H&R BLOCK INC - Annual Report: 2010 (Form 10-K)

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

Commission file number 1-6089

 

H&R Block, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

One H&R Block Way, Kansas City, Missouri 64105

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

 

(816) 854-3000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, without par value

(Title of Class)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No o

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ

 

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock (all voting stock) held by non-affiliates of the registrant, computed by reference to the price at which the stock was sold on October 31, 2009, was $6,250,540,705.

 

Number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, without par value, outstanding on May 31, 2010: 323,306,058.

 

Documents incorporated by reference

 

The definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be held September 30, 2010, is incorporated by reference in Part III to the extent described therein.

 

 

2010 FORM 10-K AND ANNUAL REPORT

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION AND FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Specified portions of our proxy statement are listed as “incorporated by reference” in response to certain items. Our proxy statement will be made available to shareholders in August 2010, and will also be available on our website at www.hrblock.com.

This report and other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may contain forward-looking statements. In addition, our senior management may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the media and others. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “will,” “would,” “should,” “could” or “may.” Forward-looking statements provide management’s current expectations or predictions of future conditions, events or results. They may include projections of revenues, income, earnings per share, capital expenditures, dividends, liquidity, capital structure or other financial items, descriptions of management’s plans or objectives for future operations, products or services, or descriptions of assumptions underlying any of the above. They are not guarantees of future performance. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. These statements speak only as of the date they are made and management does not undertake to update them to reflect changes or events occurring after that date except as required by federal securities laws.

 

 

 

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

 

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS

H&R Block has subsidiaries that provide tax, banking and business and consulting services. Our Tax Services segment provides income tax return preparation, electronic filing and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, and also in Canada and Australia. This segment also offers the H&R Block Prepaid Emerald MasterCard^® and Emerald Advance lines of credit through H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank), along with other retail banking services. Our Business Services segment consists of RSM McGladrey, Inc. (RSM), a national tax and consulting firm primarily serving mid-sized businesses. Corporate operations include interest income from U.S. passive investments, interest expense on borrowings, net interest margin and gains or losses relating to mortgage loans held for investment, real estate owned, residual interests in securitizations and other corporate expenses, principally related to finance, legal and other support departments.

H&R Block, Inc. was organized as a corporation in 1955 under the laws of the State of Missouri. “H&R Block,” “the Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” are used interchangeably to refer to H&R Block, Inc. or to H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries, as appropriate to the context. A complete list of our subsidiaries can be found in Exhibit 21.

  NEW DEVELOPMENTS – In May 2010 we announced plans to realign field and support organizations. The realignment included approximately 400 staff reductions and 400 office closures. Associated severance benefits were recorded primarily during the first fiscal quarter of 2011 and totaled approximately $19 million. There were no significant costs incurred in connection with announced office closures.

During fiscal year 2010, we entered into a new unsecured committed line of credit (CLOC) agreement to support commercial paper issuances, general corporate purposes and for working capital needs. The new facility provides funding up to $1.7 billion and matures July 31, 2013. This facility replaced our existing CLOCs, which were set to mature in August 2010. See additional discussion in Item 8, note 10 to the consolidated financial statements.

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

Effective February 3, 2010, RSM and M&P entered into new agreements related to the operation of the APS. See additional discussion of the new agreements in Item 8, note 17.

Effective May 1, 2009, we realigned certain segments of our business to reflect a new management reporting structure. The operations of HRB Bank, which was previously reported as the Consumer Financial Services segment, have now been reclassified, with activities that support our retail tax network included in the Tax Services segment, and the net interest margin and gains and losses relating to our portfolio of mortgage loans held for investment and related assets included in the corporate segment. Presentation of prior period results reflects the new segment reporting structure.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  1

 

 

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT INDUSTRY SEGMENTS

See discussion below and in Item 8, note 21 to our consolidated financial statements.

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

 

TAX SERVICES

GENERAL – Our Tax Services segment is primarily engaged in providing tax return preparation and related services and products in the U.S. and its territories, Canada and Australia. Major revenue sources include fees earned for tax preparation services performed at company-owned retail tax offices, royalties from franchise retail tax offices, fees for tax-related services, sales of tax preparation and other software, online tax preparation fees, participation in refund anticipation loans (RALs), refund anticipation checks (RACs), fees from activities related to H&R Block Prepaid Emerald MasterCard^®, and interest and fees from Emerald Advance lines of credit. HRB Bank also offers traditional banking services including checking and savings accounts, individual retirement accounts and certificates of deposit. Segment revenues constituted 76.8% of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations for fiscal year 2010, 76.7% for 2009 and 74.9% for 2008.

Retail income tax return preparation and related services are provided by tax professionals via a system of retail offices operated directly by us or by franchisees. We also offer our services through seasonal offices located inside major retailers.

TAX RETURNS PREPARED – We, together with our franchisees, prepared approximately 23.2 million tax returns worldwide during fiscal year 2010, compared to 23.9 million in 2009 and 24.6 million in 2008. We prepared 20.1 million tax returns in the U.S. during fiscal year 2010, down from 21.0 million in 2009 and 21.8 million in 2008. Our U.S. tax returns prepared, including those prepared by our franchisees and those prepared and filed at no charge, for the 2010 tax season constituted 15.6% of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimate of total individual income tax returns filed during the fiscal year 2010 tax season. This compares to 15.8% in the 2009 tax season and 16.2% in the 2008 tax season, excluding tax returns filed as a result of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Stimulus Act). See Item 7 for further discussion of changes in the number of tax returns prepared.

FRANCHISES – We offer franchises as a way to expand our presence in certain markets. Our franchise arrangements provide us with certain rights designed to protect our brand. Most of our franchisees receive use of our software, access to product offerings and expertise, signs, specialized forms, local advertising, initial training and supervisory services, and pay us a percentage, typically approximately 30%, of gross tax return preparation and related service revenues as a franchise royalty.

During fiscal years 2010 and 2009 we sold certain offices to existing franchisees for sales proceeds totaling $65.7 million and $16.9 million, respectively. The net gain on these transactions totaled $49.0 million and $14.9 million in fiscal years 2010 and 2009, respectively. The extent to which we sell company-owned offices will depend upon ongoing analysis regarding the optimal mix of offices for our network, including geographic location, as well as our ability to identify qualified franchisees.

From time to time, we have also acquired the territories of existing franchisees and other tax return preparation businesses, and may continue to do so if future conditions warrant and satisfactory terms can be negotiated. During fiscal year 2009, we acquired the assets and franchise rights of our last major independent franchise operator for an aggregate purchase price of $279.2 million.

OFFICES – A summary of our company-owned and franchise offices is as follows:

 

2   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

 

We sold 267 company-owned offices to franchisees in fiscal year 2010 and 76 offices in fiscal year 2009. Additionally, we closed more than 1,700 offices in fiscal year 2010, including over 1,000 offices in Wal-Mart stores.

The acquisition of our last major independent franchise operator in fiscal year 2009 included a network of over 600 tax offices, nearly two-thirds of which converted to company-owned offices upon the closing of the transaction, as reflected in the table above.

Offices in shared locations at April 30, 2010 consist primarily of offices in Sears stores operated as “H&R Block at Sears.” The Sears license agreement expires in July 2010. Offices in shared locations at April 30, 2009 and 2008 included offices in Wal-Mart stores. The Wal-Mart agreement expired in May 2009.

SERVICE AND PRODUCT OFFERINGS – In addition to our retail offices, we offer a number of digital tax preparation alternatives. By offering professional and do-it-yourself tax preparation options through multiple channels, we seek to serve our clients in the manner they choose to be served.

We also offer clients a number of options for receiving their income tax refund, including a check directly from the IRS, an electronic deposit directly to their bank account, a prepaid debit card, a RAC or a RAL.

Software Products. We develop and market H&R Block At Home^tm income tax preparation software. H&R Block At Home^tm offers a simple step-by-step tax preparation interview, data imports from money management software and tax preparation software, calculations, completion of the appropriate tax forms, error checking and electronic filing. Our software products may be purchased through third-party retail stores, direct mail or online.

Online Tax Preparation. We offer a comprehensive range of online tax services, from tax advice to complete professional and do-it-yourself tax return preparation and electronic filing, through our website at www.hrblock.com. This website allows clients to prepare their federal and state income tax returns using the H&R Block At Home^tm Online Tax Program, access tax tips, advice and tax-related news and use calculators for tax planning.

We participate in the Free File Alliance (FFA). This alliance was created by the tax return preparation industry and the IRS, and allows qualified filers with adjusted gross incomes less than $57,000 to prepare and file their federal return online at no charge. We feel this program provides a valuable public service and increases our visibility with new clients, while also providing an opportunity to offer our state return preparation and other services to these clients.

RALs. RALs are offered to our U.S. clients by a designated bank primarily through a contractual relationship with HSBC Holdings plc (HSBC). An eligible, electronic filing client may apply for a RAL at one of our offices. After meeting certain eligibility criteria, clients are offered the opportunity to apply for a loan from HSBC in amounts up to $9,999 based on their anticipated federal income tax refund. We simultaneously transmit the income tax return information to the IRS and the lending bank. Within a few days after the filing date, the client receives a check, direct deposit or prepaid debit card in the amount of the loan, less the bank’s transaction fee, our tax return preparation fee and other fees for client-selected services. Additionally, qualifying electronic filing clients are eligible to receive their RAL proceeds, less applicable fees, in approximately one hour after electronic filing using the Instant Money service. A RAL is repaid when the IRS directly deposits the participating client’s federal income tax refund into a designated account at the lending bank. See related discussion in “Loan Participations” below.

RACs. Refund Anticipation Checks are offered to U.S. clients who would like to either: (1) receive their refund faster and do not have a bank account for the IRS to direct deposit their refund; (2) have their tax preparation fees paid directly out of their refund; or (3) receive their refund faster but do not qualify for a RAL under the existing credit criteria. A RAC is not a loan and is provided through a contractual relationship with HSBC.

Peace of Mind (POM) Guarantee. The POM guarantee is offered to U.S. clients, in addition to our standard guarantee, whereby we (1) represent our clients if audited by the IRS, and (2) assume the cost, subject to certain limits, of additional taxes owed by a client resulting from errors attributable to one of our tax professionals’ work. The POM program has a per client cumulative limit of $5,000 in additional taxes assessed with respect to the federal, state and local tax returns we prepared for the taxable year covered by the program.

Emerald Advance Lines of Credit. Emerald Advance lines of credit are offered to clients in tax offices from late November through early January, currently in an amount not to exceed $1,000. If the borrower meets certain criteria as agreed in the loan terms, the line of credit can be increased and utilized year-round. These lines of credit are offered by HRB Bank.

H&R Block Prepaid Emerald Mastercard^®. The H&R Block Prepaid Emerald MasterCard^® allows a client to receive a tax refund from the IRS directly on a prepaid debit card, or to direct RAL or RAC proceeds to the card to avoid high-cost check-cashing fees. The card can be used for everyday purchases, bill payments and ATM withdrawals anywhere MasterCard^® is accepted. Additional funds can be added to the card account year-round

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  3

through direct deposit or at participating retail locations. The H&R Block Prepaid Emerald MasterCard^® is issued by HRB Bank.

