account for both the incremental benefit to the Buyer (the additional amortization deductions relative to the Section 754 alternative) and the incremental cost to the sellers (the additional tax liability arising from the inside/outside basis mismatch).
Incremental Amortization Benefit to the Buyer. The incremental amortization benefit of the Section 338(h)(10) approach over the Section 754 approach is attributable to the difference between the full $412.0 million asset step-up under Section 338(h)(10) and the $224.4 million basis step-up under Section 754:
•  Section 338(h)(10) total asset basis: $412,000,000
•  Section 754 basis step-up: $224,400,000
•  Incremental basis available for amortization under 338(h)(10): $412,000,000 − $224,400,000 = $187,600,000
This $187.6 million represents the existing inside basis of Pinnacle's assets, which the Buyer effectively already "has" under the Section 754 approach (albeit at varying remaining depreciable/amortizable lives based on the partnership's existing depreciation schedules). Under the Section 338(h)(10) approach, this $187.6 million of existing inside basis would be "refreshed" and reallocated to current fair market values with new full recovery periods, producing additional amortization deductions relative to the Section 754 approach. The NPV of this incremental benefit, calculated using a 25% blended tax rate, 15-year amortization period, and 8% discount rate, is approximately $31,700,000.
Incremental Tax Cost to the Sellers. As described in Section III.C above, the Section 338(h)(10) approach triggers approximately $48.3 million in incremental seller-level gain. At a blended capital gains rate of approximately 25%, the estimated incremental tax cost to the sellers is approximately $12,100,000.
Seller Gross-Up. Because the sellers have indicated through counsel that they will not accept a structure that increases their tax liability, the Buyer would likely be required to provide a gross-up payment to the sellers in the amount of the incremental tax cost. Moreover, because the gross-up payment itself would constitute additional consideration taxable to the sellers, the gross-up would need to be "grossed up on the gross-up" — that is, the Buyer would need to pay an additional amount sufficient to cover the tax on the gross-up payment itself. This iterative gross-up computation would increase the Buyer's total cost above the initial $12.1 million estimate. Using a simplified gross-up formula:
Gross-up amount = Incremental tax cost ÷ (1 − tax rate) = $12,100,000 ÷ (1 − 0.25) = $16,133,000 (approximately)
Under this analysis, the Buyer's total out-of-pocket cost to implement the Section 338(h)(10) approach (including the grossed-up seller compensation) would be approximately $16.1 million, compared against an incremental amortization benefit of approximately $31.7 million in NPV terms. While the NPV of the benefit ($31.7 million) still exceeds the grossed-up cost ($16.1 million), the margin is significantly narrower than it first appears, and must be considered in light of additional factors including deal friction, execution risk, and the time-value mismatch between the immediate cash cost of the gross-up and the long-term nature of the amortization benefit (which accrues over 11.2 to 15 years).
Timing Mismatch. The seller gross-up would be payable at closing (or shortly thereafter), representing an immediate cash outflow to the Buyer. By contrast, the incremental amortization benefit accrues over a 15-year period (or 11.2 years using the weighted-average useful life). The present value of the incremental amortization benefit is already discounted to reflect this timing difference, but the practical impact is that the Buyer would be advancing cash to the sellers today in exchange for a stream of tax savings that may or may not materialize in full (e.g., if the Buyer does not have sufficient taxable income to utilize the deductions, or if tax rates change).
Conclusion. Considering the totality of the quantitative analysis — the $31.7 million NPV of incremental amortization benefit versus the approximately $16.1 million grossed-up cost, further discounted by the execution risk and deal friction discussed in Part V.C below — Calderwood & Harkness does not recommend the Section 338(h)(10) approach.
IV. Section 754 Election Analysis
A. Mechanics of Section 754 — General Overview
Section 754 of the Code permits a partnership to elect to adjust the basis of partnership property upon the occurrence of certain triggering events, specifically (i) a transfer of a partnership interest (giving rise to an adjustment under Section 743(b)) or (ii) a distribution of partnership property (giving rise to an adjustment under Section 734(b)). The election is made by filing a written statement with the partnership's federal income tax return (Form 1065) for the taxable year in which the triggering event occurs.
Once a Section 754 election is made, it applies to all subsequent transfers and distributions unless the partnership obtains the consent of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the election. Accordingly, the decision to make a Section 754 election has implications beyond the immediate acquisition and should be considered in light of the partnership's long-term ownership structure and anticipated future transactions.
Section 743(b) of the Code provides the mechanism by which a transferee partner's share of the partnership's inside basis is adjusted when a Section 754 election is in effect. Specifically, Section 743(b) provides that the transferee partner's share of the adjusted basis of partnership property is adjusted by an amount equal to the excess of the transferee's outside basis in the partnership interest over the transferee's proportionate share of the partnership's existing inside basis (or, in the case of a downward adjustment, the excess of the proportionate inside basis over the outside basis). The formula is:
Section 743(b) Adjustment = Transferee's Outside Basis − Transferee's Share of Partnership Inside Basis
The Section 743(b) adjustment is a "special basis adjustment" that is personal to the transferee partner and does not affect the common basis of partnership property, the partnership's computation of income or loss, or any other partner's distributive share. The adjustment is allocated among the partnership's assets in accordance with the rules of Section 755 and Treasury Regulations § 1.755-1, which generally require allocation first to ordinary income property and then to capital gain property, based on the relative unrealized appreciation or depreciation in each category of property.
The practical effect of the Section 743(b) adjustment is that the transferee partner is entitled to additional depreciation and amortization deductions attributable to the basis step-up, reducing the transferee partner's distributive share of partnership taxable income. These deductions are allocable solely to the transferee partner and do not reduce the distributive shares of the other partners.
B. Application to the Pinnacle Acquisition
Under the recommended transaction structure, Pinnacle will retain its classification as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. No Form 8832 check-the-box election will be filed. The reverse merger of Merger Sub with and into Pinnacle will result in Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc. becoming the sole member of Pinnacle, holding one hundred percent (100%) of the surviving entity's membership interests.
The acquisition of one hundred percent (100%) of Pinnacle's membership interests by Intermediate Inc. constitutes a "transfer" of partnership interests within the meaning of Section 743(b), triggering the right to a basis adjustment if a Section 754 election is in effect. Pinnacle will file a Section 754 election statement with its Form 1065 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2024 (the year in which the closing is expected to occur). The election statement will be prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in coordination with Caldwell Pratt & Moorehouse LLP (the Buyer's accounting firm) and will be attached to the first partnership return filed by Pinnacle under Intermediate Inc.'s ownership.
The computation of the Section 743(b) basis adjustment is straightforward:
•  Transferee's Outside Basis: $412,000,000. Intermediate Inc.'s outside basis in the Pinnacle membership interests is equal to the total purchase price paid for the interests, which includes both the cash consideration and the assumption of Pinnacle's liabilities. The enterprise value of $412,000,000 reflects the equity consideration of $339,400,000 plus the assumption of $72,600,000 in net debt. Under Section 752(d), when a partnership interest is purchased, the transferee's outside basis includes the transferee's share of partnership liabilities. Because Intermediate Inc. will be the sole member of Pinnacle post-closing, it will be allocated one hundred percent (100%) of Pinnacle's liabilities. Accordingly, Intermediate Inc.'s outside basis is $412,000,000.
•  Transferee's Share of Partnership Inside Basis: $187,600,000. Because Intermediate Inc. will hold one hundred percent (100%) of Pinnacle's membership interests, its proportionate share of Pinnacle's inside basis is equal to the full aggregate inside basis of $187,600,000.
•  Section 743(b) Basis Adjustment: $412,000,000 − $187,600,000 = $224,400,000
This $224.4 million upward basis adjustment will be allocated among Pinnacle's assets in accordance with Section 755 and the regulations thereunder, as described in Section IV.C below.
C. Allocation of Section 743(b) Adjustment
The $224,400,000 Section 743(b) basis adjustment must be allocated among Pinnacle's assets in accordance with Section 755 of the Code and Treasury Regulations § 1.755-1. The allocation methodology under Section 755 is generally consistent with the principles of the Section 1060 residual method, but is applied to the step-up amount (i.e., the $224.4 million adjustment) rather than to the full purchase price.
Under Treasury Regulations § 1.755-1(b), the Section 743(b) adjustment is allocated between two classes of partnership property:
(a) Ordinary Income Property — property that would give rise to ordinary income, short-term capital gain, or Section 1231(b) loss if sold by the partnership at its fair market value. This category includes accounts receivable, inventory, and depreciable or amortizable property to the extent of any ordinary income recapture under Sections 1245 and 1250.
(b) Capital Gain Property — all other partnership property, including goodwill, going concern value, and other capital assets and Section 1231 property (to the extent not treated as ordinary income property).
Within each class, the Section 743(b) adjustment is allocated among the individual assets in proportion to the difference between each asset's fair market value and the partnership's existing tax basis in that asset. The allocation serves to "equalize" the transferee partner's share of each asset's basis with the portion of the purchase price attributable to that asset, so that the transferee partner is in the same position as if it had purchased the individual assets directly.
A detailed allocation of the $224.4 million Section 743(b) adjustment among Pinnacle's specific assets will be prepared in coordination with the Purchase Price Allocation Schedule. The target delivery date for this detailed allocation is April 18, 2024. For purposes of this memorandum, we have relied on the preliminary allocation percentages derived from the same asset categories used in the Section 1060 analysis set forth in Part III.D above.
D. Amortization Benefit Under Section 754/743(b)
The $224,400,000 Section 743(b) basis adjustment generates additional depreciation and amortization deductions for Intermediate Inc. as the transferee partner. These deductions reduce Intermediate Inc.'s distributive share of Pinnacle's taxable income, thereby reducing Intermediate Inc.'s corporate tax liability.
The amortization and depreciation benefit under the Section 754/743(b) approach is estimated as follows:
•  Total Section 743(b) basis step-up: $224,400,000
•  Weighted-average useful life of step-up amount: Approximately 11.2 years. This blended rate reflects the allocation of the step-up across asset categories with varying recovery periods, including shorter-lived assets (assembled workforce at 3 years, non-compete agreements at 5 years) and longer-lived assets (payor contracts, trade name, and goodwill/going concern value at 15 years under Section 197). The weighted-average useful life is shorter than the 15-year period used for the Section 338(h)(10) analysis because the Section 743(b) adjustment is allocated based on unrealized appreciation in each asset, rather than being a flat allocation of the total purchase price, and certain shorter-lived assets have proportionally more unrealized appreciation.
•  Annual amortization deduction: $224,400,000 ÷ 11.2 years ≈ $20,040,000 per year
•  Annual tax benefit at 25% blended federal + state corporate tax rate: $20,040,000 × 25% = $5,010,000 per year
•  NPV of amortization benefit stream: The present value of the annual tax benefit stream over the weighted-average useful life of 11.2 years, discounted at 8%, is substantial. The precise NPV will be computed upon finalization of the detailed asset allocation. Based on preliminary estimates, the NPV falls in the range of approximately $35 million to $40 million, with a central estimate of approximately $37.1 million.
These estimates assume that Intermediate Inc. will have sufficient taxable income to utilize the amortization deductions in each year of the recovery period. Based on the financial projections prepared by the deal team and reviewed by Northmark Advisory Group LLC, Pinnacle's projected taxable income is expected to exceed the annual amortization deduction in each year, so no limitation on the utilization of the deductions is anticipated. However, if Pinnacle's actual taxable income falls short of projections in any given year, the amortization deductions could create or increase a net operating loss for Intermediate Inc., which would defer (but not eliminate) the tax benefit.
E. Tax Consequences to the Sellers Under Section 754
A significant advantage of the Section 754 approach is that the Section 754 election has no effect on the sellers' tax treatment. The election is made by the partnership (Pinnacle), and the resulting Section 743(b) adjustment is personal to the transferee partner (Intermediate Inc.). The election does not alter the amount, character, or timing of the gain or loss recognized by the selling members on the disposition of their partnership interests.
The sellers will recognize gain or loss on the sale of their Pinnacle membership interests under Section 741 of the Code. Section 741 provides that gain or loss recognized on the sale or exchange of a partnership interest is treated as gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset, except to the extent otherwise provided under Section 751 (relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items, commonly referred to as "hot assets").
