SecProbe.io

CORRESP
1
filename1.htm

May 2, 2012

Mr. James Rosenberg

Senior Assistant Chief Accountant

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Division of Corporation Finance

Mail Stop 4720

100 F Street NE

Washington, D.C.  20549

RE:  File Number 001-02189

Dear Mr. Rosenberg:

In reply to your letter of April 18, 2012, we have enclosed our response in the attachment to this letter.

As per your request, Abbott acknowledges that we are responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing; staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and Abbott may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.

Very   truly yours,

/s/   Thomas C. Freyman

Thomas   C. Freyman

Executive   Vice President, Finance

and   Chief Financial Officer

Enclosure

Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011

Risk Factors “Other factors can have a material adverse effect on Abbott’s future profitability and financial condition,” page 14

1.               You disclose that one of many factors that can affect your profitability and financial condition are difficulties related to your information technology systems, including any significant breakdown, invasion, destruction, loss of data privacy, or interruption of these systems. Please tell us whether you have experienced any significant breakdown, invasion, destruction, loss of data privacy, or interruption of these systems in the past and management’s view of the potential impact of any such attacks on your operations, expenses and risks. Please refer to the Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 2 at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfguidancetopic2.htm for additional information.

Response:

We have not experienced any breakdown, invasion, destruction, loss of data privacy, or interruption of these systems in the past that had a material effect on results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition in any reporting period.  As a large multinational company, we depend on well-developed information technology systems to operate our business.  The impact of a breakdown, invasion, or interruption of these systems would depend upon the extent of the attack.  We have invested in our information systems and the protection of our data to reduce the risk of such a breakdown, invasion, or interruption.  We also monitor our systems on an ongoing basis for any current or potential threats.

As part of preparing our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, we assessed whether any additional disclosure was warranted by the Division of Corporation Finance’s Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 2.  Given the steps that we have taken and the investments we have made to protect our systems, we do not believe that the costs or other consequences associated with the risk of potential incidents represents a material event, trend, or uncertainty that is reasonably likely to have a material effect on our operating results, liquidity, or financial condition or that would cause reported information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results or financial condition.  Therefore, we did not add any additional disclosure relating to cybersecurity risks in our 2011 Form 10-K.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Legislative Issues, page 50

2.               Although you disclose the aspects of health care reform legislation that affect the company, you do not quantify its impact on your financial statements.  In this regard, please provide us proposed revised disclosure to be included in future periodic reports indicating the amount of the reduction to revenues for the

1

increased Medicaid rebate in 2011 and 2010 and for additional rebate associated with the Medicare Part D “donut hole” in 2011. Also, include in your proposed revised disclosure the amount of the branded prescription drug fee you recorded in your statement of earnings in 2011, in which line item it is classified therein and highlight that this fee is not tax deductible.  Finally, if you believe that the expected effects of health care reform legislation in 2012 and beyond will be materially different than the 2011 trends, include the expected effects in the proposed revised disclosure.

Response:

We quantified the impact of health care reform legislation, including the expected effects, in the Financial Review in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations on page 29 of the 2011 Form 10-K.  We have reproduced the discussion below:

“In 2010, the U.S. government passed health care reform legislation which included an increase in Medicaid rebate rates and the extension of the rebate to drugs provided through Medicaid managed care organizations beginning in 2010.  The legislation also imposed annual fees which pharmaceutical manufacturers began paying in 2011 and medical device companies will begin paying in 2013, as well as additional rebates related to the Medicare Part D “donut hole” beginning in 2011.  In addition to a 2010 one-time charge of approximately $60 million to reduce deferred tax assets associated with retiree health care liabilities related to the Medicare Part D retiree drug subsidy, the legislation’s negative impact on Abbott’s performance grew from more than $200 million in 2010 to approximately $400 million in 2011 and is expected to remain at approximately $400 million in 2012.”

We will add the amount of the 2011 fee to our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and we will add a disclosure related to the amount, line classification, and tax-deductibility of the branded prescription drug fee to our Form 10-K in the future.  For 2011 Form 10-K, the disclosure would have been:

The $400 million impact in 2011 included approximately $100 million for the annual pharmaceutical manufacturer fee.  This fee is not tax-deductible and is included in selling, general, and administrative expenses.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 — Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Concentration of risk and guarantees, page 60

3.               On page 48 you disclose that your outstanding net governmental trade receivables in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain totaled $1.73 billion, $1.50 billion, and $1.59 billion at December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.  You also disclose that a significant amount of these receivables are with government health systems and state that given the economic conditions and sovereign debt issues in these

2

countries, the time it takes to collect outstanding receivables increased in 2011 and that at December 31, 2011 27% of these receivables were past due for over a year.  Please provide us proposed revised disclosure to be included in future periodic reports that presents a breakdown, by country, segregated between sovereign and any non-sovereign exposures of your trade receivables gross and net of allowances. In addition, please provide disclosure on hedges, including derivatives such as credit default swaps that you may use to mitigate risk.  Incorporate additional risk management disclosures which provide investors with insight into how management is monitoring and/or mitigating exposures.  In addition, please tell us the payment terms for these receivables, the aging of these receivables and provide us your analysis supporting why the extended payment pattern does not negate your assertion that the sales price is fixed or determinable or that collectability is reasonably assured.

Response:

In Greece, Portugal, Italy, and Spain, the vast majority of Abbott’s products are sold to governmental organizations.  Non-sovereign receivables in these 4 countries in total account for approximately 3% of Abbott’s total trade receivables at the end of 2011.  The non-sovereign receivables in any individual country do not represent more than 1.6% of Abbott’s total trade receivables.  Absent a dispute regarding a particular invoice, Abbott typically collects these non-sovereign receivables in 30-180 days according to the terms.  Given the immateriality and the collection history, we do not believe that additional disclosure of the non-sovereign receivables is warranted.  In future Form 10-K disclosures we will state that substantially all of the receivables in these countries are governmental receivables.

We also do not believe that individual disclosure by country is warranted given the size of an individual country’s governmental receivables relative to Abbott’s total receivables.  Individually, governmental receivables in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece are 11.0%, 8.9%, 2.3%, and 0.7%, respectively, of Abbott’s total receivables.  Government receivables over a year past due in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece equate to 4%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1%, respectively, of Abbott’s total receivables at December 31, 2011.

Abbott does not utilize derivatives or other hedges related to its receivables in these countries.

As we indicated on pages 48-49 of our 2011 Form 10-K, we continue to monitor our receivables and we establish an allowance when it is probable that a balance will not be collected.  We will expand this disclosure to further describe what we do to monitor these receivables.  For 2011 the disclosure would have stated:

Abbott closely monitors economic conditions and budgetary and other fiscal developments in these countries.  Abbott regularly communicates with its customers regarding the status of receivable balances, including their payment plans and obtains positive confirmation of the validity of the receivables.  Abbott also monitors the potential for and periodically has utilized factoring arrangements to mitigate risk

3

although such arrangements were not material in 2011.

Government payment terms are generally 90 days in Italy, Portugal, and Greece.  In Spain, government payment terms are generally 60 days and after 90 days the receivable earns interest at the Euribor rate plus 7 percentage points.  With the exception of the exchange for bonds instituted by Greece in 2010, actual bad debt write-offs incurred by Abbott in these countries has been negligible for the past ten years.  While economic and budgetary pressures in these countries over the last two years resulted in a lengthening of the time required to collect, collections of the invoiced amounts continued in 2011 in each of these countries.  The long history of collection and a historically low level of write-off support the conclusion that the price is fixed or determinable and that collectability is reasonably assured.

Note 4 — Post-employment benefits. Page 69

4.               Please provide us proposed revised disclosure to be included in future periodic reports that describes the transaction that resulted in the $776 million settlement presented in your tabular disclosure or direct us to existing disclosures. Separately reference for us the authoritative literature you rely upon to support settlement accounting.