Tax Return Preparation Courses. We offer income tax return preparation courses to the public, which teach students how to prepare income tax returns and provide us with a source of trained tax professionals.

CashBack Program. We offer a refund discount (CashBack) program to our customers in Canada. In accordance with current Canadian regulations, if a customer’s tax return indicates the customer is entitled to a tax refund, we issue a check to the client in the amount of the refund, less a discount. The client assigns to us the full amount of the tax refund to be issued by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the refund check is then sent by the CRA directly to us. In accordance with the law, the discount is deemed to include both the tax return preparation fee and the fee for tax refund discounting. This program is financed by short-term borrowings. The number of returns discounted under the CashBack program in fiscal year 2010 was approximately 797,000, compared to 782,000 in 2009 and 749,000 in 2008.

LOAN PARTICIPATIONS – Since July 1996, we have been a party to agreements with HSBC and its predecessors to participate in RALs provided by a lending bank to H&R Block tax clients. During fiscal year 2006, we signed new agreements with HSBC in which we obtained the right to purchase a 49.9% participation interest in all RALs obtained through our retail offices. We received a signing bonus from HSBC during fiscal year 2006 in connection with these agreements, which was recorded as deferred revenue and is earned over the contract term. These agreements are effective through June 2011 and we have the right to extend through 2013. Our purchases of the participation interests are financed through short-term borrowings and we bear all of the credit risk associated with our participation interests. Revenue from our participation is calculated as the rate of participation multiplied by the fee paid by the borrower to the lending bank. Our RAL participation revenue was $146.2 million, $139.8 million and $190.2 million in fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

SEASONALITY OF BUSINESS – Because most of our clients file their tax returns during the period from January through April of each year, substantially all of our revenues from income tax return preparation and related services and products are received during this period. As a result, this segment generally operates at a loss through the first eight months of the fiscal year. Peak revenues occur during the applicable tax season, as follows:

 

 

HRB Bank’s operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations primarily related to the offering of the H&R Block Prepaid Emerald MasterCard^® and Emerald Advance lines of credit, and therefore peak in January and February and taper off through the remainder of the tax season.

COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS – The retail tax services business is highly competitive. There are a substantial number of tax return preparation firms and accounting firms offering tax return preparation services. Many tax return preparation firms and many firms not otherwise in the tax return preparation business are involved in providing electronic filing and RAL services to the public. Commercial tax return preparers and electronic filers are highly competitive with regard to price and service. In terms of the number of offices and personal tax returns prepared and electronically filed in offices, online and via our software, we are one of the largest providers of direct tax return preparation and electronic filing services in the U.S. We also believe we operate the largest tax return preparation businesses in Canada and Australia.

Our digital tax solutions businesses compete with a number of companies. Intuit, Inc. is the largest supplier of tax preparation software and online tax preparation services. There are many smaller competitors in the online market, as well as free state-sponsored online filing programs. Price and marketing competition for digital tax preparation services is increasing, including offers of free tax preparation services.

HRB Bank provides banking services primarily to our tax clients, both retail and digital, and for many of these clients, HRB Bank is the only provider of banking services. HRB Bank does not seek to compete broadly with regional or national retail banks.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION – Federal legislation requires income tax return preparers to, among other things, set forth their signatures and identification numbers on all tax returns prepared by them and retain all tax returns prepared by them for three years. Federal laws also subject income tax return preparers to accuracy-related penalties in connection with the preparation of income tax returns. Preparers may be prohibited from further acting as income tax return preparers if they continuously and repeatedly engage in specified misconduct.

The federal government regulates the electronic filing of income tax returns in part by requiring electronic filers to comply with all publications and notices of the IRS applicable to electronic filing. We are required to provide certain electronic filing information to the taxpayer and comply with advertising standards for electronic filers. We are also subject to possible monitoring by the IRS, penalties for improper disclosure or use of income tax return preparation, other preparer penalties and suspension from the electronic filing program.

4   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and related Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations require income tax preparers to adopt and disclose consumer privacy policies, and provide consumers a reasonable opportunity to “opt-out” of having personal information disclosed to unaffiliated third-parties for marketing purposes. Some states have adopted or proposed strict “opt-in” requirements in connection with use or disclosure of consumer information. In addition, the IRS generally prohibits the use or disclosure by tax return preparers of taxpayer information without the prior written consent of the taxpayer.

Federal statutes and regulations also regulate an electronic filer’s involvement in RALs. Electronic filers must clearly explain the RAL is a loan and not a substitute for or a quicker way of receiving an income tax refund. Federal laws place restrictions on the fees an electronic filer may charge in connection with RALs. In addition, some states and localities have enacted laws and adopted regulations for RAL facilitators and/or the advertising of RALs.

Certain states have regulations and requirements relating to offering income tax courses. These requirements include licensing, bonding and certain restrictions on advertising.

The IRS published proposed amendments on March 26, 2010 that, if finalized, would: (1) require all tax return preparers to use a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) as their identifying number on federal tax returns filed after December 31, 2010; (2) require all tax return preparers to be authorized to practice before the IRS as a prerequisite to obtaining or renewing a PTIN; (3) cause all currently issued PTINs to expire on December 31, 2010 unless properly renewed; (4) allow the IRS to conduct tax compliance checks on tax return preparers; and (5) define the individuals who are considered “tax return preparers” for the PTIN requirement. Additionally, it is expected that five other proposed regulations will be released in calendar year 2010. These would propose to: (1) establish instructions for tax return preparers related to legislative e-file mandate requirements; (2) set the amount of the PTIN user registration fee; (3) establish a new class of practitioners who are authorized to practice before the IRS under Circular 230 called “registered tax return preparers” and require them to pass a competency examination as a prerequisite to becoming a registered tax return preparer, complete annual continuing professional education requirements, and comply with ethical standards; (4) set the amount of a sponsor fee for qualified continuing professional education sponsors; and (5) set the amount of a competency examination user fee.

As noted above under “Offices,” many of the income tax return preparation offices operating in the U.S. under the name “H&R Block” are operated by franchisees. Our franchising activities are subject to the rules and regulations of the FTC and various state laws regulating the offer and sale of franchises. The FTC and various state laws require us to furnish to prospective franchisees a franchise offering circular containing prescribed information. A number of states in which we are currently franchising regulate the sale of franchises and require registration of the franchise offering circular with state authorities and the delivery of a franchise offering circular to prospective franchisees. We are currently operating under exemptions from registration in several of these states based on our net worth and experience. Substantive state laws regulating the franchisor/franchisee relationship presently exist in a substantial number of states, and bills have been introduced in Congress from time to time that would provide for federal regulation of the franchisor/franchisee relationship in certain respects. The state laws often limit, among other things, the duration and scope of non-competition provisions, the ability of a franchisor to terminate or refuse to renew a franchise and the ability of a franchisor to designate sources of supply. From time to time, we may make appropriate amendments to our franchise offering circular to comply with our disclosure obligations under federal and state law.

We also seek to determine the applicability of all government and self-regulatory organization statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations in the other countries in which we operate (collectively, Foreign Laws) and to comply with these Foreign Laws. In addition, the Canadian government regulates the refund-discounting program in Canada. These laws have not materially affected our international operations.

HRB Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). All savings associations are subject to the capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. HRB Bank must meet specific capital guidelines involving quantitative measures of HRB Bank’s assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. HRB Bank’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk-weightings and other factors. As a savings and loan holding company, H&R Block, Inc. is also subject to regulation by the OTS.

See Item 7, “Regulatory Environment” and Item 8, note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of regulatory requirements.

See discussion in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” for additional information.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  5

 

 

BUSINESS SERVICES

GENERAL – Our Business Services segment offers tax and consulting services, wealth management and capital markets services to middle-market companies. Segment revenues constituted 22.2% of our consolidated revenues from continuing operations for fiscal year 2010, 22.0% for fiscal year 2009 and 23.0% for fiscal year 2008.  

This segment consists primarily of RSM, which provides tax and consulting services in 88 cities and 26 states and offers services in 20 of the 25 top U.S. markets.

From time to time, we have acquired related businesses and may continue to do so if future conditions warrant and satisfactory terms can be negotiated.

ALTERNATIVE PRACTICE STRUCTURE WITH McGLADREY & PULLEN LLP – M&P is a limited liability partnership, owned 100% by certified public accountants (CPAs), which provides attest services to middle-market clients.

Under state accountancy regulations, a firm cannot provide attest services unless it is majority-owned and controlled by licensed CPAs. As such, RSM is unable to provide attest services. Since 1999, RSM and M&P have operated in what is known as an “alternative practice structure” (APS). Through the APS, RSM and M&P are able to offer clients a full-range of attest and non-attest services in full compliance with applicable accountancy regulations.

An administrative services agreement between RSM and M&P obligates RSM to provide M&P with administrative services, information technology, office space, non-professional staff, and other infrastructure in exchange for market rate fees from M&P.

On July 21, 2009, M&P provided 210 days notice of its intent to terminate the administrative services agreement, resulting in termination of the APS unless revoked or modified prior to the expiration of the notice period. As a protective measure, on September 15, 2009, RSM also provided notice of its intent to terminate the administrative services agreement. Effective February 3, 2010, RSM and M&P entered into new agreements related to the operation of the APS, withdrawing their prior notices of termination.

Pursuant to a Governance and Operations Agreement effective February 3, 2010, RSM and M&P agreed to be bound by the final award of an arbitration panel, dated as of November 24, 2009, regarding the applicability and enforceability of certain restrictive covenants between the parties. In the event the APS were ever terminated, M&P would generally be prohibited as a result of these restrictive covenants, from (1) engaging in businesses in which RSM operates in for 17 months, (2) soliciting any business with clients or potential clients of RSM or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates for 29 months, and (3) soliciting employees of RSM or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates for 24 months.

Although not required by the Governance and Operations Agreement, all partners of M&P, with the exception of M&P’s Managing Partner, are also managing directors employed by RSM. Approximately 86% of RSM’s managing directors are also partners in M&P. Certain other personnel are also employed by both M&P and RSM. M&P partners receive distributions from M&P in their capacity as partners, as well as compensation from RSM in their capacity as managing directors. Distributions to M&P partners are based on the profitability of M&P and are not capped by this arrangement. Pursuant to the Governance and Operations Agreement, effective May 1, 2010, the aggregate compensation payable to RSM managing directors by RSM in any given year shall generally equal 67 percent of the combined profits of M&P and RSM less any amounts paid in their capacity as M&P partners. RSM followed a similar practice historically, except that the compensation pool for managing directors was based on 65 percent of combined profits. In practice, this means that variability in the amounts paid to RSM managing directors under these contracts can cause variability in RSM’s operating results. RSM is not entitled to any profits or residual interests of M&P, nor is it obligated to fund losses or capital deficiencies of M&P. Managing directors of RSM have historically participated in stock-based compensation plans of H&R Block. Beginning in fiscal 2011, participation in those plans will cease and be replaced by a non-qualified retirement plan.

