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
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.

The Bankruptcy Hotline Image

Recent cases of importance to your practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

How AI Has Affected PR Image

When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.