XML 20 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitments and Contingencies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies  
Commitments and Contingencies

Note 7 – Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to various lawsuits. Management does not expect these lawsuits to have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of Expedia. We also evaluate other potential contingent matters, including value-added tax, federal excise tax, transient occupancy or accommodation tax and similar matters.

Litigation Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes. Seventy-three lawsuits have been filed by cities and counties involving hotel occupancy taxes. These lawsuits are in various stages and we continue to defend against the claims made in them vigorously. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, we believe that the ordinances at issue do not apply to the services we provide, namely the facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that we do not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. We believe that the ordinances at issue generally impose occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations. To date, twenty-four of the municipality lawsuits have been dismissed. Some of these dismissals have been without prejudice and, generally, allow the municipality to seek administrative remedies prior to pursuing further litigation. Twelve dismissals were based on a finding that we and the other defendants were not subject to the local hotel occupancy tax ordinance or that the local government lacked standing to pursue their claims. As a result of this litigation and other attempts by certain jurisdictions to levy such taxes, we have established a reserve for the potential settlement of issues related to hotel occupancy taxes, consistent with applicable accounting principles and in light of all current facts and circumstances, in the amount of $15 million as of June 30, 2011 and $24 million as of December 31, 2010. This reserve is based on our best estimate and the ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded. In addition, as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, we had accruals totaling $17 million and $13 million related to court decisions and final settlements. Changes to these settlement reserves and accruals are included within general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations.

In connection with various occupancy tax audits and assessments, certain jurisdictions may assert that taxpayers are required to pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the ordinances, which is referred to as "pay-to-play." These jurisdictions may attempt to require that we pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the tax ordinance. Payment of these amounts is not an admission that we believe we are subject to such taxes and, even when such payments are made, we continue to defend our position vigorously. During 2010 and 2009, we expensed $3 million and $48 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings in the cities of Santa Monica and San Francisco. Such amounts were expensed when incurred within legal reserves and occupancy tax assessments in the consolidated statements of operations. In each case, we paid such amounts in order to be allowed to pursue litigation challenging whether we are required to pay hotel occupancy tax on the portion of the customer payment we retain as compensation and, if so, the actual amounts owed. We do not believe that the amounts we retain as compensation are subject to the cities' hotel occupancy tax ordinances. If we prevail in the litigation (including any appeal), the cities will be required to repay these amounts, plus interest.