See additional discussion in Item 8, note 17 to the consolidated financial statements.

SEASONALITY OF BUSINESS – Revenues for this segment are largely seasonal in nature, with peak revenues occurring during January through April.

COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS – The tax and consulting business is highly competitive. The principal methods of competition are price, service and reputation for quality. There are a substantial number of accounting firms offering similar services at the international, national, regional and local levels. As our focus is on middle-market businesses, our principal competition is with national and regional accounting firms.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION – Many of the same federal and state regulations relating to tax preparers and the information concerning tax reform and tax preparer registration discussed previously in Tax Services apply to the Business Services segment as well. RSM is not, and is not eligible to be, a licensed public accounting firm and takes measures to ensure that it does not provide services prohibited by regulation, such as attest services. RSM, through

6   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

its subsidiaries, provides capital markets and wealth management services and is subject to state and federal regulations governing investment advisors and securities brokers and dealers.

M&P and other accounting firms (collectively, the “Attest Firms”) operate in an alternative practice structure with RSM. Auditor independence rules of the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and various states apply to the Attest Firms as public accounting firms. In applying its auditor independence rules, the SEC views us and the Attest Firms as a single entity and requires that the SEC independence rules for the Attest Firms apply to us and requires us to be independent of any SEC audit client of the Attest Firms. The SEC regards any financial interest or prohibited business relationship we have with a client of the Attest Firms as a financial interest or prohibited business relationship between the Attest Firms and the client for purposes of applying its auditor independence rules.

We and the Attest Firms have jointly developed and implemented policies, procedures and controls designed to ensure the Attest Firms’ independence as audit firms complying with applicable SEC regulations and professional responsibilities. These policies, procedures and controls are designed to monitor and prevent violations of applicable independence rules and include, among other things: (1) informing our officers, directors and other members of senior management concerning auditor independence matters; (2) procedures for monitoring securities ownership; (3) communicating with SEC audit clients regarding the SEC’s interpretation and application of relevant independence rules and guidelines; and (4) requiring RSM employees to comply with the Attest Firms’ independence and relationship policies (including the Attest Firms’ independence compliance questionnaire procedures).

See discussion in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” for additional information.

 

 

SERVICE MARKS, TRADEMARKS AND PATENTS

We have made a practice of selling our services and products under service marks and trademarks and of obtaining protection for these by all available means. Our service marks and trademarks are protected by registration in the U.S. and other countries where our services and products are marketed. We consider these service marks and trademarks, in the aggregate, to be of material importance to our business, particularly our business segments providing services and products under the “H&R Block” brand.

We have no registered patents material to our business.

 

 

EMPLOYEES

We have approximately 7,700 regular full-time employees as of April 30, 2010. The highest number of persons we employed during the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010, including seasonal employees, was approximately 110,400.

 

 

AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS AND OTHER INFORMATION

Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC are available, free of charge, through our website at www.hrblock.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. The public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov containing reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers who file electronically with the SEC.

Copies of the following corporate governance documents are posted on our website:

If you would like a printed copy of any of these corporate governance documents, please send your request to the Office of the Secretary, H&R Block, Inc., One H&R Block Way, Kansas City, Missouri 64105.

Information contained on our website does not constitute any part of this report.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  7

 

 

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

An investment in our common stock involves risk, including the risk that the value of an investment may decline or that returns on that investment may fall below expectations. There are a number of significant factors which could cause actual conditions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, many of which are beyond management’s control or its ability to accurately forecast or predict, or could adversely affect our operating results and the value of any investment in our stock. Other factors besides those listed below or discussed in reports filed with the SEC could adversely affect our results.

 

Our businesses may be adversely affected by economic conditions generally, including the current economic recession and lower employment levels.

Due in part to poor economic conditions and high unemployment, U.S. tax returns prepared by us declined 1.0 million and 0.7 million in fiscal years 2010 and 2009, respectively.

An economic recession as we are currently experiencing, is frequently characterized by lower employment and declining consumer and business spending. Poor economic conditions may negatively affect demand and pricing for our services. Lower employment levels, especially within client segments we serve, may result in clients no longer being required to file tax returns, electing not to file tax returns, or clients seeking lower cost preparation and filing alternatives. Continued lower employment levels may negatively impact our ability to increase tax preparation clients.

In addition, the downturn in the residential housing market and increase in mortgage defaults has negatively impacted our operating results and may continue to do so. An economic recession will likely reduce the ability of our borrowers to repay mortgage loans, and declining home values could increase the severity of loss we may incur in the event of default. In addition to mortgage loans, we also extend secured and unsecured credit to other customers, including RALs and Emerald Advance lines of credit to our tax clients. We may incur significant losses on credit we extend, which in turn could reduce our profitability.

 

Our access to liquidity may be negatively impacted if disruptions in credit markets occur, if credit rating downgrades occur or if we fail to meet certain covenants. Funding costs may increase, leading to reduced earnings.

We need liquidity to meet our off-season working capital requirements, to service debt obligations including refinancing of maturing obligations, to purchase RAL participations and for other related activities. Although we believe we have sufficient liquidity to meet our current needs, our access to and the cost of liquidity could be negatively impacted in the event of credit-rating downgrades or if we fail to meet existing debt covenants. In addition, events could occur which could increase our need for liquidity above current levels.

If rating agencies downgrade our credit rating, the cost of debt would likely increase and capital market access could decrease or become unavailable. Our CLOC is subject to various covenants, including a covenant requiring that we maintain minimum net worth equal to $650.0 million and a requirement that we reduce the aggregate outstanding principal amount of short-term debt (as defined) to $200.0 million or less for a minimum period of thirty consecutive days during the period from March 1 to June 30 of each year. Violation of a covenant could impair our access to liquidity currently available through the CLOC. If current sources of liquidity were to become unavailable, we would need to obtain additional sources of funding, which may not be possible or may be available under less favorable terms.

 

The lines of business in which we operate face substantial litigation, and such litigation may damage our reputation or result in material liabilities and losses.

We have been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation arising in connection with our various business activities. Adverse outcomes related to litigation could result in substantial damages and could cause our earnings to decline. Negative public opinion can also result from our actual or alleged conduct in such claims, possibly damaging our reputation and could cause the market price of our stock to decline. See Item 3, “Legal Proceedings” for additional information.

 

Failure to comply with laws and regulations that protect our customers’ personal and financial information could result in significant fines, penalties and damages and could harm our brand and reputation.

Privacy concerns relating to the disclosure of consumer financial information have drawn increased attention from federal and state governments. The IRS generally prohibits the use or disclosure by tax return preparers of taxpayers’ information without the prior written consent of the taxpayer. In addition, other regulations require financial service providers to adopt and disclose consumer privacy policies and provide consumers with a reasonable opportunity to “opt-out” of having personal information disclosed to unaffiliated third-parties for

8   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

marketing purposes. Although we have established security procedures to protect against identity theft, breaches of our clients’ privacy may occur. To the extent the measures we have taken prove to be insufficient or inadequate, we may become subject to litigation or administrative sanctions, which could result in significant fines, penalties or damages and harm to our brand and reputation.

In addition, changes in these federal and state regulatory requirements could result in more stringent requirements and could result in a need to change business practices, including how information is disclosed. Establishing systems and processes to achieve compliance with these new requirements may increase costs and/or limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities.

 

We are subject to operational risk and risks associated with our controls and procedures, which may result in incurring financial and reputational losses.

There is a risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes or systems, theft or fraud. These can occur in many forms including, among others, errors, business interruptions arising from natural disasters or other events, inadequate design and development of products and services, inappropriate behavior of or misconduct by our employees or those contracted to perform services for us, and vendors that do not perform in accordance with their contractual agreements. These events could potentially result in financial losses or other damages. We utilize internally developed processes, internal and external information and technological systems to manage our operations. We are exposed to risk of loss resulting from breaches in the security or other failures of these processes and systems. Our ability to recover or replace our major operational systems and processes could have a significant impact on our core business operations and increase our risk of loss due to disruptions of normal operating processes and procedures that may occur while re-establishing or implementing information and transaction systems and processes. As our businesses are seasonal, our systems must be capable of processing high volumes during peak season. Therefore, service interruptions resulting from system failures could negatively impact our ability to serve our customers, which in turn could damage our brand and reputation, or adversely impact our profitability.

We also face the risk that the design of our controls and procedures may prove to be inadequate or that our controls and procedures may be circumvented, thereby causing delays in detection of errors or inaccuracies in data and information. It is possible that any lapses in the effective operations of controls and procedures could materially affect earnings or harm our reputation. Lapses or deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting could also be material to us.

 

TAX SERVICES

 

Government initiatives that simplify tax return preparation could reduce the need for our services as a third-party tax return preparer. In addition, changes in government regulations or processes regarding the preparation and filing of tax returns may increase our operating costs or reduce our revenues.

Many taxpayers seek assistance from paid tax return preparers such as us because of the level of complexity involved in the tax return preparation and filing process. From time to time, government officials propose measures seeking to simplify the preparation and filing of tax returns or to provide additional assistance with respect to preparing and filing such tax returns. The adoption of any measures that significantly simplify tax return preparation or otherwise reduce the need for a third-party tax return preparer could reduce demand for our services, causing our revenues or results of operations to decline.

Governmental regulations and processes affect how we provide services to our clients. Changes in these regulations and processes may require us to make corresponding changes to our client service systems and procedures. The degree and timing of changes in governmental regulations and processes may impair our ability to serve our clients in an effective and cost-efficient manner or reduce demand for our services, causing our revenues or results of operations to decline.

 

Federal and state legislators and regulators have increasingly taken an active role in regulating financial products such as RALs. In addition, we are dependent on third-party financial institutions to provide certain of these financial products to our clients and these institutions could cease or significantly reduce the offering of such products. These trends or potential developments could impede our ability to facilitate these financial products, reduce demand for our services and harm our business.

Changes in government regulation related to RALs could prohibit or limit the offering of RALs to our clients or our ability to purchase participation interests. In addition, third-party financial institutions currently originating RALs and similar products could decide to cease or significantly limit such offerings and related collection practices. Changes in IRS practices, including limitations on the availability of the IRS debt indicator, could impair our ability to limit our bad debt exposure. Changes in any of these, as well as possible litigation related to financial products offered through our distribution channels, may cause our revenues or profitability to decline. See discussion of RAL litigation in Item 3, “Legal Proceedings.” In addition to the loss of revenues and income directly attributable to

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  9

the RAL program, the inability to offer RALs could indirectly result in the loss of significant retail tax clients and associated tax preparation revenues, unless we were able to take mitigating actions.

