FPL Grp., Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 5271–96.

Citation116 T.C. No. 7,116 T.C. 73
Decision Date01 February 2001
Docket NumberNo. 5271–96.,5271–96.
PartiesFPL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
CourtUnited States Tax Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Corporate taxpayer petitioned for redetermination of deficiencies arising from disallowed credit for federal tax on fuels for its consolidated group. IRS moved for partial summary judgment. The Tax Court, Ruwe, J., held that “one claim” rule did not bar claim for credit for federal taxes on fuel.

Motion denied.

See, also 2000 WL 183930, 2002 WL 523369. On its consolidated Federal income tax returns for the years in issue, F claimed a credit for Federal taxes on fuels. F now seeks credits in addition to amounts claimed on F's original Federal income tax returns. R argues that the so-called “one claim” rule contained in sec. 6427(i)(1), I.R.C., acts as a bar to F's additional claims for credit under sec. 34, I.R.C.Held: F is not barred by the so-called “one claim” rule of sec. 6427(i)(1), I.R.C., from obtaining additional credits under sec. 34, I.R.C.Robert Thomas Carney, for petitioner.

James F. Kearney, for respondent.

OPINION

RUWE, J.

This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for partial summary judgment filed pursuant to Rule 121.1 The sole issue presented is whether petitioner is barred by the so-called “one claim” rule of section 6427(i)(1) from obtaining a credit under section 34 for amounts of Federal excise taxes paid on fuels.

Background

FPL Group, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal office located in Juno Beach, Florida. FPL Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (petitioner) filed consolidated Federal income tax returns for the years 1988 through 1992. Petitioner attached to each return a Form 4136, Computation of Credit for Federal Tax on Fuels. Form 4136 is used to claim credit for Federal excise tax paid on fuels sold or used during the period of the claim. On its Federal income tax returns for those years, petitioner claimed credits for Federal taxes on fuels as follows:

+--------------+
                ¦Year¦Credit   ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1988¦$279,732 ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1989¦233,053  ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1990¦275,303  ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1991¦391,516  ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1992¦332,568  ¦
                +--------------+
                

In its second amended petition, petitioner alleged that respondent erred in failing to allow additional fuel tax credits for vehicles which are not “highway use” vehicles in the following amounts:

+--------------+
                ¦Year¦Credit   ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1988¦$135,194 ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1989¦136,840  ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1990¦143,340  ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1991¦202,096  ¦
                +----+---------¦
                ¦1992¦215,649  ¦
                +--------------+
                

These amounts are in addition to the amounts claimed as credits on petitioner's original Federal income tax returns for those years.

Discussion
I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 294, 295, 1993 WL 393062 (1993); Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862, 1974 WL 2549 (1974). Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Full or partial summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520, 1992 WL 88529 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir.1994). Respondent, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Bond v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 32, 36, 1993 WL 7551 (1993); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529, 1985 WL 15396 (1985). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the factual materials and the inferences drawn from them must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Bond v. Commissioner, supra at 36; Naftel v. Commissioner, supra at 529. In the instant case, there is no genuine issue as to any of the material facts that we have set forth in the background section of this opinion.

II. Sections 6427 and 34

Respondent argues that petitioner is making a second claim under section 6427 and that the so-called “one claim” rule contained in section 6427(i)(1) acts as a bar to petitioner's claim for credit. Petitioner argues that its claim for credit is being made under section 34 and that the “one claim” rule in section 6427(i)(1) has no application.

A. Section 6427

Section 6427 provides a mechanism whereby a purchaser of fuel can obtain payment from the Secretary of taxes previously imposed on fuel which was not used for taxable purposes by the purchaser. See sec. 6427(a),2 (1).3 Subsections (a) and (1) of section 6427 specifically pertain to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel previously taxed under sections 4041 4 and 4091.5

Limitations on filing a claim for payment under section 6427 are addressed in section 6427(i). The general rule of limitation for payment of claims filed under section 6427 is that not more than one claim may be filed by any person with respect to fuel used during the taxable year. Section 6427(i) provides:

SEC. 6427(i). Time for Filing Claims; Period Covered.—

(1) General rule.—Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), not more than one claim may be filed under subsection (a), (b), (d), [e in 1988 and 1989], (g), (h), (1), or (q) [ (p) in 1988] by any person with respect to fuel used * * * during his taxable year; * * * 6

Section 6427(i) does not refer to any claims filed under subsection (k). Section 6427(k) makes the following reference to an income tax credit in lieu of payment:

SEC. 6427(k). Income Tax Credit in Lieu of Payment.—

* * *

(3) Allowance of credit against income tax.—

For allowances of credit against the income tax imposed by subtitle A for fuel used or resold by the purchaser, see section 34.

B. Section 34

Section 34 allows a credit against income tax imposed under subtitle A for the taxable year equal to the sum of the amounts payable to the taxpayer under section 6427. See sec. 34(a)(3).7 However, credit is not allowed under section 34(a) for an amount payable under section 6427, if a claim for such amount is timely filed and is “payable” under such section.8 Sec. 34(b).

C. Analysis

The Court of Federal Claims has recently held that the “one claim” rule under section 6427(i) does not bar timely claims for tax credit under section 34. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. & Subs. v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 298 (2000). We agree with the Court of Federal Claims and its reasoning.

Section 34(a)(3) provides: “There shall be allowed as a credit * * * an amount equal to the sum of the amounts payable to the taxpayer * * * under section 6427. The text of section 34 does not suggest that the credit it affords is limited by any of the procedural provisions of section 6427. Rather, the reference to section 6427 contained in section 34 appears merely to be a convenient measure of the amount of the credit to be afforded. Section 6427(k) does not purport to control or limit the rights afforded petitioner under section 34. Section 6427(k)(3) provides: “For allowances of credit against the income tax imposed by subtitle A for fuel used or resold by the purchaser, see section 34.” The plain language of section 6427(k)(3) indicates that credits are provided in section 34, not section 6427. Indeed, section 34(b) contemplates that a taxpayer may have made claims for payment under section 6427 and disallows credit only to the extent it duplicates such claims.

Respondent argues that section 6427(i), which generally prohibits the filing of more than one claim for payment, prohibits any credit if the taxpayer has made a prior claim for credit under section 6427(k). But section 6427(i) imposes the “one claim” rule only with respect to claims for payment made under specified subsections. Subsection (k) is not one of the specified subsections in subsection (i). And as previously explained, claims for credit are made under section 34, not section 6427(k).

The legislative history of the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91–258, sec. 207, 84 Stat. 246, which added section 6427 to the Code, supports our view that sections 34 and 6427 are parallel authorities. Section 207(a) of that act added section 6427 to the Code, while section 207(c) of the act, 84 Stat. 248, amended the existing section 39 (which is now section 34) by adding the language now found in section 34(a)(3).9

The text of the conference report provides, in part, as follows:

This amendment provides procedures for the payment of amounts (under a new section 6427 of the Code) or for the crediting against income tax (under the existing section 39 of the Code) in the case of the retailers excise taxes on gasoline and special fuels. * * *

The amendment also provides that, in general, the time for filing claims for credit under section 39, and the time for filing full-year claims by government bodies or exempt organizations for excise tax payments under specified sections of the Code, will be comparable to the time in which claim for credit or refund of income taxes may be filed.

The House recedes with technical changes. [Conf. Rept. 91–1074, at 51 (1970), 1970–1 C.B. 401, 407.]

The conference report speaks of “procedures” to be made available, in a parallel structure of relief by “payment” (section 6427) or by “crediting against income tax” (section 39). The conference report does not suggest that section 6427 provides the exclusive or otherwise controlling authority.

The Senate report confirms our conclusion that sections 39 and 6427 were viewed by Congress as parallel authorities. The Senate report provides the following discussion regarding the different treatments of credits against income tax and payments under the excise tax provisions:

Under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
263 cases
  • Rauenhorst v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • October 7, 2002
    ...no genuine issue of material fact exists and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74–75, 2001 WL 85184 (2001). In all cases, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bond v. Commis......
  • 15 W. 17TH St. LLC v. Comm'r
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • December 22, 2016
    ...The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and time-consuming trials. See FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). We may grant partial summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and a decision may be render......
  • Steinberg v. Comm'r
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • September 30, 2013
    ...dispute as to any material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74–75, 2001 WL 85184 (2001). In considering a motion for summary judgment, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving part......
  • Guardian Indus. Corp. v. Comm'r
    • United States
    • United States Tax Court
    • July 17, 2014
    ...The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See FPL Grp., Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). We may grant summary judgment when there is no genuinedispute of material fact and a decision may be rendered as a matter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT