NOTE 5 — INCOME TAXES

Income Tax Issues Concerning Overseas Income

On April 15, 2013 and June 5, 2013, Emerson received correspondence from the IRS including a (i) Form 5701 and Form 886-A regarding Adjusted Sales Income (collectively referred to as “NOPA 1”) and (ii) Form 5701 and Form 886-A regarding Adjusted Subpart F-Foreign Base Company Sales Income (collectively referred to as “NOPA 2”).

With respect to NOPA 1, the IRS is (i) challenging the position of the Company with respect to the way the Company’s controlled foreign corporation in Macao (the “Macao CFC”) recorded its product sales during Fiscal 2010 and Fiscal 2011 and (ii) asserting that an upward adjustment to the Company’s Fiscal 2010 and Fiscal 2011 taxable income of $4,981,520 and $5,680,182, respectively, is required.

With respect to NOPA 2, the IRS is challenging the position of the Company with respect to the fact that the Company considered the service fee paid by the Company to the Macao CFC to be non-taxable in the U.S. The IRS has taken the position that the service fee paid to the Macao CFC by the Company constitutes foreign base company sales income (“FBCSI”). The IRS asserts that the service fee earned by the Macao CFC in connection with its sales of products to the Company should be taxable to the Company as FBCSI. As a result, the IRS determined that an upward adjustment to the Company’s Fiscal 2010 and Fiscal 2011 taxable income of $1,553,984 and $1,143,162, respectively, is required.

The Company has evaluated the determinations made by the IRS as set forth in each of NOPA 1 and NOPA 2 in order to decide (a) how it will proceed and (b) the potential impact on the Company’s financial condition and operations. Furthermore, although NOPA 1 and NOPA 2 represent potential adjustments to Fiscal 2010 and Fiscal 2011 only, the Company believes it is likely that the IRS will take the position that the same type of adjustments should be made for each of the Company’s subsequent fiscal years. The assessment and payment of such additional taxes, penalties and interest would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

With respect to NOPA 1, the Company is appealing the proposed adjustment with the IRS. In the event that the Company is not successful in its appeal, the Company estimates that it could be liable for a maximum in taxes, penalties and interest of approximately $13.3 million pertaining to NOPA 1, in the aggregate, for its Fiscal 2010, Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012 and Fiscal 2013 periods. However, because the Company’s current assessment is that its appeal of NOPA 1 is more likely than not to be successful, the Company has not recorded any liability to its September 30, 2013 or March 31, 2013 balance sheets related to NOPA 1.

With respect to NOPA 2, the Company agrees in principle with the IRS’ position that the service fee paid to the Macao CFC by the Company would be treated as FBCSI and taxable to the Company but the Company does not agree with the adjustment to the Company’s taxable income as calculated by the IRS. However, the Company has estimated at approximately $1.1 million the amount of taxes, penalties and interest for which it would be liable for its Fiscal 2010, Fiscal 2011, Fiscal 2012 and Fiscal 2013 periods using the adjustments to taxable income as proposed by the IRS, and recorded such amount as a liability to its September 30, 2013 and March 31, 2013 balance sheets.

The Company has no U.S. federal net operating loss carry forwards and some U.S. state net operating loss carry forwards included in net deferred tax assets that are available to offset future taxable income and can be carried forward for 20 years. Although realization is not assured, management believes it is more likely than not that all of the net deferred tax assets will be realized through tax planning strategies available in future periods and through future profitable operating results. The amount of the deferred tax asset considered realizable could be reduced or eliminated if certain tax planning strategies are not successfully executed or estimates of future taxable income during the carry forward period are reduced. If management determines that the Company would not be able to realize all or part of the net deferred tax asset in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax asset would be charged to income in the period such determination was made.

The Company’s effective tax rate differs from the federal statutory rate primarily due to expenses that are not deductible for federal income tax purposes, income and losses incurred in foreign jurisdictions and taxed at locally applicable tax rates, and state income taxes.

The Company is subject to examination and assessment by tax authorities in numerous jurisdictions. A summary of the Company’s open tax years is as follows as of September 30, 2013:


Jurisdiction	Open tax years
U.S. federal		2008-2012
States		2008-2012

Based on the outcome of tax examinations or due to the expiration of statutes of limitations, it is reasonably possible that the unrecognized tax benefits related to uncertain tax positions taken in previously filed returns may be different from the liabilities that have been recorded for these unrecognized tax benefits. As a result, the Company may be subject to additional tax expense.