RAL participation and related revenues totaled $146.2 million for the year ended April 30, 2010, representing 3.8% of consolidated revenues and contributed $89.5 million to the Tax Services segment’s pretax results. We prepared 20.1 million U.S. returns in fiscal year 2010, and of those clients 16.8% also purchased a RAL.

 

Increased competition for tax preparation clients in our retail offices and our online and software channels could adversely affect our current market share and profitability, and could limit our ability to grow our client base. Offers of free tax preparation services could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

The retail tax services business is highly competitive. There are a substantial number of tax return preparation firms and accounting firms offering tax return preparation services. Many tax return preparation firms and many firms not otherwise in the tax return preparation business are involved in providing electronic filing, RALs and other related services to the public. Commercial tax return preparers and electronic filers are highly competitive with regard to price and service. Our digital tax solutions businesses also compete with in-office tax preparation services and a number of online and software companies, primarily on the basis of price and functionality.

Federal and certain state taxing authorities currently offer, or facilitate the offer of, tax return preparation and electronic filing options to taxpayers at no charge. In addition, many of our direct competitors offer certain free online tax preparation and electronic filing options. We have free offerings as well and prepared approximately 810,000 federal income tax returns in fiscal year 2010 and 788,000 in fiscal year 2009 at no charge as part of the FFA. Government tax authorities and direct competitors may elect to expand free offerings in the future. Intense price competition, including offers of free service, could result in a loss of market share, lower revenues or lower margins.

See tax returns prepared statistics included in Item 7, under “Tax Services.”

 

We are subject to extensive government regulation, including banking rules and regulations. If we fail to comply with applicable banking laws, rules and regulations, we could be subject to disciplinary actions, damages, penalties or restrictions that could significantly harm our business.

The OTS can, among other things, censure, fine, issue cease-and-desist orders or suspend or expel a bank or any of its officers or employees with respect to banking activities. Similarly, the attorneys general of each state could bring legal action on behalf of the citizens of the various states to ensure compliance with local laws.

HRB Bank is subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the OTS. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements may trigger actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on HRB Bank. HRB Bank must meet specific capital guidelines involving quantitative measures of assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. A bank’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about the strength of components of its capital, risk-weightings of assets, off-balance sheet transactions and other factors. Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require HRB Bank to maintain minimum amounts and ratios of tangible equity, total risk-based capital and Tier 1 capital. In addition to these minimum ratio requirements, HRB Bank is required to continually maintain a 12.0% minimum leverage ratio.

See Item 8, note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of regulatory capital requirements and classifications.

 

Significant changes have been proposed relating to the regulation of financial institutions. Although the ultimate impact of pending proposals is uncertain at this time, increased regulation could impact operating activities of our bank.

Various legislative proposals have been made regarding changes in the regulation of financial institutions, including the Financial Regulatory Reform Plan. Prior proposals included legislation which would have empowered courts to modify the terms of mortgage loans including a reduction in the principal amount to reflect lower underlying property values.

Future changes in regulation could increase compliance requirements and operating costs of HRB Bank, and could potentially limit operating activities of the bank. Should proposals be enacted into law allowing government modification of mortgage loans, we could report losses on mortgage loans in excess of current levels. The availability of principal reductions or other mortgage loan modifications could make bankruptcy a more attractive option for troubled borrowers, leading to increased bankruptcy filings and accelerated defaults.

10   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

BUSINESS SERVICES

 

The RSM alternative practice structure involves relationships with Attest Firms that are subject to regulatory restrictions and other constraints. Failure to comply with these restrictions, or operational difficulties involving the Attest Firms, could damage our brand reputation, lead to reduced earnings and impair our investment in RSM.

RSM’s relationship with the Attest Firms requires compliance with applicable regulations regarding the practice of public accounting and auditor independence rules and requirements. Many of RSM’s clients are also clients of the Attest Firms. In addition, the relationship with the Attest Firms closely links our RSM McGladrey brand with the Attest Firms. If the Attest Firms were to encounter regulatory or independence issues pertaining to the alternative practice structure or if significant litigation arose involving the Attest Firms or their services, such developments could have an adverse effect on our brand reputation and our ability to realize the mutual benefits of our relationship. In addition, a significant judgment or settlement of a claim against an Attest Firm could (1) impair the Attest Firm’s, particularly M&P’s, ability to meet its payment obligations under various service arrangements with RSM, (2) impair the profitability of the APS, (3) impact RSM’s ability to attract and retain clients and quality professionals, (4) have a significant indirect adverse effect on RSM, as the Attest Firm partners are also RSM employees and (5) result in significant management distraction. This in turn could result in reduced revenue and earnings and, if sufficiently significant, impairment of our investment in RSM.

 

RSM receives a significant portion of its revenues from clients that are also clients of the Attest Firms. A termination of the alternative practice structure between RSM and the Attest Firms could result in a material loss of revenue to RSM and an impairment of our investment in RSM.

Under the alternative practice structure, RSM and the Attest Firms market their services and provide services to a significant number of common clients. RSM also provides operational and administrative support services to the Attest Firms, including information technology, office space, non-professional staff, and other infrastructure in exchange for market rate fees from M&P. If the RSM/Attest Firms relationship under the alternative practice structure were to be terminated, RSM could lose key employees and clients. In addition, RSM may not be able to recoup its costs associated with the infrastructure used to provide the operational and administrative support services to the Attest Firms. This in turn could result in reduced revenue, increased costs and reduced earnings and, if sufficiently significant, impairment of our investment in RSM.

 

OTHER

 

Economic conditions that negatively affect housing prices and the job market may result in deterioration in credit quality of our loan portfolio, and such deterioration could have a negative impact on our business and profitability.

The overall credit quality of mortgage loans held for investment is impacted by the strength of the U.S. economy and local economic conditions, including residential housing prices. Economic trends that negatively affect housing prices and the job market could result in deterioration in credit quality of our mortgage loan portfolio and a decline in the value of associated collateral. Future interest rate resets could also lead to increased delinquencies in our mortgage loans held for investment. Recent trends in the residential mortgage loan market reflect an increase in loan delinquencies and declining collateral values. As a result of similar trends in our loan portfolio, we recorded loan loss provisions totaling $47.8 million and $63.9 million during fiscal years 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Our loan portfolio is concentrated in the states of Florida, California, New York and Wisconsin, which represented 20%, 16%, 15% and 8%, respectively, of our total mortgage loans held for investment at April 30, 2010. No other state held more than 5% of our loan balances. If adverse trends in the residential mortgage loan market continue, particularly in geographic areas in which we own a greater concentration of mortgage loans, we could incur additional significant loan loss provisions.

Mortgage loans purchased from Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC) represent approximately 64% of total loans held for investment at April 30, 2010. These loans have experienced higher delinquency rates than other loans in our portfolio, and may expose us to greater risk of credit loss.

 

SCC is subject to potential litigation stemming from discontinued mortgage operations, which may result in significant financial losses.

Although SCC terminated its mortgage loan origination activities and sold its loan servicing business during fiscal year 2008, it remains subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities prior to such termination and sale. The costs involved in defending against and/or resolving these investigations, claims and lawsuits may be substantial in some instances and the ultimate resulting liability is difficult to predict. In the current non-prime mortgage environment, the number and frequency of investigations,

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  11

claims and lawsuits has increased over historical experience and is likely to continue at increased levels. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amount 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 subject to potential contingent liabilities related to loan repurchase obligations, which may result in significant financial losses.

SCC remains exposed to losses relating to mortgage loans it previously originated. Non-prime mortgage loans originated by SCC were sold either as whole-loan sales to single third-party buyers or in the form of a securitization.

SCC entered into indemnification agreements with third-parties relating to the mortgage loans transferred through such whole-loan sales or securitizations. In some instances, H&R Block, Inc. was required to guarantee SCC’s obligations. Obligations to repurchase loans or indemnify a third-party up to an agreed upon amount may arise from breaches of various representations and warranties SCC made under such indemnification agreements. These representations and warranties vary based on the nature of the transaction and the buyer’s requirements but generally pertain to the ownership of the loan, the property securing the loan and compliance with applicable laws and SCC underwriting guidelines. These representations and warranties and corresponding repurchase obligations generally are not subject to stated limits or a stated term.

SCC records a liability for contingent losses relating to representation and warranty claims by estimating loan repurchase volumes and indemnification obligations for both known claims and projections of expected future claims. To the extent that future valid claim volumes exceed current estimates, or the value of mortgage loans and residential home prices decline, future losses may be greater than these estimates and those differences may be significant.

 

 

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

 

 

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Most of our tax offices, except those in shared locations, are operated under leases throughout the U.S. Our Canadian executive offices are located in a leased office in Calgary, Alberta. Our Canadian tax offices are operated under leases throughout Canada. HRB Bank is headquartered and its single branch location is located in our corporate headquarters.

RSM’s executive offices are located in leased offices in Bloomington, Minnesota. Its administrative offices are located in leased offices in Davenport, Iowa. RSM also leases office space throughout the U.S.

We own our corporate headquarters, which is located in Kansas City, Missouri. All current leased and owned facilities are in good repair and adequate to meet our needs.

 

 

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The information below should be read in conjunction with the information included in Item 8, note 18 to our consolidated financial statements.

RAL LITIGATION – We have been named in multiple lawsuits as defendants in litigation regarding our refund anticipation loan program in past years. All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise resolved, except for one.

The sole remaining case is a putative class action styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The plaintiffs allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the RAL product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in December 2003. The trial court’s decertification decision is currently on appeal. We believe we have meritorious defenses to this case and intend to defend it vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

PEACE OF MIND LITIGATION – 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.

12   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-591 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is a putative class action case originally filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois on January 18, 2002. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes (1) statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license, (2) an unfair trade practice, by omission and by “cramming” (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though they did not request it or want it), and (3) a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Madison County court ultimately certified a class consisting of all persons residing in 13 states who paid a separate fee for POM from January 1, 1997 to the date of a final judgment from the court. 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. Plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification seeking certification of an 11-state class. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion occurred in April 2010 and the parties are awaiting a ruling. A trial date has been set for November 2010.

There is one other putative class action pending against us in Texas that involves the POM guarantee. This case, styled Desiri L. Soliz v. H&R Block, et al. (Cause No. 03-032-D), was filed on January 23, 2003 in the District Court of Kleberg County, Texas. This case involves the same plaintiffs’ attorneys that are involved in the Marshall litigation in Illinois and contains allegations similar to those in the Marshall litigation. The plaintiff seeks actual and treble damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. No class has been certified in this case.

We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in the POM Cases, and we intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in the POM Cases are substantial, however, and there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these pending actions or their impact on our consolidated results of operations, individually or in the aggregate.

EXPRESS IRA LITIGATION – 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) styled 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. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, we reached an agreement to settle this case and the civil actions described below. Details regarding the settlement are below.

