INCOME TAXES

Accounting standards state that companies account for income taxes using the asset and liability approach, which requires the recognition of deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and the tax bases of assets and liabilities. This method also requires the recognition of future tax benefits, such as net operating loss carryforwards and other tax credits. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are recorded as necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount thereof that is more likely than not to be realized. The likelihood of realizing deferred tax assets is evaluated by, among other things, estimating future taxable income to which the deferred tax assets may be applied and assessing the impact of tax planning strategies.

For interim periods, accounting standards require that income tax expense be determined by applying the estimated annual effective income tax rate to year-to-date results unless this method does not result in a reliable estimate of year-to-date income tax expense. Each quarter the income tax accrual is adjusted to the latest estimate and the difference from the previously accrued year-to-date balance is adjusted to the current quarter.

For the first six months of 2012, the primary differences between the U.S. statutory rate of 35% and the effective rate applicable to LP’s continuing operations relate to the effect of foreign tax rates, increases in valuation allowances attributed to net operating loss carryforwards in various jurisdictions and increase in our reserves for uncertain tax positions. For the first six months of 2011, the primary differences between the U.S. statutory rate of 35% and the effective rate applicable to LP’s continuing operations relate to state income taxes, the effect of foreign tax rates and increases in valuation allowances attributed to net operating loss carryforwards in various jurisdictions.

The income tax components and associated effective income tax rates for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 are as follows:



	Quarter Ended June 30,
	2012					2011
Dollars in millions	Tax Benefit			Tax Rate		Tax Benefit			Tax Rate
Continuing operations	$	(11.1	)	23	%	$	(8.4	)	20	%
Discontinued operations	—			35	%	(1.6		)	39	%
	$	(11.1	)	23	%	$	(10.0	)	22	%

	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2012					2011
	Tax Benefit			Tax Rate		Tax Benefit			Tax Rate
Continuing operations	$	(12.3	)	20	%	$	(15.2	)	21	%
Discontinued operations	(0.1		)	33	%	(1.6		)	39	%
	$	(12.4	)	20	%	$	(16.8	)	22	%

LP and its domestic subsidiaries are subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income taxes of multiple state jurisdictions. LP’s foreign subsidiaries are subject to income tax in Canada, Chile, Peru and Brazil. As of June 30, 2012, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was in the process of auditing tax years 2007 through 2009. All U.S. federal audits of prior years have been completed. LP remains subject to state and local tax examinations for the tax years 2005 through 2011. Canadian federal income tax returns have been audited and effectively settled through 2004, and no examinations are currently in progress. Years subsequent to 2004, with the exception of 2006 and 2007, remain subject to examination. Quebec provincial audits have been effectively settled through 2007, and an audit of years 2008 through 2010 is currently in progress. As of June 30, 2012, the Chilean Tax Office was in process of auditing tax years 2008 through 2010.

In connection with the IRS audit of tax years 2007 through 2009 described above, the IRS has proposed an assessment based upon the disallowance of certain accelerated depreciation positions taken by LP. LP disagrees with the potential assessment and, based on its views of the merits of its positions, believes that no accrual is required at this time. However, if the IRS were to fully prevail on the matter, LP would be required to make a cash payment of $17.5 million plus interest, and would have the benefit of an additional $17.5 million of depreciation deductions in future periods. LP is working with its outside tax advisers and the IRS to resolve this dispute in a timely matter.

If LP were to determine that it would not be able to realize a portion of an existing net deferred tax asset in excess of an existing valuation allowance, an adjustment to the net deferred tax asset would be charged to earnings in the period in which such determination was made. Conversely, if it were to make a determination that it is more likely than not that an existing deferred tax asset for which there is currently a valuation allowance would be realized, the related valuation allowance would be reduced and a benefit to earnings would be recorded in the period in which such determination was made.