1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Tax Notice Drives Wachovia Takeover Turmoil

Tax Notice Drives Wachovia Takeover Turmoil

Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.06.08

On September 29, in a deal orchestrated by federal regulators, Citigroup Inc. ("Citigroup") agreed to purchase ailing Wachovia for approximately 2 billion dollars. On October 3, Wells Fargo & Co. ("Wells Fargo") announced an agreement to acquire Wachovia for approximately 15 billion dollars. The substitution of Wells Fargo for Citibank after the original deal was announced, combined with the dramatic increase in acquisition price, stunned observers and has Citigroup scrambling to block the new agreement.

Wells Fargo's late, increased offer for Wachovia appears to lack consistency with their prior stance in takeover negotiations, however, Wells Fargo's offer was most likely adjusted to reflect a recent change in the tax law. On September 30, one day after the original agreement with Citibank was announced, the Treasury Department released IRS Notice 2008-83.

In general, the tax law limits the amount of losses an acquiring company may use, which are attributable to an acquired company, to offset its own profits. Notice 2008-83 states that with respect to banks, f or purposes of section 382(h), any deduction properly allowed after an ownership change (as defined in section 382(g)) to a bank with respect to losses on loans or bad debts (including any deduction for a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts) shall not be treated as a built-in loss or a deduction that is attributable to periods before the change date.

This tax law change has the effect of easing restrictions on losses that can be written off after a bank's change in management. As a result, Wells Fargo may be able to use the losses from loans and other bad debts that they acquire to offset their current and future taxable income. The amount of future income and losses on the instruments to be acquired by Wells Fargo are currently undetermined, however, some estimates indicate that Wells Fargo may ultimately offset approximately $74 billion in income as a result of its Wachovia acquisition.

Whether this enormous tax benefit will be realized remains to be seen. A temporary restraining order blocking the Wells Fargo acquisition was requested and granted to Citigroup on Saturday night October 4 through a New York state court order, and promptly overturned Sunday evening October 5, in part because the decision was not made in New York, but rather in Connecticut. On October 7, a federal judge is expected to preside over a hearing to determine the validity of Citigroup's claim regarding their exclusivity agreement with Wachovia. As of this writing, officials from the Federal Reserve are actively involved in facilitating a compromise agreement between Citigroup and Wells Fargo. While the outcome of these negotiations is uncertain, it is evident that tax considerations are the driving force behind this controversy.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....