Response:

We will add the following disclosure to the financial statements in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012:

During 2011, $776 million of assets and liabilities of a plan sponsored by Abbott Healthcare BV, a Dutch subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, were irrevocably transferred to a Dutch insurance company in full settlement of that plan.  The assets were used to purchase an annuity contract to fulfill the plan’s obligations.

The transaction qualifies as a settlement under ASC 715 which defines a settlement as “a transaction that is an irrevocable action, relieves the employer (or the plan) of primary responsibility for a pension or postretirement benefit obligation, and eliminates significant risks related to the obligation and assets used to effect the settlement.”  The transaction met these 3 criteria and therefore, qualified for settlement accounting.

In addition, paragraph 35 of ASC 715-30-35 states: “If an employer purchases nonparticipating annuity contracts for vested benefits and continues to provide defined benefits for future service, either in the same plan or in a successor plan, a settlement has occurred but not a curtailment.”  Paragraph 35 describes the transaction associated with the Abbott Healthcare BV plan.

4

Note 5 — Taxes on earnings, page 74

5.               For U.S. income tax purposes, you concluded that the new Puerto Rican excise tax is creditable for U.S. income tax purposes. It is apparent from your rate reconciliation on page 75 that your benefit of lower foreign tax rates and tax exemptions increased 3.5 percentage points or $182 million from 2010 to 2011. To the extent that this excise tax is a material component of this increase, please provide us proposed revised disclosure to be included in future filings that quantifies the amount of the U.S. income tax benefit. Please also provide us with your analysis that supports your conclusion that the excise tax is creditable from a US foreign tax credit perspective and the exclusion or inclusion, as applicable, in your unrecognized tax benefit.

Response:

The U.S. foreign tax credit related to the Puerto Rico excise tax is included in the “All other, net” line in the rate reconciliation on page 75, not in the “Benefit of lower foreign tax rates and tax exemptions” category.  The latter covers the lower foreign tax rates and tax exemptions in certain foreign jurisdictions.  In future reporting periods, if the net impact of the U.S. foreign tax credit related to the Puerto Rico excise tax exceeds the applicable thresholds (5% of pretax income or statutory tax expense), we will include this impact on a separate line titled “U.S. foreign tax credit related to Puerto Rico excise tax.”

In late 2010 and early 2011, the Puerto Rican government enacted Law 154 and the accompanying regulations that, in general, levied an excise tax on certain Abbott entities for purchases of Puerto Rican sourced goods and services. The stated intent by the Puerto Rican government in constructing the excise tax was that it be fully creditable against U.S. income tax and that U.S. companies would bear no incremental global tax costs as a result of the excise tax burden. To achieve this goal, the Puerto Rican government hired a U.S. law firm (Steptoe and Johnson) to assist in designing the excise tax. Steptoe and Johnson issued a “should” opinion that concluded that the excise tax was creditable for U.S. Federal income tax purposes.  On March 30, 2011, the IRS issued Notice 2011-29 in response to Puerto Rico’s enactment of its new excise tax. The notice stated that the IRS and the Treasury Department were evaluating the excise tax and it concluded:

“The determination of the creditability of the Excise Tax requires the resolution of a number of legal and factual issues.  Pending the resolution of these issues, the IRS will not challenge a taxpayer’s position that the Excise Tax is a tax in lieu of an income tax under section 903. This notice is effective for Excise Tax paid or accrued on or after January 1, 2011. Any change in the foreign tax credit treatment of the Excise Tax after resolution of the pending issues will be prospective, and will apply to Excise Tax paid or accrued after the date that further guidance is issued.”

Based on the stated guidance in the IRS notice, the opinion of Abbott’s outside legal counsel, and discussions with our IRS auditors as part of the Compliance Assurance Program (CAP), we have concluded that the tax is creditable from a U.S. foreign tax credit perspective and that no amount of the credit relating to the excise tax paid by

5

entities comprising Abbott’s consolidated U.S. Federal income tax return should be included in our unrecognized tax benefits.

6.