Review the posted Intuit Proxy Statement or the Intuit-Credit Karma “Agree-ment and Plan of Merger” (or both). You will see statement(s) indicating that the parties intended that the acquisition of Credit Karma by Intuit was to constitute a reorganization “within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code.”

But there are three common forms of acquisitive reorganizations in § 368(a) –

• “A” reorganizations (§ 368(a)(1)(A)),
• “B” reorganizations (§ 368(a)(1)(B)), and
• “C” reorganizations (§ 368(a)(1)(C)).

All three of these acquisitive transactional forms are often (if loosely) referred to as “mergers.” But exactly which was the Intuit-Credit Karma deal intended to qualify as? And how do we know? Explain in 2-3 sentences.

QUESTION 2

the subject merger does satisfy the “continuity of interest” test applicable to acquisitive reorganizations.

Support your conclusion with 2-3 sentences of explanation.