The aggregate gain recognized by the sellers is computed as follows:
•  Amount Realized (pro rata share of equity value): $339,400,000
•  Less: Aggregate Outside Basis in Pinnacle Membership Interests: ($291,100,000)
•  Aggregate Gain: $48,300,000
This $48.3 million of aggregate gain is the same amount that the sellers would recognize in a simple partnership interest sale, without regard to whether a Section 754 election is made. The Section 754 election is entirely transparent to the sellers and does not create any incremental tax liability for them.
With respect to the character of the gain, Section 751(a) of the Code provides that the amount of money or property received by a partner in exchange for a partnership interest that is attributable to "unrealized receivables" (as broadly defined in Section 751(c)) or "inventory items" that have appreciated substantially in value is treated as an amount received in exchange for property other than a capital asset — i.e., as ordinary income. A detailed Section 751(a) analysis, including identification and valuation of Pinnacle's "hot assets" and computation of the ordinary income component of the sellers' gain, will be prepared and delivered under separate cover. For purposes of this memorandum, it is sufficient to note that the Section 754 election does not affect the Section 751(a) analysis.
F. Tax Receivable Agreement Implications
The contemplated transaction structure includes a Tax Receivable Agreement (the "TRA") pursuant to which the Buyer will share a portion of the realized tax benefits attributable to the Section 743(b) basis step-up with the pre-closing Pinnacle members, including the rollover participants. TRA structures of this type are common in private equity-sponsored acquisitions of partnership targets and serve to align the economic interests of the sellers/rollover participants with the Buyer's interest in maximizing the tax benefit of the basis step-up.
Under the contemplated TRA terms, 85% of the realized tax benefits attributable to the Section 743(b) basis step-up will be payable to the TRA participants (the rollover participants and the pre-closing Pinnacle members, collectively). The remaining 15% of the realized tax benefits will be retained by the Buyer.
The estimated annual TRA economics are as follows:
•  Annual tax benefit from Section 743(b) amortization: $5,010,000
•  TRA payment (85%): 85% × $5,010,000 = $4,260,000 per year
•  Retained by Buyer (15%): 15% × $5,010,000 = $751,500 per year
The TRA payments reduce the net after-tax benefit retained by the Buyer from the Section 754 election. However, the TRA economics are a separate negotiating point between the Buyer and the sellers and do not affect the comparative analysis between the Section 338(h)(10) and Section 754 approaches. Regardless of whether the Buyer elects Section 338(h)(10) or Section 754, a TRA would likely be part of the transaction structure, and the sharing percentage would be subject to negotiation.
We note that the initial draft of the Tax Receivable Agreement is targeted for delivery by March 20, 2024. The TRA drafting will be handled by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in coordination with Harcourt Shaw & DeVries LLP (the Buyer's M&A counsel).
V. Comparative Analysis: Section 338(h)(10) vs. Section 754
A. Side-by-Side Summary Table
The following table presents a side-by-side comparison of the key features, consequences, and considerations associated with each election alternative:
B. Quantitative Comparison
The quantitative comparison of the two alternatives can be summarized as follows:
Buyer's Perspective:
1.  NPV of Amortization Benefit under 338(h)(10): Approximately $58,800,000.
2.  NPV of Amortization Benefit under Section 754: Approximately $37,100,000.
3.  Incremental NPV Benefit of 338(h)(10) over 754: Approximately $31,700,000.
4.  Grossed-Up Cost of Seller Compensation: Approximately $16,100,000 (assuming the Buyer must compensate the sellers for their incremental tax cost of ~$12.1 million, grossed up to account for the taxability of the gross-up payment itself).
5.  Net Benefit of 338(h)(10) after Seller Gross-Up: $31,700,000 − $16,100,000 = approximately $15,600,000.
While the net benefit of approximately $15.6 million appears positive in isolation, several factors significantly diminish this apparent benefit:
(a) Timing Mismatch. The gross-up payment of approximately $16.1 million would be an immediate cash outflow at or near closing. The $31.7 million of incremental amortization benefit, by contrast, accrues over 11.2 to 15 years and has already been discounted to present value at 8%. The immediate cash cost and the discounted future benefit are not apples-to-apples; the Buyer would be deploying capital at closing (or increasing the purchase price) in exchange for a stream of tax savings that is inherently uncertain and subject to change based on future tax rates, the Buyer's future taxable income, and other variables.
