Yes, Google can afford to lose $9bn in Motorola sale. But did it really?

Choc Fac should max tax axe crack in Lenovo sale whack


Comment So just how much has Google lost on buying and selling Motorola Mobility? $9bn - as The Telegraph seems to think? $7bn as simple arithmetic would seem to indicate? Or how about a very decent indeed profit as the vagaries of tax law might indicate - with that tasty patent portfolio thrown in for free?

Let's start with a number that we know is wrong, that $9bn loss. From The Daily Telegraph:

Did it ever make sense for Google to own a handset manufacturer? Was its purchase of Motorola simply a $9bn play for valuable patents, with which it can now defend the entire Android ecosystem

Quite how we get to $9bn I'm not sure. The original purchase price was $12.5bn and the sale to Lenovo is for $2.91bn but perhaps that's close enough for journalism these days. But as the Telegraph separately notes, Google also netted $2.6bn from the sale of the set-top division to Arris:

Google had already sold Motorola Home, a TV set-top box business acquired as part of Motorola Mobility, for $2.6bn.

So now we're down to a $7bn loss on the whole deal. Except, as I've pointed out here before, there were also tax losses inside Motorola Mobility. There are limits on how you can use these under US law, but Google would certainly be able to use them because it did indeed take over the whole company and did indeed run it – as the existence of the Moto X and Moto G proves. And this is where the real reason Google bought Motorola comes into play:

"The tax benefits of the deal make what was a good deal into a great deal," said Robert Willens, a New York accounting and tax expert. He estimated that through the acquisition, Google can expect to reap $700m a year in tax deductions from future profits each year through 2019. Google also will be able to immediately reduce its taxes by $1bn due to Motorola Mobility's US net operating loss, and by a further $700m due to its foreign operating loss, he said.

$700m a year for eight years and $1bn immediately: call it a round $6.5bn?

The secret here is that Motorola wasn't making profits and didn't really seem to have any immediate likelihood of doing so. Therefore those tax losses aren't worth anything to carry forward: there's no likely future profits that they can be used against. But Google is, as we know, quite startlingly profitable and yes, there was a tax law change in 2009 that means that Google will indeed be able to use those losses against the greater business, not just any profits from Motorola.

Len(d)ovo us a quid?

But wait, you say: if Google has now sold Motorola then it will not be able to take advantage of those tax deductions into the future, will it? And that could be true. But do recall that we're talking about a company that employs some of the best (completely legal) tax-dodgers in the business.

It will all depend upon exactly how it has structured the sale. If it has sold the entire business to Lenovo and only kept the patent stash then yes, those accumulated tax losses will now move to Lenovo. But how likely is that?

If, instead, it has kept the holding company that owned the patents and the handset business, selling instead the handset assets out from that company, then the tax losses would stay with Google.

Yes, tax law is hugely complicated and at this stage we've no idea how the deal was done nor do we know whether the IRS will allow it. The way to find out lies at some point in the future: when Google next publishes its accounts.

In the last set there will be a number for accumulated tax losses, or provisions to carry forward. In the next set will also be that number: and if the figure has fallen substantially, then we'll know that the losses have moved over to Lenovo.

But that most certainly isn't the way that I would bet. Not from a company which, quite legally, manages to pay much less tax on its ex-United States business by routing much of it through Ireland and then to Bermuda. It would entirely boggle the mind if it didn't manage to utilise those Motorola losses inside Google. It's also worth noting that those Motorola losses aren't going to have much tax value to Lenovo either - given that it is not a US-domiciled company.

Which leads us to thinking that the actual price, nett, to Google of that patent stash was in the $1bn range. It should be said that it's not really proven even that valuable as the attempts to assert those patents seem to be failing at every turn while the $4.5bn that the Rockstar consortium paid on the Nortel stash does seem to be having some luck in getting enforced.

Toss across loss

But a $1bn loss to a company like Google is clearly rather different than a $9bn one, or even a $7bn one.

Just to complicate things further, Google has had to carry the ongoing losses of Motorola Mobility while it has owned it and I'm not even going to try and crowbar that into this calculation: and these are of course offset against those profits made elsewhere for tax purposes, so the headline loss isn't the net loss.

And finally we've one more thing to consider. Mobility had $3bn in cash in it when Google bought it. How much of that do we think is going to move over to Lenovo? "Not a lot" would be a reasonable answer there.

To this writer, it would appear that it found a bundle of assets that were worth less in their current configuration than they would be if they were split up and parcelled out to a different group of owners.

At first glance we've the set-top business, the handset one and the patents. At that first glance it would appear that Google has paid $12.5bn in total, flogged off the two physical businesses for $5.5bn and thus paid $7bn for the patents.

However, if we add in the $3bn cash (possibly retained) and the $6.5bn in tax losses (certainly some used, possibly the rest retained) we can, with a good deal of guessing I agree, make the case that Google has actually made a couple of billion profit on the deal and got those patents for free. It all depends on how good the tax lawyers are and who really wants to posit that Google employs bad ones? ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • I was fired for blowing the whistle on cult's status in Google unit, says contractor
    The internet giant, a doomsday religious sect, and a lawsuit in Silicon Valley

    A former Google video producer has sued the internet giant alleging he was unfairly fired for blowing the whistle on a religious sect that had all but taken over his business unit. 

    The lawsuit demands a jury trial and financial restitution for "religious discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation and related causes of action." It alleges Peter Lubbers, director of the Google Developer Studio (GDS) film group in which 34-year-old plaintiff Kevin Lloyd worked, is not only a member of The Fellowship of Friends, the exec was influential in growing the studio into a team that, in essence, funneled money back to the fellowship.

    In his complaint [PDF], filed in a California Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd lays down a case that he was fired for expressing concerns over the fellowship's influence at Google, specifically in the GDS. When these concerns were reported to a manager, Lloyd was told to drop the issue or risk losing his job, it is claimed. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022