Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
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.
Bankruptcy Relevance. The issue is increasingly significant in business bankruptcy cases during the current economic downturn. If a debtor corporate parent owns the refund, it is part of the parent's bankruptcy estate; the subsidiary seeking the refund is an unsecured creditor. Conversely, if the debtor parent is an agent or trustee for its affiliates, the parent cannot use the refund to repay its creditors. The refund can also be substantial. FDIC v. Amfin Fin. Corp., 757 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2014) (dispute over ownership of $170 million refund). Deciding ownership of a refund, therefore, may be critically important to creditors of either the parent or subsidiary.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?