Coca-Cola Co., & Includible Subsidiaries v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
| Decision Date | 04 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 299-94.,299-94. |
| Citation | 106 T.C. No. 1,106 T.C. 1 |
| Parties | The COCA-COLA COMPANY, AND INCLUDIBLE SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles W. Hall, William S. Lee, Nancy T. Bowen, Houston, TX, William P. McClure, Herman B. Bouma and Gregory J. Ossi, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Beth Williams, San Francisco, CA H. Steven New San Diego, CA and David P. Fuller, Torrence, CA, for respondent.
P filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to the computation of combined taxable income under sec. 936(h)(5)(C)(ii), I.R.C., with respect to syrup and soft-drink concentrate produced by P's sec. 936, I.R.C., subsidiary, Caribbean Refrescos, Inc.
1. Held:Sec. 1.936-6(b)(1), Q&A-12, Income Tax Regs., governs the computation of combined taxable income with respect to sales of component concentrate to unrelated third parties.
2. Held, further,sec. 1.936-6(b)(1), Q&A-12, Income Tax Regs., requires U.S. affiliate expenses to be allocated and apportioned to the component concentrate by applying the production cost ratio to all expenses allocable and apportionable to the integrated product; i.e., bottle and can soft drink.
3. Held further,sec. 1.936-6(b)(1), Q&A-12, Income Tax Regs., requires U.S. affiliate expenses allocable and apportionable to the integrated product, i.e., bottle and can soft drink, to be determined under sec. 1.861-8, Income Tax Regs., as described in sec. 1.936-(b)(1), Q&A-1, Income Tax Regs.
4. Held, further, P may net interest income against interest expense in determining the amount of the interest deduction to be allocated and apportioned in computing combined taxable income under sec. 936, I.R.C., and sec. 1.861-8(e)(2), Income Tax Regs. Bowater Inc. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 207 (1993).
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment filed under Rule 121.1 This case was heard at a motions session held on February 23, 1995, at Washington, D.C.2 Petitioner's motion was taken under advisement.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in controversy “if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.” Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988). The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985). The facts presented below do not appear to be in dispute, are stated solely for purposes of deciding the motion, and are not findings of fact for this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Sundstrand Corp v. Commissioner, supra at 520.
I. Background
Petitioner owns bottling companies known as company bottling operations (CBO's), each of which is a domestic corporation owned or controlled directly or indirectly by petitioner. Petitioner's principal place of business is Atlanta, Georgia. Caribbean Refrescos, Inc. (CRI), is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner.
CRI produces soft-drink concentrate in Puerto Rico and transfers all of the concentrate for the U.S. market to Coca-Cola USA (sometimes referred to as USA), an unincorporated division of petitioner. Coca-Cola USA sells concentrate, in unchanged form, to CBO's and to unrelated independent bottling companies engaged in producing syrup and selling such syrup to wholesalers. Coca-Cola USA converts the remainder of the concentrate into fountain syrup and sells the syrup to unrelated bottlers and CBO's. Fountain syrup is a combination of concentrate, high fructose corn syrup, and water. Syrup is mixed with carbonated water at retail outlets to produce the fountain soft drink sold to consumers. During the years at issue, the dilution ratio for Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, and Diet Cherry Coke was 1:79.26:515. Thus, one unit of concentrate is processed into 79.26 gallons of syrup, which is further processed into 515 gallons of soft drink. Regardless of the form of the product sold, each sale involves exactly one unit of concentrate.
The CBO's that purchase concentrate from Coca-Cola USA convert the concentrate into fountain syrup and sell the syrup to unrelated retailers. The CBO's that purchase fountain syrup sell the fountain syrup to unrelated retailers.
CRI is both the possessions corporation and the electing corporation within the meaning of section 936. Under section 1504(b), a section 936 possessions corporation is required to file a separate U.S. corporate return and is therefore ineligible to join in the parent corporation's consolidated return.
The issues before us for partial summary judgment arise out of the section 936 tax credit, which is designed to encourage investment and employment in Puerto Rico and other possessions of the United States. The amount of the credit is derived from the amount of the “combined taxable income” (sometimes referred to as CTI) derived from the “possession product”. The primary dispute in the instant case involves the dividing of income and expenses between related parties. More specifically, the dispute involves whether the use of a formulaic calculation, or rather a calculation based upon factual relationships, is mandated in order to obtain the proper allocation and apportionment of expenses to the gross income derived from the sale of a component possession product by a U.S. affiliate.
Petitioner filed its Federal income tax returns for taxable years 1983 through 1986 relying in part on section 1.936-6(b)(1), Q&A-12, Income Tax Regs. (Q&A-12). Respondent issued a deficiency notice to petitioner in 1991 for taxable years 1983 and 1984. Petitioner filed a motion for partial summary judgment in that prior case, docket No. 17171-91, similar to the one filed in the instant case. Respondent thereafter conceded the prior case in November 1992. On November 10, 1992, the Commissioner opened a regulation project with respect to the computation of combined taxable income under section 936(h). In October 1993, respondent issued the notice of deficiency in the instant case, determining deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1985 and 1986 in the amounts of $30,504,383 and $42,640,008, respectively. Respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to the amount of the section 936 tax credit claimed on its returns for the years at issue. The petition in the instant case was filed January 4, 1994. On January 12, 1994, respondent's proposed amendment to Q&A-12 was published in the Federal Register. See infra note 5.
A secondary dispute in the instant case involves the treatment of interest expense with respect to computing combined taxable income under section 936. We are asked to decide whether petitioner may net interest income against interest expense in determining the amount of interest deduction to be allocated and apportioned in computing combined taxable income. Respondent contends that interest netting violates section 1.861-8(e)(2), Income Tax Regs., and petitioner must allocate and apportion the amount of its gross interest expense in determining combined taxable income. As a preliminary matter, we summarily reject respondent's argument and find, without further analysis, on the basis of Bowater Inc. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 207 (1993), that petitioner may net interest income against interest expense in determining the amount of interest deduction to be allocated and apportioned in computing combined taxable income under section 936 and section 1.861-8(e)(2), Income Tax Regs. See also General Portland Cement Co. v. United States, 628 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1980).
II. DiscussionA. Section 936 and Section 1.936-6(b)(1) Q&A 1 & 12, Income Tax Regs.
Under the statutory scheme of section 936, a U.S. corporation, such as CRI, which elects the application of section 936 and meets certain requirements with respect to operating in a possession, is entitled to a credit against the U.S. tax on certain possession-related income. Section 936 provides the following:
SEC. 936(a). Allowance of Credit.--
(1) In General.-- * * * if a domestic corporation elects the application of this section * * * there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to the portion of the tax which is attributable to the sum of--
(i) the active conduct of a trade or business within a possession of the United States, or
(ii) the sale or exchange of substantially all of the assets used by the taxpayer in the active conduct of such trade or business, and
less the deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto. [Emphasis added.]
Section 936(h) provides the following:
SEC. 936(h). Tax Treatment of Intangible Property Income.--
* * *
(3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medchem (P.R.), Inc. v. C.I.R.
...in U.S. possessions. See S.Rep. No. 67-275 (1921), reprinted in 1939-1 C.B. (pt. 2) 181, 187; see generally Coca-Cola Co. v. Comm'r, 106 T.C. 1, 21, 1996 WL 4126 (1996) (describing the 1921 Act and its progeny); N.H. Kaufman, Comment, Puerto Rico's Possessions Corporations: Do the TEFRA Ame......
-
Unionbancal Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 11364–97.
...it was promulgated under the specific delegation of authority contained in section 267(f)(2)(B). See Coca–Cola Co., & Includible Subs. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 1, 19, 1996 WL 4126 (1996) (“A legislative regulation is made pursuant to a specific grant of authority, often without precise con......
-
Elec. Arts, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...with our analyses in G.D. Searle & Co. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 252, 350–351, 1987 WL 49272 (1987), and Coca–Cola Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 106 T .C. 1, 21, 1996 WL 4126 (1996). From section 262 of the Revenue Act of 1921 through section 931, I.R.C.1954, a qualifying domestic corporation......
-
Francisco v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 7670–00.
...legislative regulations delineating the scope of the income exclusion pursuant to section 931(d)(2). See Coca–Cola Co. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 1, 19, 1996 WL 4126 (1996); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)......