Subsequent to the filing of the New York Attorney General action, a number of civil actions were filed against HRBFA and us concerning the Express IRA product, the first of which was filed on March 15, 2006. Except for two cases pending in state court, all of the civil actions were consolidated by the panel for Multi-District Litigation into a single action styled In re H&R Block, Inc. Express IRA Marketing Litigation (Case No. 06-1786-MD-RED) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, we reached an agreement to settle these cases and the New York Attorney General action. The federal court presiding over the Multi-District Litigation approved the settlement in a final fairness hearing and dismissed its underlying actions with prejudice on May 17, 2010. Stipulations of dismissal were subsequently filed in the two cases pending in state court. The settlement requires a minimum payment of $11.4 million and a maximum payment of $25.4 million. The actual cost of the settlement will depend on the number of claims submitted by class members, which are due no later than July 30, 2010. We previously recorded a liability for our best estimate of the expected loss.

On January 2, 2008, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi First Judicial District (Case No. G 2008 6 S 2) styled Jim Hood, Attorney for the State of Mississippi v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges fraudulent business practices, deceptive acts and practices, common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the sale of the Express IRA product in Mississippi and seeks equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and restitution, civil penalties and punitive damages. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and we intend to defend this case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

Although we sold HRBFA effective November 1, 2008, we remain responsible for any liabilities relating to the Express IRA litigation through an indemnification agreement.

SECURITIES AND SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION – On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled In re H&R Block Securities Litigation (Case No. 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.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  13

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, Case No. 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. In September 2009, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the securities fraud class action, but reversed the dismissal of the shareholder derivative action. The plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative action subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss their complaint; an order dismissing their complaint was entered on April 19, 2010, thereby ending this litigation.

RSM McGLADREY LITIGATION – RSM EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006 and styled 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.

The certified class consists of RSM EquiCo’s U.S. clients who signed platform agreements and for whom RSM EquiCo did not ultimately market their business for sale. The fees paid to RSM EquiCo in connection with these agreements total approximately $185 million, a number which substantially exceeds the equity of RSM EquiCo. We intend to defend this case vigorously. The amount claimed in this action is substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of this matter.

As more fully described in Item 8, note 17, RSM and M&P operate in an alternative practice structure. Accordingly, certain claims and lawsuits against M&P could have an impact on RSM. More specifically, any judgments or settlements arising from claims and lawsuits against M&P which exceed its insurance coverage could have a direct adverse effect on M&P’s operations. Although RSM is not responsible for the liabilities of M&P, significant M&P litigation and claims could impair the profitability of the APS and impair the ability to attract and retain clients and quality professionals. This could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on RSM’s operations and impair the value of our investment in RSM. There is no assurance regarding the outcome of any claims or litigation involving M&P.

On December 7, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (2009-L-014920) against M&P, RSM and H&R Block styled Ronald R. Peterson ex rel. Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P., et al. v. McGladrey & Pullen LLP, et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 28, 2009, where it remains pending (Case No. 08-28225). The complaint, which was filed by the trustee for certain bankrupt investment funds, seeks unspecified damages and asserts claims against RSM for vicarious liability and alter ego liability and against H&R Block for equitable restitution relating to audit work performed by M&P. The amount claimed in this case is substantial. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims against RSM and H&R Block in this case and intend to defend it vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

LITIGATION AND CLAIMS PERTAINING TO DISCONTINUED MORTGAGE OPERATIONS – 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.

14   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

On June 3, 2008, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Case No. 08-2474-BLS) styled Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., alleging unfair, deceptive and discriminatory origination and servicing of mortgage loans and seeking equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, restitution and statutory penalties. In November 2008, the court granted a preliminary injunction limiting the ability of the owner of SCC’s former loan servicing business to initiate or advance foreclosure actions against certain loans originated by SCC or its subsidiaries without (1) advance notice to the Massachusetts Attorney General and (2) if the Attorney General objects to foreclosure, approval by the court. An appeal of the preliminary injunction was denied. A trial date has been set for June 2011. We believe the claims in this case are without merit, and we intend to defend this case vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

OTHER CLAIMS AND LITIGATION – We have been named in several wage and hour class action lawsuits throughout the country, respectively styled Alice Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, Case No.RG08366506 (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008); Arabella Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251 (United States District Court, Northern District of California, filed June 9, 2009); Delana Ugas v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central District of California, filed July 13, 2009); Joaquin Llano v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-22531 (United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, filed August 27, 2009); Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010); Lance Hom v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. 10CV0476 H (United States District Court, Southern District of California, filed March 4, 2010); Stacy Oyer v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00387-WMS (United States District Court, Western District of New York, filed May, 10 2010); Rita Greene v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-21663-FAM (United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, filed May 21, 2010); and Li Dong Ma v. RSM McGladrey TBS, LLC, et al., Case No. C-08-01729 JF (United States District Court, Northern District of California, filed February 28, 2008). These cases involve a variety of legal theories and allegations including, among other things, failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; failure to provide employees with meal periods; failure to provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages due upon termination; failure to compensate for mandatory off-season training; and/or misclassification of non-exempt employees. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, in addition to statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The Company has moved to consolidate certain of these cases into a single action because they allege substantially identical claims. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances, however, and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to predict. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on our consolidated results of operations, individually or in the aggregate.

In addition, 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, and other products and services. 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.

We are also party to claims and lawsuits that we consider to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business, including claims and lawsuits (collectively, “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 impact on our consolidated results of operations.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  15

 

 

PART II

 

 

H&R Block’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol HRB. On May 31, 2010, there were 24,000 shareholders of record and the closing stock price on the NYSE was $16.08 per share.

The quarterly information regarding H&R Block’s common stock prices and dividends appears in Item 8, note 22 to our consolidated financial statements.

A summary of our securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans as of April 30, 2010 is as follows:

The remaining information called for by this item relating to “Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans” is reported in Item 8, note 13 to our consolidated financial statements.

A summary of our purchases of H&R Block common stock during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010 is as follows:

16   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

 

PERFORMANCE GRAPH – The following graph compares the cumulative five-year total return provided shareholders on H&R Block, Inc.’s common stock relative to the cumulative total returns of the S&P 500 index and the S&P Diversified Commercial & Professional Services index. An investment of $100, with reinvestment of all dividends, is assumed to have been made in our common stock and in each of the indexes on April 30, 2005, and its relative performance is tracked through April 30, 2010.

 

 

 

We derived the selected consolidated financial data presented below as of and for each of the five years in the period ended April 30, 2010, from our audited consolidated financial statements. The data set forth below should be read in conjunction with Item 7 and our consolidated financial statements in Item 8.

 

 

 

Our subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking and various business advisory and consulting services. We are the only major company offering a full range of software, online and in-office tax preparation solutions to individual tax clients.

Effective May 1, 2009, we realigned certain segments of our business to reflect a new management reporting structure. The operations of HRB Bank, which was previously reported as the Consumer Financial Services segment, have now been reclassified, with activities that support our retail tax network included in the Tax Services segment, and the net interest margin and gains and losses relating to our portfolio of mortgage loans held for investment and related assets included in the corporate segment. Presentation of prior period results reflects the new segment reporting structure.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  17

 

OVERVIEW

A summary of our fiscal year 2010 results is as follows:

 

18   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

 

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

 

TAX SERVICES

This segment primarily consists of our income tax preparation businesses – retail, online and software. This segment includes our tax operations in the U.S., Canada and Australia. Additionally, this segment includes the product offerings and activities of HRB Bank that primarily support the tax network, our participations in refund anticipation loans, and our commercial tax businesses, which provide tax preparation software to CPAs and other tax preparers.

 

 

 

FISCAL 2010 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2009 – Tax Services’ revenues decreased $156.8 million, or 5.0%, compared to the prior year. Tax preparation fees decreased $162.8 million, or 7.6%, due to a 10.3% decrease in U.S. retail tax returns prepared in company-owned offices, partially offset by a 0.6% increase in the net average fee per U.S. retail tax return. Adjusting for the effect of company-owned offices sold to franchisees during fiscal year 2010, the

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  19

decline in tax returns prepared in company-owned offices was 6.7% from fiscal 2009 to 2010. The 6.7% decrease in U.S. retail tax returns prepared in company-owned offices is primarily due to the following factors:

Royalties increased $20.0 million, or 7.8%, due to the conversion of 267 company-owned offices into franchises, partially offset by a decline in tax returns prepared in existing franchise offices.

Interest income on Emerald Advance lines of credit decreased $13.1 million, or 14.4%. This decline was primarily a result of lower loan volumes due to these lines of credit only being offered to prior year tax clients in fiscal year 2010, while being offered to both prior and new clients in fiscal year 2009.

Other revenue decreased $10.8 million, or 3.4%, primarily due to a $12.5 million decline in license fees earned from bank products, mainly RACs, and a decrease in software revenues.

Total expenses decreased $97.1 million, or 4.4%, compared to the prior year. Total compensation and benefits decreased $41.1 million, or 3.9%, primarily as a result of lower commission-based wages due to the decline in the number of tax returns prepared. Bad debt expense decreased $7.3 million, or 6.5%, primarily as a result of lower Emerald Advance lines of credit and RAL volumes, and more restrictive underwriting criteria. Depreciation and amortization expenses increased $13.9 million, or 17.5%, primarily as a result of amortization of intangible assets, related to the November 2008 acquisition of our last major independent franchise operator. Other expenses decreased $31.4 million, or 10.7%, primarily as a result of lower legal expenses. During fiscal year 2010 we recognized gains of $49.1 million on the sale of certain company-owned offices to franchisees, compared to $14.9 million in the prior year. We do not expect these gains to continue at a similar level during fiscal year 2011.

Pretax income for fiscal year 2010 decreased $59.7 million, or 6.4%, from 2009. As a result of the declines in revenues, pretax margin for the segment decreased from 29.6% in fiscal year 2009, to 29.2% in fiscal year 2010.

FISCAL 2009 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2008 – Tax Services’ revenues increased $71.4 million, or 2.3%, compared to fiscal year 2008.

Tax preparation fees from our retail offices increased $58.6 million, or 2.8%, for fiscal year 2009. This increase is primarily due to an increase of 6.8% in the net average fee per U.S. tax return prepared in company-owned offices, offset by a 2.8% decrease in the number of U.S. tax returns prepared in those offices. Tax return volume was positively affected by the November 2008 acquisition of our last major independent franchise operator, which resulted in an increase of 470,000 tax returns prepared in company-owned offices. See Item 8, note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information on this acquisition. Excluding operating results attributable to the acquired franchise operator, tax returns prepared in company-owned offices decreased 7.3% from fiscal year 2008 and tax preparation fees decreased $32.9 million.

Increases in our net average fee were due primarily to increased tax return complexity. In addition, planned pricing increases of approximately 1% and lower discounts contributed to an increase in net average fee. We believe that declines during the year in tax return volume were attributable to a decline of approximately 6% in IRS tax filings overall, and difficult economic conditions which resulted in clients seeking lower-cost tax preparation alternatives.

