Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Update on Corporate Bankruptcy Tax Refund Litigation

By Michael L. Cook
July 01, 2020

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied "Colorado law to resolve" the question of "who owns the federal tax refund." Id., at 2. The court had initially held for the FDIC, the bank subsidiary's receiver, but, according to the Supreme Court, mistakenly failed to apply state law and relied instead on a Ninth Circuit decision, In re Bob Richards Chrysler Plymouth Corp., 473 F.2d 262,265 (9th Cir 1973). Id. The Supreme Court rejected Bob Richards as inappropriate federal "common lawmaking," and remanded the case back to the Tenth Circuit. Id.

Relevance

Federal courts regularly resolve consolidated corporate tax refund disputes in bankruptcy cases. By way of background, corporate parents and their subsidiaries often file a single consolidated tax return. That consolidated return enables affiliates to offset their losses against each other and to reduce the group's overall tax liability. See, 26 U. S. C §§1501 et seq. It also is administratively efficient. But the affiliates must appoint the corporate parent as their agent to file the consolidated return. When the group members are entitled to a refund, the refund must be paid "directly to and in the name of "the corporate parent, not to individual affiliates. 26 C.F.R §1.1502-77(a), (e) (i). To deal with the later distribution of the refund, affiliated groups usually enter into tax sharing or allocation agreements.

Ownership Litigation. Litigation has often ensued over who owns the refund paid to an affiliated group. The corporate parent side claims ownership of the refund and that a subsidiary is simply a creditor. The subsidiary side, however, may claim ownership because it generated the loss leading to the refund, arguing that the parent is merely an agent or trustee of the funds.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.