H&R Block - 10-Q quarterly report FY

The condensed consolidated balance sheet as of October 31, 2009, the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six months ended October 31, 2009 and 2008, and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six months ended October 31, 2009 and 2008 have been prepared by the Company, without audit. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, which include only normal recurring adjustments, necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows at October 31, 2009 and for all periods presented have been made.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Significant estimates, assumptions and judgments are applied in the determination of our allowance for loan losses, potential losses from loan repurchase and indemnity obligations associated with our discontinued mortgage business, contingent losses associated with pending litigation, fair value of reporting units, reserves for uncertain tax positions and related matters. We revise our estimates when facts and circumstances dictate. However, future events and their effects cannot be determined with absolute certainty. As such, actual results could differ materially from those estimates.

Our operating revenues are seasonal in nature with peak revenues occurring in the months of January through April. Therefore, results for interim periods are not indicative of results to be expected for the full year.

Our mortgage loans held for investment include concentrations of loans to borrowers in certain states, which may result in increased exposure to loss as a result of changes in real estate values and underlying economic or market conditions related to a particular geographical location. Approximately 52% of our mortgage loan portfolio consists of loans to borrowers located in the states of Florida, California and New York.

RSM McGladrey, Inc. (RSM) and McGladrey & Pullen LLP (M&P), an independent registered public accounting firm, collaborate to provide accounting, tax and consulting services to clients under an

alternative practice structure. RSM and M&P also share in certain common overhead costs through an administrative services agreement. These services are provided by, and coordinated through, RSM, for which RSM receives a management fee.

Basic and diluted loss per share is computed using the two-class method. See note 13 for additional information on our adoption of the two-class method. The two-class method is an earnings allocation formula that determines net income per share for each class of common stock and participating security according to dividends declared and participation rights in undistributed earnings. Per share amounts are computed by dividing net income from continuing operations attributable to common shareholders by the weighted average shares outstanding during each period. The dilutive effect of potential common shares is included in diluted earnings per share except in those periods with a loss from continuing operations. Diluted earnings per share excludes the impact of shares of common stock issuable upon the lapse of certain restrictions or the exercise of options to purchase 19.3 million shares for the three and six months ended October 31, 2009, and 23.7 million shares for the three and six months ended October 31, 2008, as the effect would be antidilutive due to the net loss from continuing operations during each period.

The composition of our mortgage loan portfolio as of October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2009 is as follows:

Changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the six months ended October 31, 2009 consist of the following:

We file a consolidated federal income tax return in the United States and file tax returns in various state and foreign jurisdictions. Consolidated tax returns for the years 1999 through 2007 are currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service. Tax years prior to 1999 are closed by statute. Historically, tax returns in various foreign and state jurisdictions are examined and settled upon completion of the exam.

included in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

The following table shows the components of interest income and expense of our continuing operations:

The following table presents for each hierarchy level the financial assets that are measured at fair value on both a recurring and non-recurring basis at October 31, 2009:

H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) files its regulatory Thrift Financial Report (TFR) on a calendar quarter basis with the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). The following table sets forth HRB Bank’s regulatory capital requirements at September 30, 2009, as calculated in the most recently filed TFR:

Changes in deferred revenue balances related to our Peace of Mind (POM) program, the current portion of which is included in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities and the long-term portion of which is included in other noncurrent liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, are as follows:

The following table summarizes certain of our other contractual obligations and commitments:

Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC), formerly Option One Mortgage Corporation, maintains recourse with respect to loans previously sold or securitized under indemnification of loss provisions relating to breach of representations and warranties made to purchasers or insurers. At October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2009, our loan repurchase reserve totaled $201.2 million and $206.6 million, respectively. This liability is included in accounts payable, accrued expenses and other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

We are party to investigations, legal claims and lawsuits arising out of our business operations. As required, we accrue our best estimate of loss contingencies when we believe that a loss is probable and that we can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. Amounts accrued, including obligations under indemnifications, totaled $32.9 million and $27.9 million at October 31, 2009 and April 30, 2009, respectively. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and it is difficult to predict the outcome of particular matters with reasonable certainty and, therefore, the actual amount of any loss may prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements.

We have been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits throughout the country regarding our refund anticipation loan programs (collectively, “RAL Cases”). The RAL Cases have involved a variety of legal theories asserted by plaintiffs. These theories include allegations that, among other things: disclosures in the RAL applications were inadequate, misleading and untimely; the RAL interest rates were usurious and unconscionable; we did not disclose that we would receive part of the finance charges paid by the customer for such loans; untrue, misleading or deceptive statements in marketing RALs; breach of state laws on credit service organizations; breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices; violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and unfair competition regarding debt collection activities; and that we owe, and breached, a fiduciary duty to our customers in connection with the RAL program.

We are defendants in lawsuits regarding our Peace of Mind program (collectively, the “POM Cases”), under which our applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The POM Cases are described below.

received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office were excluded from the class. We subsequently removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Illinois, where it is now pending. In November 2009, the federal court issued an order effectively vacating the state court’s class certification ruling and allowing plaintiffs time to file a renewed motion for class certification under the federal rules.

On March 15, 2006, the New York Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Index No. 06/401110) entitled The People of New York v. H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. et al. The complaint asserts nationwide jurisdiction and alleges fraudulent business practices, deceptive acts and practices, common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the Express IRA product and seeks equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and restitution, civil penalties and punitive damages. In July 2007, the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a ruling that dismissed all defendants other than H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. (HRBFA) and the claims of common law fraud. The intermediate appellate court reversed this ruling in January 2009. The amount claimed in this case is substantial. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intend to defend this case vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled In re H&R Block Securities Litigation (CaseNo. 06-0236-CV-W-ODS)was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The complaint sought unspecified damages and equitable relief. The court dismissed the complaint in February 2008, and the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal in March 2008.

In addition, plaintiffs in a shareholder derivative action that was consolidated into the securities litigation filed a separate appeal in March 2008, contending that the derivative action was improperly consolidated. The derivative action is Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. H&R Block, et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, CaseNo. 06-cv-00466-ODS(instituted on June 8, 2006) and was brought against certain of our directors and officers purportedly on behalf of the Company. The derivative action alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste, and unjust enrichment pertaining to (1) our restatement of financial results in fiscal year 2006 due to errors in determining our state effective income tax rate and (2) certain of our products and business activities. In September 2009, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the securities fraud class action, but reversed the dismissal of the shareholder derivative action. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in the shareholder derivative action and intend to defend the action vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to its outcome.

RSM EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006 and entitled Do Right’s Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange County. The complaint contains allegations relating to business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, including allegations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on all claims. The defendants filed two requests for interlocutory review of the decision, the last of which was denied by the Supreme Court of California on September 30, 2009. A trial date has been set for January 2011.

Although mortgage loan origination activities were terminated and the loan servicing business was sold during fiscal year 2008, SCC remains subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities that occurred prior to such termination and sale. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, municipalities, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated. Among other things, these investigations, claims and lawsuits allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination and servicing practices, public nuisance, fraud, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. In the current non-prime mortgage environment, the number of these investigations, claims and lawsuits has increased over historical experience and is likely to continue at increased levels. The amounts claimed in these investigations, claims and lawsuits are substantial in some instances, and the ultimate resulting liability is difficult to predict. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amounts SCC may be required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could be substantial and, because SCC’s operating results are included in our consolidated financial statements, could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations.

We are from time to time party to investigations, claims and lawsuits not discussed herein arising out of our business operations. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others similarly situated. Some of these investigations, claims and lawsuits pertain to RALs, the electronic filing of customers’ income tax returns, the POM guarantee program, wage and hour claims and investment products. We believe we have meritorious defenses to each of these investigations, claims and lawsuits, and we are defending or intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances, however the ultimate liability with respect to such matters is difficult to predict. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, the amounts we may be required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations.

“Other Claims”) concerning the preparation of customers’ income tax returns, the fees charged customers for various products and services, relationships with franchisees, intellectual property disputes, employment matters and contract disputes. While we cannot provide assurance that we will ultimately prevail in each instance, we believe the amount, if any, we are required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements in these Other Claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results.

Results of our continuing operations by reportable operating segment are as follows:

In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update2009-13,“Revenue Recognition (Topic 605) – Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements” (ASU2009-13).This guidance amends the criteria for separating consideration in multiple-deliverable arrangements to enable vendors to account for products or services (deliverables) separately rather than as a combined unit. This guidance establishes a selling price hierarchy for determining the selling price of a deliverable, which is based on: (1) vendor-specific objective evidence; (2) third-party evidence; or (3) estimates. This guidance also eliminates the residual method of allocation and requires that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method. In addition, this guidance significantly expands required disclosures related to a vendor’s multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. This guidance is effective prospectively for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified beginning with our fiscal year 2012. We are currently evaluating the effect of this statement on our consolidated financial statements.

BFC is an indirect, wholly-owned consolidated subsidiary of the Company. BFC is the Issuer and the Company is the Guarantor of the Senior Notes issued on January 11, 2008 and October 26, 2004, our unsecured committed lines of credit (CLOCs) and other indebtedness issued from time to time. These condensed consolidating financial statements have been prepared using the equity method of accounting. Earnings of subsidiaries are, therefore, reflected in the Company’s investment in subsidiaries account. The elimination entries eliminate investments in subsidiaries, related stockholders’ equity and other intercompany balances and transactions.