Opinion ID: 211884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Costs incurred to acquire Bell

Text: 46 The government contends that the tax benefits arising from Westfed's ownership of Bell negated the cost to acquire the company. As evidence, the government notes that Westfed's 1991 audited consolidated financial statement reported [i]n connection with the acquisition of Bell, the purchase price was zero. In answer, Westfed points to testimony credited by the court and other documentary evidence suggesting it outlaid $20 million to acquire Bell's shares. See Westfed II, 55 Fed.Cl. at 551 & n. 10. This evidence, however, neither refutes nor addresses the government's contention. Neither the trial court nor Westfed explains why the tax benefit accruing to Westfed as a result of acquiring Bell should not offset the acquisition cost. Given that no one disputes that as a consequence of tax benefits from acquiring Bell, Bell's purchase price was zero, we conclude that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Westfed actually sustained a loss of $20 million in connection with the purchase of Bell, for which it should be compensated. See Glendale, 239 F.3d at 1382; Dan B. Dobbs, Law of Remedies, § 12.3(1) at 51-52 (2d ed. 1993) (The reliance damages recovery is a recovery for net reliance loss, so the defendant is credited with any benefit the plaintiff receives from the expenditure in reliance.).