Tax returns prepared in our international operations grew 5.1%, and the related tax preparation revenues increased 8.9% in local currencies. However, unfavorable exchange rates caused these revenues in U.S. dollars to decline $9.5 million, or 5.6%, from fiscal year 2008.

Royalty revenue increased $17.6 million, or 7.4%, primarily due to a 7.2% increase in the net average fee and an increase in royalty rates at sub-franchises of the acquired franchise operator.

Loan participation fees and related revenues decreased $50.4 million, or 26.5%, from fiscal year 2008. This decrease is primarily due to a 24.6% decline in RAL volume, mainly as a result of many clients choosing lower cost alternatives such as RACs rather than a loan. In addition, stricter credit criteria were required by our third-party loan originator.

Fees from Emerald Card activities and interest income on Emerald Advance increased $19.6 million and $45.7 million, respectively, both primarily as a result of higher volumes.

Other revenues decreased $17.3 million, or 5.2%, primarily due to a $10.6 million decline in e-filing revenues, as a result of the elimination of separate e-filing fees related to our tax preparation software and a decline in software revenues. These declines were partially offset by $10.7 million in additional license fees earned from bank products, mainly RACs.

20   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

Total expenses decreased $29.9 million, or 1.3%, compared with fiscal year 2008, due primarily to lower tax return volumes, lower bad debt on loan products and planned cost reduction initiatives. Compensation and benefits decreased $39.7 million, or 3.7%, from fiscal year 2008 as a result of a decrease in commission-based wages resulting from a corresponding decrease in tax returns prepared. Marketing and advertising increased $46.6 million, or 25.9%, primarily due to a planned increase in marketing costs. Bad debt expense decreased $17.6 million, or 13.6%, primarily due to lower RAL volumes and the impact of loss provisions in fiscal year 2008 which did not repeat in fiscal year 2009. During fiscal year 2009 we sold certain company-owned offices to franchisees, recognizing a net gain of $14.9 million.

Pretax income for fiscal year 2009 increased $101.3 million, or 12.3%, from 2008. As a result of cost reduction initiatives and the acquisition of our last major franchise operator, pretax margin for the segment increased from 27.0% in fiscal year 2008, to 29.6% in fiscal year 2009.

 

 

BUSINESS SERVICES

This segment offers tax and consulting services, wealth management and capital market services to middle-market companies.

 

 

FISCAL 2010 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2009 – Business Services’ revenues for fiscal year 2010 decreased $37.5 million, or 4.2%, from the prior year. Revenues from core tax, consulting and accounting services decreased $21.3 million, or 2.8%, from the prior year. Tax and accounting services revenues decreased $29.3 million and $5.2 million, respectively, primarily due to decreases in chargeable hours and pressures on billable rates. Business consulting revenues increased $13.2 million, or 5.3%, over the prior year primarily due to a large engagement in our operational consulting practice.

Continued weak economic conditions in recent years have severely reduced investment and transaction activity. As a result, revenues from our capital markets business have been declining severely, including a decline in revenues of $6.4 million, or 34.9%, from fiscal year 2009. As noted below, we recorded an impairment of goodwill associated with this business during fiscal year 2010.

Other revenue declined $12.8 million, or 13.1%, primarily due to lower management fee revenues and interest income received from M&P.

Total expenses were essentially flat compared to the prior year. Compensation and benefits decreased $14.0 million, or 2.4%, primarily due to headcount reductions driven by reduced client demand. Marketing and advertising costs decreased $4.8 million, or 20.3%, primarily due to fewer sponsorships and lower advertising costs. Other expenses increased $21.5 million primarily due to a $15.0 million impairment of goodwill at RSM EquiCo, Inc. (RSM EquiCo), as discussed in Item 8, note 8 to the consolidated financial statements, and increased legal expenses.

Pretax income for the year ended April 30, 2010 of $58.7 million compares to $96.1 million in the prior year. Pretax margin for the segment decreased from 10.7% in fiscal year 2009, to 6.8% in fiscal year 2010, primarily due to poor results in our capital markets business and a reduction of revenue in our core businesses.

FISCAL 2009 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2008 – Business Services’ revenues for fiscal year 2009 decreased $43.9 million, or 4.7%, from fiscal year 2008, primarily due to declines in capital markets, leased employee revenues and outside contractor services.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  21

Revenues from core tax, consulting and accounting services increased $25.0 million, or 3.4%, over fiscal year 2008. Tax services revenues increased $15.9 million, or 3.6%, due to increases in net billed rate per hour. Business consulting revenues increased $12.2 million, or 5.2%, primarily due to a large one-time financial institutions engagement.

Weak economic conditions in fiscal year 2009 severely reduced investment and transaction activity. As a result, capital markets revenues decreased $32.9 million, or 64.4%, from fiscal year 2008 primarily due to a 57.4% decline in the number of transactions closed.

Leased employee revenue decreased due to a change in organizational structure between the businesses we acquired from American Express Tax and Business Services, Inc. (AmexTBS) and the Attest Firms that, while not affiliates of our company, also serve our clients. Employees we previously leased to the Attest Firms were transferred to the separate attest practices in fiscal years 2008 and 2007. As a result, we no longer record the revenues and expenses associated with leasing these employees, which resulted in a reduction of $25.0 million to fiscal year 2009 revenues, and a similar reduction in compensation and benefits.

Other revenue declined $12.0 million, or 11.0%, primarily due to a decrease in outside contractor services provided to our clients.

Total expenses decreased $51.2 million, or 6.0%, compared to fiscal year 2008. Other expenses decreased $45.2 million, or 30.2%, primarily due to declines in external consulting fees, allocated corporate and support department costs and travel and entertainment expenses.

Pretax income for the year ended April 30, 2009 of $96.1 million compares to $88.8 million in fiscal year 2008. Pretax margin for the segment increased from 9.4% in fiscal year 2008, to 10.7% in fiscal year 2009.

 

 

CORPORATE, ELIMINATIONS AND INCOME TAXES ON CONTINUING OPERATIONS

Corporate operating losses include interest income from U.S. passive investments, interest expense on borrowings, net interest margin and gains or losses relating to mortgage loans held for investment, real estate owned, residual interests in securitizations and other corporate expenses, principally related to finance, legal and other support departments.

 

 

 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2009

Interest income earned on mortgage loans held for investment for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010 decreased $14.5 million, or 31.3%, from the prior year, primarily as a result of non-performing loans. Interest expense decreased $13.0 million, or 14.0%, due to lower funding costs related to our mortgage loan portfolio and lower corporate borrowings. Our provision for loan losses decreased $16.1 million from the prior year. See related discussion below under “Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.”

Other expenses declined $32.3 million primarily due to gains of $9.0 million on residual interests in the current year, compared to impairments of $3.1 million recorded in the prior year. Additionally, we transferred liabilities relating to previously retained insurance risk to a third-party, and recorded a gain of $9.5 million in fiscal year 2010.

Income Taxes on Continuing Operations

Our effective tax rate for continuing operations was 37.6% for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010, compared to 38.9% in the prior year. Our effective tax rates declined from the prior year due to a reduction in our valuation allowance related to tax-planning strategies and favorable tax benefits related to investment gains on our corporate owned life insurance investments.

Mortgage Loans Held for Investment

Mortgage loans held for investment at April 30, 2010 totaled $595.4 million. The portfolio includes loans originated by SCC, and purchased by HRB Bank which constituted approximately 64% of the total loan portfolio at April 30, 2010. We have experienced higher rates of delinquency and have greater exposure to loss with respect to this segment of our loan portfolio. Our remaining loan portfolio totaled $249.0 million and is more characteristic of a prime loan portfolio, and we believe subject to a lower loss exposure.

22   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

Detail of our mortgage loans held for investment and the related allowance, excluding unamortized deferred fees and costs of $5.3 million and $7.1 million at April 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, is as follows:

We recorded a provision for loan loss of $47.8 million during fiscal year 2010, compared to $63.9 million in the prior year. Our allowance for loan losses as a percent of mortgage loans was 13.7%, or $93.5 million, at April 30, 2010, compared to 10.2%, or $84.1 million, at April 30, 2009. This allowance represents our best estimate of credit losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the balance sheet dates.

 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 COMPARED TO FISCAL YEAR 2008

Interest income earned on mortgage loans held for investment for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009 decreased $28.5 million, or 38.1%, from fiscal year 2008, primarily as a result of non-performing loans. Our provision for loan losses increased $21.9 million from fiscal year 2008 primarily due to declines in residential home prices and higher projected delinquencies.

Compensation and benefits decreased $66.5 million, or 57.6%, primarily due to severance-related costs recorded in fiscal year 2008, coupled with benefits in fiscal year 2009 resulting from the staff reductions.

Other expenses increased $18.3 million primarily due to an $11.9 million write-down of REO property during fiscal year 2009.

Income Taxes on Continuing Operations

Our effective tax rate for continuing operations was 38.9% for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009, compared to 39.3% in fiscal year 2008.

 

 

DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

Effective November 1, 2008, we sold H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. (HRBFA) to Ameriprise Financial, Inc. HRBFA and its direct corporate parent are presented as discontinued operations in the consolidated financial statements for all periods presented. Our discontinued operations also include our former mortgage loan origination and servicing business, as well as three smaller lines of business previously reported in our Business Services segment.

 

FISCAL 2010 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2009 – The net loss from discontinued operations for fiscal year 2010 was $9.7 million compared to a net loss of $27.4 million in the prior year. The decline in losses was due to a loss on the disposition of HRBFA totaling $12.2 million in fiscal year 2009 compared with a gain of $6.2 million in fiscal year 2010 relating to post-disposition purchase price adjustments.

 

FISCAL 2009 COMPARED TO FISCAL 2008 – The pretax loss of our discontinued operations for fiscal year 2009 was $47.6 million compared to a loss of $1.2 billion in the prior year. The loss from discontinued operations for fiscal year 2008 included significant losses from our former mortgage loan businesses, including losses relating to loan repurchase obligations of $582.4 million and impairments of residual interests of $137.8 million. Net of applicable tax benefits, the loss from discontinued operations for fiscal year 2009 was $27.4 million compared to a loss of $754.6 million in fiscal year 2008.

Our effective tax rate for discontinued operations was 42.5% and 35.3% for the fiscal years 2009 and 2008, respectively. Our effective tax rate increased primarily due to a tax benefit recorded in conjunction with the sale of HRBFA.

 

 

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

We consider the estimates discussed below to be critical to understanding our financial statements, as they require the use of significant judgment and estimation in order to measure, at a specific point in time, matters that are inherently uncertain. Specific risks for these critical accounting estimates are described in the following paragraphs. We have reviewed and discussed each of these estimates with the Audit Committee of our Board

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  23

of Directors. For all of these estimates, we caution that future events rarely develop precisely as forecasted and estimates routinely require adjustment and may require material adjustment.

ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES – The principal amount of mortgage loans held for investment totaled $683.7 million at April 30, 2010. We are exposed to the risk that borrowers may not repay amounts owed to us when they become contractually due. We record an allowance representing our estimate of credit losses inherent in the portfolio of loans held for investment at the balance sheet date. Determination of our allowance for loan losses is considered a critical accounting estimate because loss provisions can be material to our operating results, projections of loan delinquencies and related matters are inherently subjective, and actual losses are impacted by factors outside of our control including economic conditions, unemployment rates and residential home prices.

We record a loan loss allowance for loans less than 60 days past due on a pooled basis. The aggregate principal balance of these loans totaled $372.7 million at April 30, 2010, and the portion of our allowance for loan losses allocated to these loans totaled $16.2 million. In estimating our loan loss allowance for these loans, we stratify the loan portfolio based on our view of risk associated with various elements of the pool and assign estimated loss rates based on those risks. Loss rates are based primarily on historical experience and our assessment of economic and market conditions. Loss rates consider both the rate at which loans will become delinquent (frequency) and the amount of loss that will ultimately be realized upon occurrence of a liquidation of collateral (severity). Frequency rates are based primarily on historical migration analysis of loans to delinquent status. Severity rates are based primarily on recent broker quotes or appraisals of collateral. Because of imprecision and uncertainty inherent in developing estimates of future credit losses, in particular during periods of rapidly declining collateral values or increasing delinquency rates, our estimation process includes development of ranges of possible outcomes. Ranges were developed by stressing initial estimates of both frequency and severity rates. Stressing of frequency and severity assumptions is intended to model deterioration in credit quality that is difficult to predict during declining economic conditions. Future deterioration in credit quality may exceed our modeled assumptions.

Mortgage loans held for investment include loans originated by our affiliate, SCC, and purchased by HRB Bank. We have greater exposure to loss with respect to this segment of our loan portfolio as a result of historically higher delinquency rates. Therefore, we assign higher frequency rate assumptions to SCC-originated loans compared with loans originated by other third-party banks as we consider estimates of future losses. At April 30, 2010 our weighted-average frequency assumption was 15% for SCC-originated loans compared to 4% for remaining loans in the portfolio.

Loans 60 days past due are considered impaired and are reviewed individually. We record loss estimates typically based on the value of the underlying collateral. Our specific loan loss allowance for these impaired loans reflected an average loss severity of approximately 41% at April 30, 2010. The aggregate principal balance of impaired loans totaled $165.9 million at April 30, 2010, and the portion of our allowance for loan losses allocated to these loans totaled $68.7 million.

Modified loans that meet the definition of a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) are also considered impaired and are reviewed individually. We record impairment equal to the difference between the principal balance of the loan and the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate. However, if we assess that foreclosure of a modified loan is probable, we record impairment based on the estimated fair value of the underlying collateral. The aggregate principal balance of TDR loans totaled $145.0 million at April 30, 2010, and the portion of our allowance for loan losses allocated to these loans totaled $8.9 million.

The loan loss allowance as a percent of mortgage loans held for investment was 13.7% at April 30, 2010, compared to 10.2% at April 30, 2009. The percentage increased significantly during the current year primarily as a result of declining collateral values due to lower residential home prices and modeled expectations for future loan delinquencies in the portfolio. The residential mortgage industry has experienced significant adverse trends for an extended period. If adverse trends continue for a sustained period or at rates worse than modeled by us, we may be required to record additional loan loss provisions, and those losses may be significant.

Determining the allowance for loan losses for loans held for investment requires us to make estimates of losses that are highly uncertain and requires a high degree of judgment. If our underlying assumptions prove to be inaccurate, the allowance for loan losses could be insufficient to cover actual losses. Our mortgage loan portfolio is a static pool, as we are no longer originating or purchasing new mortgage loans, and we believe that factor, over time, will limit variability in our loss estimates.

MORTGAGE LOAN REPURCHASE OBLIGATION – SCC is obligated to repurchase loans sold or securitized in the event of a breach of representations and warranties it made to purchasers or insurers of such loans, or otherwise indemnify certain third-parties for losses incurred by them. SCC records a liability for contingent losses relating to representation and warranty claims by estimating loan repurchase volumes and indemnification obligations for both known claims and projections of expected future claims. Projections of future claims are

24   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

based on an analysis that includes a combination of reviewing historical repurchase trends, developing loss expectations on loans sold or securitized, and predicting the level at which previously originated loans may be subject to valid claims regarding representation and warranty breaches.

Based on an analysis as of April 30, 2010, SCC estimated its liability for loan repurchase and indemnification obligations pertaining to claims of breach of representation and warranties to be $188.2 million. Actual losses charged against this reserve during fiscal year 2010 totaled $18.4 million. To the extent that valid claim volumes in the future exceed current estimates, or the value of mortgage loans and residential home prices decline, future losses may be greater than our current estimates and those differences may be significant. See Item 8, note 16 to our consolidated financial statements.

LITIGATION – It is our policy to routinely assess the likelihood of any adverse judgments or outcomes related to legal matters, as well as ranges of probable losses. A determination of the amount of the reserves required, if any, for these contingencies is made after analysis of each known issue and an analysis of historical experience. Therefore, we have recorded reserves related to certain legal matters for which we believe it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the range of such loss can be estimated. With respect to other matters, we have concluded that a loss is only reasonably possible or remote, or is not estimable and, therefore, no liability is recorded.

Assessing the likely outcome of pending litigation, including the amount of potential loss, if any, is highly subjective. Our judgments regarding likelihood of loss and our estimates of probable loss amounts may differ from actual results due to difficulties in predicting the outcome of jury trials, arbitration hearings, settlement discussions and related activity, predicting the outcome of class certification actions and various other uncertainties. Due to the number of claims which are periodically asserted against us, and the magnitude of damages sought in those claims, actual losses in the future may significantly exceed our current estimates.

VALUATION OF GOODWILL – The evaluation of goodwill for impairment is a critical accounting estimate due both to the magnitude of our goodwill balances, and the judgment involved in determining the fair value of our reporting units. Goodwill balances totaled $840.4 million as of April 30, 2010 and $850.2 million as of April 30, 2009.

We test goodwill and other indefinite-life intangible assets for impairment annually or more frequently if events occur or circumstances change which would, more likely than not, reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. Our goodwill impairment analysis is based on a discounted cash flow approach and market comparables. This analysis, at the reporting unit level, requires significant management judgment with respect to revenue and expense forecasts, anticipated changes in working capital and the selection and application of an appropriate discount rate. Changes in projections or assumptions could materially affect our estimate of reporting unit fair values. The use of different assumptions would increase or decrease estimated discounted future operating cash flows and could affect our conclusions regarding the existence or amount of potential impairment. Finally, strategic changes in our outlook regarding reporting units or intangible assets may alter our valuation approach and could result in changes to our conclusions regarding impairment.

Estimates of fair value for certain of our reporting units exceed the corresponding carrying value by a significant margin. In certain instances, however, the excess of estimated fair value over carrying value is not significant. Future estimates of fair value may be adversely impacted by declining economic conditions. In addition, if future operating results of our reporting units are below our current modeled expectations, fair value estimates may decline. Any of these factors could result in future impairments, and those impairments could be significant.

In assessing potential goodwill impairment of our RSM reporting unit, we estimate fair value based on an assumption that the collaboration between RSM and M&P under their alternative practice structure arrangement will continue. Were M&P to exit the alternative practice structure, or the collaboration between these two businesses otherwise cease, we believe our fair value estimates could be lower than presently assumed. In addition, adverse business results for M&P could also negatively impact our fair value estimates for RSM. Goodwill balances for RSM totaled $374.5 million at April 30, 2010. In fiscal year 2010, the estimated fair value of our RSM reporting unit exceeded its carrying value by approximately 30%.

We recorded a goodwill impairment of $15.0 million related to our RSM EquiCo reporting unit within our Business Services segment in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010, leaving a remaining goodwill balance of $14.3 million. Operating results for this reporting unit have been declining and continued poor results could result in further impairment.

We have a separate reporting unit within our Tax Services segment with a goodwill balance totaling $28.6 million at April 30, 2010. Operating activities of the business consist principally of the development and sale of commercial tax preparation software. The estimated fair value of this reporting unit exceeded its carrying value by approximately 8% at April 30, 2010.

See Item 8, note 8 to our consolidated financial statements.

INCOME TAXES – Income taxes are accounted for using the asset and liability approach under U.S. GAAP.

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  25

We calculate our current and deferred tax provision for the fiscal year based on estimates and assumptions that could differ from the actual results reflected in income tax returns filed during the applicable calendar year. Adjustments based on filed returns are recorded in the appropriate periods when identified. We file a consolidated federal tax return on a calendar year basis, generally in the second fiscal quarter of the subsequent year.

We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. We have considered taxable income in carry-back periods, historical and forecasted earnings, future taxable income, the mix of earnings in the jurisdictions in which we operate, and tax planning strategies in determining the need for a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets. Determination of a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets requires that we make judgments about future matters that are not certain, including projections of future taxable income and evaluating potential tax-planning strategies. To the extent that actual results differ from our current assumptions, the valuation allowance will increase or decrease. In the event we were to determine we would not be able to realize all or part of our deferred tax assets in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax assets would be charged to earnings in the period in which we make such determination. Likewise, if we later determine it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets would be realized, we would reverse the applicable portion of the previously provided valuation allowance.

The income tax laws of jurisdictions in which we operate are complex and subject to different interpretations by the taxpayer and applicable government taxing authorities. Income tax returns filed by us are based on our interpretation of these rules. The amount of income taxes we pay is subject to ongoing audits by federal, state and foreign tax authorities, which may result in proposed assessments, including assessments of interest and/or penalties. Our estimate for the potential outcome for any uncertain tax issue is highly subjective and based on our best judgments. Actual results may differ from our current judgments due to a variety of factors, including changes in law, interpretations of law by taxing authorities that differ from our assessments, changes in the jurisdictions in which we operate and results of routine tax examinations. We believe we have adequately provided for any reasonably foreseeable outcome related to these matters. However, our future results may include favorable or unfavorable adjustments to our estimated tax liabilities in the period the assessments are made or resolved, or when statutes of limitation on potential assessments expire. As a result, our effective tax rate may fluctuate on a quarterly basis.

REVENUE RECOGNITION – We have many different revenue sources, each governed by specific revenue recognition policies. Our revenue recognition policies can be found in Item 8, note 1 to our consolidated financial statements.

OTHER SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES – Other significant accounting estimates, not involving the same level of judgment or uncertainty as those discussed above are nevertheless important to an understanding of the financial statements. These estimates may require judgments on complex matters that are often subject to multiple sources of authoritative guidance. Certain of these matters are among topics currently under reexamination by accounting standard setters and regulators. Although specific conclusions reached by these standard setters may cause a material change in our accounting estimates, outcomes cannot be predicted with confidence. See Item 8, note 1 to our consolidated financial statements, which discusses accounting estimates we have selected when there are acceptable alternatives and new or proposed accounting standards that may affect our financial reporting in the future.