(b) Gross-Up Iteration. The $16.1 million gross-up estimate is simplified. In practice, the gross-up computation may be more complex, particularly if the sellers' individual tax rates vary and if the incremental gain has a mix of ordinary and capital gain character (reflecting the Section 751(a) hot asset analysis). The actual gross-up cost could be higher than estimated.
(c) Opportunity Cost. The $16.1 million of gross-up capital, if not spent on seller compensation, could be deployed in the business or used to reduce acquisition leverage, producing its own economic return. The opportunity cost of deploying this capital for tax gross-up purposes should be considered.
(d) Risk Adjustment. The $31.7 million NPV of incremental amortization benefit assumes that the Buyer will fully utilize the deductions and that tax rates remain constant. Any reduction in corporate tax rates, limitation on amortization deductions, or shortfall in the Buyer's taxable income would reduce the actual benefit below the estimated NPV.
Sellers' Perspective:
Under the Section 754 approach, the sellers' tax treatment is identical to a simple partnership interest sale. The sellers recognize aggregate gain of $48,300,000, taxable at applicable capital gains rates (subject to Section 751(a) recharacterization of the ordinary income portion). There is no incremental tax cost, no gross-up negotiation, and no disruption to the existing tax expectations that the sellers and their counsel have incorporated into the negotiated deal terms.
Under the Section 338(h)(10) approach, the sellers would bear approximately $12.1 million in additional tax costs absent a gross-up — a material increase that the sellers have indicated they would not accept. Even with a full gross-up, the sellers would face additional compliance complexity, potential timing uncertainties related to the check-the-box and deemed liquidation mechanics, and possible adverse state tax consequences that may not be fully addressed by the gross-up formula.
C. Qualitative Considerations
Beyond the quantitative analysis, several qualitative factors weigh heavily against the Section 338(h)(10) approach and in favor of the Section 754 election:
Seller Willingness. As previously noted, Patricia Engelman of Whitford & Gaines LLP has communicated that the sellers are unlikely to agree to a structure that increases their aggregate tax burden absent a full gross-up. Dr. Carvallo and Dr. Ostrowski, as rollover participants who will retain a meaningful economic interest in the post-closing enterprise through their equity in Holdings LLC, have particular sensitivity to any perceived tax shifting. Imposing incremental tax liability on these key individuals — who are also critical to the post-closing operational success of the business — risks introducing friction into the ongoing relationship between the sponsors and management. Given the importance of management continuity in the healthcare services sector, where physician leadership is integral to payor contract retention, regulatory compliance, and clinical operations, this relationship risk should not be underestimated.
Execution Risk. The Section 338(h)(10) approach requires a carefully sequenced check-the-box election to reclassify Pinnacle from a partnership to a corporation before the closing of the acquisition. This sequencing introduces several categories of execution risk:
(i) Form 8832 Timing. The check-the-box election must have an effective date that precedes the closing date of the acquisition by at least one day (to ensure that the purchase of Pinnacle's equity interests is treated as a purchase of corporate stock). The Form 8832 must be filed within 75 days of the desired effective date. Any delay or error in filing could invalidate the election or cause it to take effect on an unintended date.
(ii) Deemed Section 351 Analysis. The deemed contribution of assets to a newly formed corporation must be analyzed under Section 351, including a comprehensive review of all of Pinnacle's liabilities for Section 357(c) purposes. While our preliminary analysis indicates that Pinnacle's inside basis ($187.6 million) exceeds its funded debt ($81.3 million), a complete analysis must account for all liabilities, including contingent liabilities, deferred revenue obligations, and any amounts treated as liabilities under the broad definition in Treasury Regulations § 1.357-2. If total liabilities exceed inside basis, Section 357(c) gain would be triggered — an unintended and potentially significant adverse tax consequence for the sellers.
(iii) S-Corporation Ineligibility. As noted in Part III.B, electing S-corporation status for Pinnacle is not viable because Intermediate Inc. (a C-corporation) would be an ineligible shareholder. This eliminates one potential path and constrains the available options to C-corporation classification, which carries its own complications (including the risk of double taxation if the Section 338(h)(10) election is not properly executed).
(iv) IRS Challenge Risk. While the check-the-box regulations are well-established and the Section 338(h)(10) election process is a recognized planning tool, the combination of a same-day or near-day check-the-box election followed immediately by a Section 338(h)(10) election in the context of a private equity acquisition may attract IRS scrutiny, particularly given the significant dollar amounts involved. While we believe the approach is legally defensible, the risk of audit and challenge should be considered.
State Tax Complications. Pinnacle operates in five states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia. Converting Pinnacle from a partnership to a corporation for federal tax purposes would trigger separate state-level consequences in each of these jurisdictions, including:
•  Potential state-level transfer taxes or entity conversion taxes in certain jurisdictions;
•  Changes to state income tax apportionment methodology (partnership apportionment formulas may differ from corporate apportionment formulas);
•  Loss of pass-through entity (PTE) election opportunities in states that have adopted elective PTE-level taxes as a workaround to the federal $10,000 SALT deduction limitation;
•  Potential state-level recognition of the deemed Section 351 transaction or the deemed asset sale, even if these events are non-taxable or tax-deferred at the federal level (state conformity varies).
A detailed analysis of the state tax consequences is beyond the scope of this memorandum but is addressed in our State & Local Tax Memorandum dated February 20, 2024, and will be further developed in the State Tax Structuring Recommendations Letter to be delivered on March 18, 2024.
Consistency with Overall Structure. The recommended three-tier acquisition structure — Holdings LLC (partnership) → Intermediate Inc. (C-corporation blocker) → Pinnacle (partnership) — was designed to balance multiple competing objectives, including pass-through treatment at the equity aggregator level, blocker protection for tax-exempt and foreign limited partners, operating-level partnership flexibility, and the ability to achieve a meaningful basis step-up through the Section 754/743(b) mechanism. Electing to reclassify Pinnacle as a corporation would undermine the operating-level partnership flexibility that is a key element of this structure, converting the bottom tier from a partnership to a corporation and eliminating the benefits associated with partnership treatment at the operating level (including, without limitation, the ability to make special allocations, the absence of entity-level tax on current operations, and the flexibility to admit new partners or restructure the partnership in connection with add-on acquisitions without triggering corporate-level gain).
Future Flexibility. Maintaining Pinnacle as a partnership preserves the ability to make future Section 754 elections in connection with secondary transfers of partnership interests (e.g., if Fund III sells a portion of its indirect interest in Pinnacle to a co-investor or in a secondary transaction). It also facilitates tax-efficient add-on acquisitions, as assets acquired by a partnership can be stepped up through Section 743(b) or Section 734(b) adjustments in connection with future partnership-level transactions. If Pinnacle is converted to a corporation, these partnership-level tools would no longer be available, and any future basis step-up would require a separate Section 338 election or an actual asset purchase.
VI. Recommendation
Based on the analysis set forth in this memorandum, Calderwood & Harkness LLP recommends that Pinnacle Health Services Group LLC make a Section 754 election for the taxable year ending December 31, 2024, in connection with the acquisition of Pinnacle's membership interests by Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc.
The Section 754 election will produce a Section 743(b) basis adjustment of $224,400,000 for Ardent Healthcare Intermediate Inc., generating estimated annual amortization deductions of approximately $20,040,000 and annual tax benefits of approximately $5,010,000 (computed at a 25% blended federal and state corporate tax rate). The NPV of the total amortization benefit is estimated at approximately $37.1 million (Discounted at 8% over a weighted-average useful life of approximately 11.2 years).
The Section 338(h)(10) alternative is rejected for the following reasons:
1.  Incremental Seller-Level Gain Exceeds Incremental Buyer Benefit. The approximately $48.3 million in incremental seller-level gain generated by the Section 338(h)(10) approach, and the associated increme

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts