Rodriguez v. FDIC

Last updated

Rodriguez v. FDIC
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 3, 2019
Decided February 25, 2020
Full case nameRodriguez, as chapter 7 trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of United Western Bancorp, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for United Western Bank
Docket no. 18-1269
Citations589 U.S. ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior473 F.2d 262
Holding
473 F.2d 262 (The Bob Richards Rule) is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking, 914 F.3d 1262 vacated and remanded
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
MajorityGorsuch, joined by a unanimous court

Rodriguez v. FDIC was a United States Supreme Court case (589 U.S. ____ (2020)) in which the court held that the Bob Richards rule was not appropriately crafted and federal judges should not apply it when resolving disputes about tax allocations to members of an affiliated group filing a consolidated return. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The United Western Bank entered FDIC receivership in 2011, [3] in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis after suffering losses from exposure to mortgage backed securities and commercial borrower defaults. [4] After a federal judge ruled in a separate lawsuit challenging the bank shutdown that regulators' decision to put the bank into receivership was reasonable and within their discretionary powers the bank's parent company, United Western Bancorp, entered into chapter 7 bankruptcy, and Simon Rodriguez – the plaintiff in Rodriguez v. FDIC– was named as the trustee. The dispute arose between bankruptcy trustee Simon Rodriguez and the FDIC over who would receive the $4 million refund issued by the IRS. [1] [5] In 2015, the IRS paid the income tax return filed by United Western Bancorp in 2011 to the bankruptcy court, handing the court the mandate to figure out to whom the refund is due. [5]

Under 26 U.S.C.   § 1501 the IRS allows consolidated tax returns and issues refunds as a single payment. The IRS has little involvement in how the payment is distributed among group members and when disputes arise federal courts would presumably apply state laws. Some courts have instead created a federal common law rule known as the Bob Richards rule, taking its name from the case In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp. [6]

With the bankruptcy court given the responsibility of finding out to whom the money should be paid out, the court used a previous agreement between United Western Bancorp and United Western Bank to hold that the money should be paid to United Western Bancorp; however, this was appealed by the FDIC to a United States district court. [5]

The district court overturned the decision of the previous court with the rationale that under the Bob Richards rule gave the money to United Western Bank as they were the entity that suffered monetary loss. [7] Rodriguez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appeals court upheld the district court's ruling [5] and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. [8] [9]

Decision

The previous judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to the Tenth Circuit to decide without considering the Bob Richards rule. The Supreme Court found that the Bob Richards rule was "not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking", which went beyond the ability permitted of federal judges to "appropriately craft the rule of decision". [1] Justice Gorsuch cites the fourth Cort v. Ash factor: Corporations are generally "creatures of state law", [10] and state law is adequate for resolving a dispute about the distribution of a consolidated corporate tax refund.

Further proceedings

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit held that the outcome under state law was the same as it was under the Bob Richards rule, reaffirming their previous decision that the refund belonged to the FDIC as receiver, and not the trustee for the bank's failed parent company Western United Bancorp. [11] The judgment was then remanded to the bankruptcy court. [12]

Related Research Articles

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

A tax refund or tax rebate is a payment to the taxpayer due to the taxpayer having paid more tax than they owed.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Tax Court</span> United States federal court dealing with tax matters

The United States Tax Court is a federal trial court of record established by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, section 8 of which provides that the Congress has the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". The Tax Court specializes in adjudicating disputes over federal income tax, generally prior to the time at which formal tax assessments are made by the Internal Revenue Service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Republic Bank & Trust Company</span> American Bank

Republic Bank & Trust Company is a Louisville, Kentucky-based bank.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, currently codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7421, is a United States federal law originally enacted in 1867. The statute provides that with 14 specified exceptions, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed".

A tax protester, in the United States, is a person who denies that he or she owes a tax based on the belief that the Constitution of the United States, statutes, or regulations do not empower the government to impose, assess or collect the tax. The tax protester may have no dispute with how the government spends its revenue. This differentiates a tax protester from a tax resister, who seeks to avoid paying a tax because the tax is being used for purposes with which the resister takes issue.

Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974), is a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

<i>Murphy v. IRS</i>

Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void, by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.

A tax levy under United States federal law is an administrative action by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under statutory authority, generally without going to court, to seize property to satisfy a tax liability. The levy "includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means". The general rule is that no court permission is required for the IRS to execute a tax levy.

Uniformity and jurisdiction in the tax decisions of the United States federal courts is the ongoing debate spanning many decades about achievement of uniformity and decisionmaking by federal courts when addressing tax controversies against the backdrop of multiple, regionally diverse courts with federal tax jurisdiction.

Pacific Capital Bancorp was a bank headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. It had 47 branches, all of which were in Southern California. It operated under the name Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. The company also operated Morton Capital Management and R.E. Wacker Associates, investment advisory firms. In 2012, the company was acquired by MUFG Union Bank.

The Bank of New England Corporation was a regional banking institution based in Boston, Massachusetts, which was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 1991 as a result of heavy losses in its loan portfolio and was placed into Chapter 7 liquidation. At the time, it was the 33rd largest bank in the United States, and its federal seizure bailout was the second-largest on record. At its peak, it had been the 18th largest bank and had over 470 branch offices. The liquidation company was named Recoll Management Corporation and its bankruptcy estate has continued to exist to pay out claims against the company. As of 2016, most of what was once Bank of New England is now part of Bank of America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen H. Anderson</span> American judge

Stephen Hale Anderson is an inactive Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 239 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case, which hold that under 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation 1.461-1(a)(2), the "all events" test entitled an accrual-basis taxpayer to a federal income tax business-expense deduction, for the taxable year in which (1) all events had occurred which determined the fact of the taxpayer's liability, and (2) the amount of that liability could be determined with reasonable accuracy.

United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976), was a Supreme Court Case that found Max Janis and Morris Levine guilty of illegal bookmaking activities in Los Angeles in a 5-3 ruling. The two were arrested for the crime in November 1968. Appealing on the grounds of unconstitutionally seized evidence, Janis and Levine were heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1973. The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court in 1975, and the two were found guilty in 1976. More importantly, the case established that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil cases where evidence is unconstitutionally seized by a state officer but used by a federal institution.

Franklin Savings Association was an Ottawa, Kansas-based American Savings and loan association that was one of the largest seizures of the savings and loan crisis. Subsequent litigation established that the institution had always been in full capital compliance, a fact to which the FDIC stipulated in 2011, after 21 years of legal challenges by Franklin's shareholders. Also, the FDIC refused to open its books to a bankruptcy judge and never demonstrated that the seizure resulted in a loss to the American taxpayers. It is widely believed that Franklin's assets, which had a book value of more than $380 million when seized, were ultimately sold by the government to private investors at a significant profit.

FDIC may refer to:

References

  1. 1 2 3 Rodriguez v. FDIC, 58918-1269 (U.S.25 February 2020).
  2. Jones, Roger J. (February 26, 2020). "Supreme Court Tackles Tax-Related Cases". The National Law Review. X (57). Retrieved January 11, 2022.
  3. "First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Raleigh, North Carolina, Assumes All of the Deposits of United Western Bank, Denver, Colorado4". Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Retrieved December 28, 2023.
  4. "Ruling sends bankrupt United Western Bank toward liquidation". The Denver Post. Bloomberg News. March 11, 2013. Retrieved December 28, 2023.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Bonner, Paul (February 26, 2020). "Supreme Court overturns consolidated group tax refund allocation rule". Journal of Accountancy. AICPA. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
  6. 473 F. 2d 262
  7. Jones, Barbara L. (February 25, 2020). "Rodriguez v. FDIC". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
  8. Rodriguez v. FDIC, PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI18-_ (U.S.April 2019).
  9. "Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 11, 2022.
  10. "Corporations are creatures of state law, and investors commit their funds to corporate directors on the understanding that, except where federal law expressly requires certain responsibilities of directors with respect to stockholders, state law will govern the internal affairs of the corporation." Cort v. Ash , 422 US 66 at 84
  11. "Tenth Circuit Upholds FDIC Ownership of Tax Refunds in Cases of Failed Banks". FDIC. Retrieved December 28, 2023.
  12. In re: UNITED WESTERN BANCORP, INC., 17-1281 (10 cir.26 May 2020).