 

 

FINANCIAL CONDITION

CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY – Our sources of capital include cash from operations, cash from customer deposits, issuances of common stock and debt. We use capital primarily to fund working capital, pay dividends, repurchase treasury shares and acquire businesses. Our operations are highly seasonal and therefore generally require the use of cash to fund operating losses during the period May through mid-January.

Given the likely availability of a number of liquidity options discussed herein, including borrowing capacity under our CLOC, we believe, that in the absence of any unexpected developments, our existing sources of capital at April 30, 2010 are sufficient to meet our operating needs.

These comments should be read in conjunction with the consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of cash flows included in Item 8.

 

26   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

CASH FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES – Cash provided by operations decreased $437.0 million from fiscal year 2009 primarily due to income tax payments of $359.6 million in the current year, compared to refunds received in the prior year.

Restricted Cash. We hold certain cash balances that are restricted as to use. Cash and cash equivalents – restricted totaled $34.4 million at April 30, 2010, and primarily consisted of cash held by our captive insurance subsidiary that will be used to pay claims.

CASH FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES – Changes in cash provided by investing activities primarily relate to the following:

Mortgage Loans Held for Investment. We received net proceeds of $72.8 million, $91.3 million and $207.6 million on our mortgage loans held for investment in fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Purchases of Property and Equipment. Total cash paid for property and equipment was $90.5 million, $97.9 million and $101.6 million for fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Business Acquisitions. Total cash paid for acquisitions was $10.5 million, $293.8 million and $24.9 million during fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In November 2008, we acquired our last major independent franchise operator for an aggregate purchase price of $279.2 million.

Sales of Businesses. In fiscal year 2010, we sold 267 tax offices to franchisees for proceeds of $65.7 million. In fiscal year 2009, we sold certain tax offices to franchisees for proceeds of $16.9 million. The majority of these sales were financed through Franchise Equity Lines of Credit (FELCs). The increase in the lines of credit is also included in investing activities.

Discontinued Operations. In fiscal year 2009, we sold our financial advisor business for proceeds of $304.0 million. In fiscal year 2008, we sold our former mortgage loan origination and servicing business, as well as three smaller lines of business previously reported in our Business Services segment, for cash proceeds of $1.1 billion.

CASH FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES – Changes in cash used in financing activities primarily relate to the following:

Short-Term Borrowings. We had no short-term borrowings outstanding at April 30, 2010.

Customer Banking Deposits. Customer banking deposits provided $17.5 million in the current year compared to $64.4 million provided in fiscal year 2009 and $345.4 million used in fiscal year 2008. These deposits are held by HRB Bank

Dividends. We have consistently paid quarterly dividends. Dividends paid totaled $200.9 million, $198.7 million and $183.6 million in fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Repurchase and Retirement of Common Stock. During fiscal year 2010, we purchased and immediately retired 12.8 million shares of our common stock at a cost of $250.0 million. We may continue to repurchase and retire common stock or retire treasury stock in the future.

In June 2008, our Board of Directors rescinded the previous authorizations to repurchase shares of our common stock and approved an authorization to purchase up to $2.0 billion of our common stock through June 2012. There was $1.7 billion remaining under this authorization at April 30, 2010.

Issuances of Common Stock. In October 2008, we sold 8.3 million shares of our common stock, without par value, at a price of $17.50 per share in a registered direct offering through subscription agreements with selected institutional investors. We received net proceeds of $141.4 million, after deducting placement agent fees and other offering expenses. The purpose of the equity offering was to ensure we maintained adequate equity levels, as a condition of our CLOC, during our off-season. Proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

Proceeds from the issuance of common stock in accordance with our stock-based compensation plans totaled $16.7 million, $71.6 million, and $23.3 million in fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

HRB BANK – Block Financial LLC (BFC) typically makes capital contributions to HRB Bank to help it meet its capital requirements. BFC made capital contributions to HRB Bank of $235.0 million during fiscal year 2010 and $245.0 million during fiscal year 2009.

Historically, capital contributions by BFC have been repaid as a return of capital by HRB Bank as capital requirements decline. A return of capital or dividend paid by HRB Bank must be approved by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). Although the OTS has approved such payments in the past, there is no assurance that they will continue to do so in the future, in particular if they determine that higher capital levels at HRB Bank are necessary due to non-performing asset levels. In addition, BFC may elect to maintain higher capital levels at HRB Bank. At April 30, 2010, HRB Bank had cash balances of $701.0 million. Distribution of those cash balances would be subject to OTS approval and are therefore not currently available for general corporate purposes.

HRB Bank received approval from the OTS on May 17, 2010 to pay a non-cash dividend by June 30, 2010 to BFC of REO.

See additional discussion of regulatory and capital requirements of HRB Bank in “Regulatory Environment.”

 

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  27

 

BORROWINGS

We continually monitor our funding requirements and execute strategies to manage our overall asset and liability profile. The following chart provides the debt ratings for BFC as of April 30, 2010 and 2009:

 

On March 4, 2010, we entered into a new CLOC agreement to support commercial paper issuances, general corporate purposes or for working capital needs, and terminated the previous CLOCs. The new facility provides funding up to $1.7 billion and matures July 31, 2013. The new facility bears interest at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 1.30% to 2.80% or PRIME plus .30% to 1.80% (depending on the type of borrowing) and includes an annual facility fee of .20% to .70% of the committed amounts, based on our credit ratings. Covenants in the new facility are substantially similar to those in the previous CLOCs including: (1) maintenance of a minimum net worth of $650.0 million on the last day of any fiscal quarter; and (2) reduction of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of short-term debt, as defined in the agreement, to $200.0 million or less for thirty consecutive days during the period March 1 to June 30 of each year (“Clean- down requirement”). At April 30, 2010, we were in compliance with these covenants and had net worth of $1.4 billion. There was no balance outstanding on this facility at April 30, 2010.

As of April 30, 2010, we had $250.0 million remaining under our shelf registration for additional debt issuances.

Effective January 12, 2010, we entered into a $2.5 billion committed line of credit agreement with HSBC Bank USA, National Association (HSBC) for the purchase of RAL participations. This line was available up to its facility limit through March 30, 2010 and then only up to $120.0 million thereafter through June 30, 2010. The line is subject to covenants similar to those in the CLOC, but secured by the RAL participation interests. All borrowings on this facility were repaid as of April 30, 2010 and the facility is now closed.

During fiscal year 2010, borrowing needs in our Canadian operations were funded by corporate borrowings in the U.S. To mitigate the foreign currency exchange rate risk, we used foreign exchange forward contracts. We do not enter into forward contracts for speculative purposes. In estimating the fair value of derivative positions, we utilize quoted market prices, if available, or quotes obtained from external sources. There were no forward contracts outstanding as of April 30, 2010.

 

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS

A summary of our obligations to make future payments as of April 30, 2010, is as follows:

 

The amount of liabilities recorded in connection with unrecognized tax positions that we reasonably expect to pay within twelve months is $74.5 million at April 30, 2010 and is included in accrued income taxes on our consolidated balance sheet. The remaining amount is included in other noncurrent liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet. Because the ultimate amount and timing of any future cash settlements cannot be predicted with reasonable certainty, the estimated unrecognized tax position liability has been excluded from the table above. See Item 8, note 14 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

28   H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K

A summary of our commitments as of April 30, 2010, which may or may not require future payments, are as follows:

See discussion of contractual obligations and commitments in Item 8, within the notes to our consolidated financial statements.

 

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

HRB Bank is a federal savings bank and H&R Block, Inc. is a savings and loan holding company. As a result, each is subject to regulation by the OTS. Federal savings banks are subject to extensive regulation and examination by the OTS, their primary federal regulator, as well as the FDIC.

All savings associations are subject to the capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. HRB Bank must meet specific capital guidelines involving quantitative measures of HRB Bank’s assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. HRB Bank’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk-weightings and other factors. As of March 31, 2010, our most recent Thrift Financial Report (TFR) filing with the OTS, HRB bank was a “well capitalized” institution under the prompt corrective action provisions of the FDIC. See Item 8, note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion of regulatory capital requirements and classifications.

HRB Bank is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc. and its customer deposits are insured by the FDIC. If an insured institution fails, claims for administrative expenses of the receiver and for deposits in U.S. branches (including claims of the FDIC as subrogee of the failed institution) have priority over the claims of general unsecured creditors. In addition, the FDIC has authority to require H&R Block, Inc. to reimburse it for losses it incurs in connection with the failure of HRB Bank or with the FDIC’s provision of assistance to a banking subsidiary that is in danger of failure.

H&R Block, Inc. is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiary, HRB Bank. Various federal and state statutory provisions and regulations limit the amount of dividends HRB Bank may pay without regulatory approval. The OTS has authority to prohibit HRB Bank from engaging in unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their business. The payment of dividends, depending on the financial condition of the bank, could be deemed an unsafe or unsound practice. The ability of HRB Bank to pay dividends in the future is currently, and could be further, influenced by bank regulatory policies and capital guidelines.

The U.S., various state, local, provincial and foreign governments and some self-regulatory organizations have enacted statutes and ordinances, and/or adopted rules and regulations, regulating aspects of our business. These aspects include, but are not limited to, commercial income tax return preparers, income tax courses, the electronic filing of income tax returns, the facilitation of RALs, loan originations and assistance in loan originations, mortgage lending, privacy, consumer protection, franchising, sales methods, banking, accountants and the accounting practice. We seek to determine the applicability of such statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations (collectively, “Laws”) and comply with those Laws.

From time to time in the ordinary course of business, we receive inquiries from governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the applicability of Laws to our services and products. In response to past inquiries, we have agreed to comply with such Laws, convinced the authorities that such Laws were not applicable or that compliance already exists and/or modified our activities in the applicable jurisdiction to avoid the application of all or certain parts of such Laws. We believe the past resolution of such inquiries and our ongoing compliance with Laws has not had a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We cannot predict what effect future Laws, changes in interpretations of existing Laws or the results of future regulator inquiries with respect to the applicability of Laws may have on our consolidated financial statements. See additional discussion of legal matters in Item 3, “Legal Proceedings” and Item 8, note 18 to our consolidated financial statements.

FUTURE LEGISLATION – In light of current conditions in the U.S. and global financial markets and the U.S. and global economy, regulators have increased their focus on the regulation of the financial services industry. Proposals that could substantially intensify the regulation of the financial services industry are expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress, in state legislatures and from applicable regulatory authorities. These proposals may change banking statutes and regulation and our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, these proposals could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible

H&R BLOCK 2010 Form 10K  29

activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether any of these proposals will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any impending regulations, would have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

 

 

STATISTICAL DISCLOSURE BY BANK HOLDING COMPANIES

This section presents information required by the SEC’s Industry Guide 3, “Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies.” The tables in this section include HRB Bank information only.

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY; INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL – The following table presents average balance data and interest income and expense data for our banking operations, as well as the related interest yields and rates for fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008:

 

 

 

 

The following table presents the rate/volume variance in interest income and expense for the last two fiscal years: