Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Decision Date | 06 July 2001 |
Docket Number | DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,No. 00-5098,00-5098 |
Citation | 255 F.3d 1357 |
Parties | (Fed. Cir. 2001) RITE AID CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS,, v. UNITED STATES, Decided: |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
B. John Williams, Jr., Shearman & Sterling, of Washington, Dc, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Richard J. Gagnon, Jr. Stuart J. Bassin, Attorney, Tax Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, Dc, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Jonathan S. Cohen, Attorney.
Before Mayer, Chief Judge, Friedman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Michel, Circuit Judge.
Rite Aid Corp. appeals the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 500 (2000), granting summary judgment for the government that Treasury Regulation (Treas. Reg.) §§ 1.1502-20 is not arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to law. Because the regulation is not within the authority delegated by Congress under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) §§ 1502, we reverse.
In 1984, Rite Aid acquired eighty percent of Penn Encore (Encore), a small discount bookstore chain, in an asset sale for $3 million. Rite Aid purchased the balance of Encore stock in 1988 for $1.5 million. Including the tax on the 1984 asset sale, the cost basis in the stock was $4,659,730. Beginning in 1984, Rite Aid included Encore in its affiliated group of corporations for the purpose of filing consolidated income tax returns under I.R.C. §§ 1501. From 1984 through 1994, Encore experienced significant growth in sales but was only marginally profitable, with net income decreasing in the final three years from $1.7 million to a $5.2 million loss. In 1994, Rite Aid sold Encore to an unrelated company, CMI Holding Corp. (CMI). CMI refused to make an I.R.C. §§ 338(h)(10) election to treat the transaction as a sale of assets for tax purposes.
Rite Aid calculated the amount of its loss on the sale of Encore stock under I.R.C. §§ 1001, which provides that the loss on the sale of property equals the excess of the adjusted basis over the amount realized. Rite Aid increased its basis to include $44,890,476 of inter-company debt contributed to Encore's capital on the date of sale and reduced its basis by $10,905,806 to reflect Encore's net negative earnings and profits. The adjusted basis in Encore stock on the date of the sale was $38,644,400. Rite Aid had net selling expenses of $16,507,661, resulting in a net loss of $22,136,739 on the sale.
Under I.R.C. §§ 165, Rite Aid would be permitted to deduct its loss on the sale of Encore stock. However, Treas. Reg. §§ 1.1502-20 disallows a shareholder's investment loss to the extent of the subsidiary's "duplicated loss factor." The duplicated loss factor is calculated as the excess of the subsidiary's adjusted basis in its assets over the value of its assets immediately after the sale. Encore's duplicated loss factor was $28,535,858. Because this loss exceeded Rite Aid's investment loss of $22,136,739, Treas. Reg. §§ 1.1502-20 prohibited the otherwise valid deduction for Rite Aid's loss on the sale of Encore stock.
Rite Aid paid the tax and filed a claim for refund, which the government denied. On its own behalf and as the common parent for the affiliated group of corporations that filed a consolidated income tax return, Rite Aid sued for a refund of tax payments under I.R.C. §§ 7422 and interest due under I.R.C. §§ 6611, for the tax year ending March 4, 1995. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the sole issue of whether Treas. Reg. §§ 1.1502-20 was a proper exercise of the Secretary of the Treasury's regulatory authority. The court granted the government's motion and denied Rite Aid's.
We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal from a final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(3). We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Gump v. United States, 86 F.3d 1126, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The delegation of rule making power in I.R.C. §§ 1502 provides for the promulgation of legislative, rather than interpretive regulations. See Am. Standard, Inc. v. United States, 602 F.2d 256, 260 (Ct. Cl. 1979). Legislative regulations are entitled to "controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." Schuler Indus., Inc. v. United States, 109 F.3d 753, 755 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984)). A regulation is manifestly contrary to the statute if it is outside the scope of authority delegated under the statute. See Rowan Cos., Inc. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247, 253 (1981).
I.R.C. §§ 1501 provides that an affiliated group of corporations shall have the privilege of filing a consolidated income tax return. In section 1502, Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury authority to: "prescribe such regulations as he may deem necessary in order that the tax liability of any affiliated group of corporations making a consolidated return and of each corporation in the group, both during and after the period of affiliation, may be returned, determined, computed, assessed, collected, and adjusted, in such manner as clearly to reflect the income-tax liability and the various factors necessary for the determination of such liability, and in order to prevent avoidance of such tax liability." In 1928, Congress debated the reauthorization of the privilege. The House of Representatives initially voted to revoke it, but Section 141 of the Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 791, preserved it "with certain necessary amendments to eliminate the administrative problems of the present law." S. Rep. No. 960, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1928). The Senate Committee on Finance report accompanying the 1928 internal revenue bill noted that "[m]any difficult and complicated problems, however, have arisen in the administration of the provisions permitting the filing of consolidated returns." S. Rep. No. 960, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1928). The committee "found it necessary to delegate power to the commissioner to prescribe regulations legislative in character covering them." Id. Section 141(b) of the 1928 act is identical to the current section 1502.
Section 1502 grants the Secretary "the power to conform the applicable income tax law of the Code to the special, myriad problems resulting from the filing of consolidated income tax returns." Am. Standard, 602 F.2d at 261. There may be several reasonable methods to correct problems created from the filing of consolidated returns, and the Secretary's authority in choosing among them is absolute. See id. The purpose of section 1502 is to give the Secretary authority to identify and correct instances of tax avoidance created by the filing of consolidated returns. But section 1502 "does not authorize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Veterans Justice Grp., LLC v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs
...to initiate appeals on a standard VA form in which specific points of disagreement are identified. See Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2001) ("A regulation is manifestly contrary to the statute if it is outside the scope of the authority delegated under the sta......
-
Cardiosom, L.L.C. v. United States
...(citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984)); see also Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("A regulation is manifestly contrary to the statute if it is outside the scope of authority delegated under the statute......
-
B&H Med., LLC v. United States
...(citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984)); see also Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("A regulation is manifestly contrary to the statute if it is outside the scope of authority delegated under the statute......
-
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Stock , 55 Fed. Reg. 9426-01, 9427 (Mar. 14, 1990). In July 2001, however, the Federal Circuit's decision in Rite Aid Corp. v. United States , 255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001), invalidated the pertinent portion of § 1.1502-20 as beyond the IRS's power to issue because it addressed a problem n......
-
Recent Tax Court Decision Reflects Courts Disallowance Of Duplicated Deductions In Duquense Light Holdings, Inc.
...stock loss with the 2002 and 2003 asset losses. The Court distinguished the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Rite Aid Corp., 255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001) which held a portion of the consolidated return regulations invalid where the effect of such regulation would be to effecti......
-
Fiduciary Duties, Consolidated Returns, and Fairness
...expenses). 272. There are limitations on P's ability to recognize a loss from the sale of S's stock. See Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that Treasury Department's regulation disallowing loss on sale of subsidiary's stock by member of consolida......
-
Disposable Personal Goodwill, Frosty the Snowman, and Martin Ice Cream All Melt Away in the Bright Sunlight of Analysis
...Treas. Reg. § 1.1502-20 (the loss disallowance rule). See T.D. 8364, 1991-2 C.B. 43. On July 6, 2001, in Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the duplicated loss provisions of the loss disallowance rules were......
-
Brief of Tax Executives Institute, Inc. as amicus curiae insupport of petitioners: interest of amicus curiae.
...under the section 861" for the allocation of R&D expenses to yield to the DISC and FSC rules. Cf. Rite Aid Corp. v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that a consolidated return regulation cannot be used to subvert the intent of another statute); see also Un......
-
2004 American Jobs Creation Act: selected highlights.
...in a Sec. 1031 like-kind exchange. Consolidated Returns The new law clarifies that, despite a contrary implication in the Rite Aid case [255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001)], the Treasury has authority to prescribe regulations treating corporations filing consolidated returns differently than co......
-
PL 108-357, HR 4520 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad.
...on January 1, 2001) as being inapplicable to the factual situation in Rite Aid Corporation and Subsidiary Corporations v. United States, 255 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. (c) Effective Date.--This > section, and the amendment made by this section, shall apply to taxable years beginning before, on, o......