Go Daddy 2015 Annual Report Download - page 115

Table of Contents
GoDaddy Inc.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(In millions, except share amounts which are reflected in thousands and per share amounts)
In addition, under the tax rules, Desert Newco is required to allocate taxable income disproportionately to its unit holders. Because tax distributions are
determined based on the holder of LLC Units who is allocated the largest amount of taxable income on a per unit basis, but are made pro rata based on ownership,
Desert Newco is required to make tax distributions that, in the aggregate, will likely exceed the amount of taxes Desert Newco would have otherwise paid. Desert
Newco is subject to entity level taxation in certain states, and certain of its subsidiaries are subject to entity level U.S. and foreign income taxes. As a result, the
accompanying consolidated statements of income include income tax expense related to those states and to U.S. and foreign jurisdictions where we or any of our
subsidiaries are subject to income tax.
During 2015 , Desert Newco paid tax distributions of $0.3 million to its owners, excluding us, including $0.1 million each to Holdings, KKR and SLP. As of
December 31, 2015 , we have accrued $5.3 million for estimated tax distributions to Desert Newco's owners, excluding us, which are included in accrued expenses
and other current liabilities and will be paid in March 2016. This accrued amount will be paid based on ownership as of the payment date and is estimated as
follows: $2.1 million to Holdings, $1.1 million to KKR, $1.1 million to SLP, $0.6 million to TCV and $0.4 million to other Desert Newco owners. No tax
distributions were paid in 2014 or 2013 .
13. Loss Per Share
Basic loss per share is computed by dividing net loss attributable to GoDaddy Inc. by the weighted-average number of shares of Class A common stock
outstanding during the period. Diluted loss per share is computed giving effect to all potentially dilutive shares, including outstanding options, RSUs and warrants.
Diluted loss per share for all periods presented is the same as basic loss per share as the inclusion of potentially issuable shares would be antidilutive.
For purposes of calculating loss per share for periods prior to the IPO, including 2015 for which a portion of the period preceded the IPO, we treated the
Reorganization Transactions as a merger of entities under common control. Therefore, we have retrospectively reflected loss per share as though these transactions
had occurred as of the earliest period presented. For all periods prior to the IPO, we allocated our historical net loss between the Class A stockholders and the non-
controlling interest based on their respective share ownership. For these allocations, the weighted average shares of Class A common stock outstanding was based
upon the number of LLC Units held by the Reorganization Parties, while the weighted average shares of Class B common stock outstanding for the non-controlling
interest was based upon the LLC Units held by the Continuing LLC Owners. These calculations do not consider the 26,000 shares of Class A common stock sold in
our IPO.
A reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share is as follows:
Year Ended December 31,
2015
2014
2013
Numerator:
Net loss $ (120.4)
$ (143.3)
$ (199.9)
Less: net loss attributable to non-controlling interests (73.0)
(100.1)
(138.6)
Net loss attributable to GoDaddy Inc. $ (47.4)
$ (43.2)
$ (61.3)
Denominator:
Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding—basic 58,676
38,826
38,826
Effect of dilutive securities —
—
—
Weighted-average shares of Class A common stock outstanding—diluted 58,676
38,826
38,826
Net loss per share of Class A common stock—basic and diluted $ (0.81)
$ (1.11)
$ (1.58)
During 2015 , 2014 and 2013 , we had 15,298 , 10,519 and 5,232 weighted-average potentially dilutive shares (options, RSUs and warrants), respectively,
which were excluded from the calculation of diluted loss per share because the effect of including such potentially dilutive shares would have been antidilutive.
109