DOJ brief seeks to limit sec. 172(f).A district court has ruled that workers' compensation workers' compensation, payment by employers for some part of the cost of injuries, or in some cases of occupational diseases, received by employees in the course of their work. claims and interest on Federal income tax deficiencies qualify under Sec. 172(f) as specified liability losses, eligible for a 10-year carryback (Host Marriott Corp., 113 FSupp 2d 790 (MD, 2000)). (For background information, see Tax Clinic, "Hotel Chain Entitled to $22 Million in Specified Loss Carrybacks Loss Carryback An accounting technique with which a company retroactively applies net operating losses to a preceding year's income in order to reduce tax liabilities present in that previous year. ," TTA TTA Telecommunications Technology Association (Korea) TTA Teacher Training Agency (UK) TTA Triangle Transit Authority (Raleigh/Chapel Hill/Durham, North Carolina, USA) , January 2001, p.20.) In its brief on appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ (Department Of Justice) The legal arm of the U.S. government that represents the public interest of the United States. It is headed by the Attorney General. ) has argued that the lower court erred in finding that the tax deficiency interest deduction Interest deduction An interest expense, such as interest on a margin account, that is allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. claimed by Host Marriott gave rise to a specified liability loss. The U.S. has not appealed the lower court's holding that Host Marriott derived a specified liability loss from deductions it claimed on its 1991 Federal return for payments of workers' compensation claims. Scope of Provision The DOJ argued first in its brief that Sec. 172(f)(1)(B)(i) does not have the broad scope imparted to it by the district court, but rather is limited to a narrow class of liabilities for which deductions are deferred for accrual-basis taxpayers under the economic performance rules enacted in 1984. According to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. the DOJ, Sec. 172(f)(1)(B)(i) has its genesis in Section 91 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DRA DRA Delta Regional Authority DRA Developmental Reading Assessment (educational test) DRA Division of Ratepayer Advocates (California) DRA Data Research Associates DRA Directory and Resource Administrator ). It notes that Section 91 enacted economic performance rules, which modified the pre-existing rules on deductions of expenses under the accrual-basis method, and simultaneously enacted various provisions in response to those economic performance rules. Therefore, the DOJ argued: [o]ne such provision--the predecessor of Sec. 172(f)(1)(B)(i)--was the "deferred statutory and tort liability" provision enacted in section 91(d). The name of that provision, as well as its location in a section of the DRA that enacted the economic performance rules, indicates that the extended carryback period was an outgrowth of, and response to, the contemporaneously con·tem·po·ra·ne·ous adj. Originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time: the contemporaneous reigns of two monarchs. See Synonyms at contemporary. enacted modifications to the accrual accounting Accrual Accounting An accounting method that measures the performance and position of a company by recognizing economic events regardless of when cash transactions happen. Notes: rules. Specifically, Congress targeted liabilities that accrued, and therefore gave rise to deductions under, the prior law, but for which deductions were "deferred" for an extended period of time under the contemporaneously enacted economic performance rules. That is why the statute requires at least a three-year gap between the act (or failure to act) that gives rise to a statutory liability and the taxable year Taxable year The 12-month period an individual uses to report income for income tax purposes. For most individuals, their tax year is the calendar year. when the deduction is taken." Further, the DOJ argued that the district court erred in adopting a "mechanical" approach to statutory construction. Rather, it notes that both the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, in Brown O Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 US 120 (2000), have emphasized that in interpreting a statute, a court should not focus solely on its literal language, but also should analyze the context of the provision. Consequently, according to the DOJ, in interpreting Sec. 172(f), the district court should have considered that Congress limited the deferred liability provision to accrual-basis taxpayers and that the provision was placed in a section of the DRA that made revisions to the pre-existing rules of the accrual accrual, n continually recurring short-term liabilities. Examples are accrued wages, taxes, and interest. method. Therefore, the DOJ concluded that the taxpayer's interest deduction was not deferred by the economic performance rules. As a result, the deduction does not give rise to a specified liability loss. Three-Year Period The DOJ argued alternatively that, even assuming a deduction for interest on a Federal tax deficiency does give rise to a specified liability loss under Sec. 172(f), Host Marriott's specified liability loss does not include interest that accrued after the end of the 1987 tax year. Sec. 172(f)(1)(B)(i) provides that a "specified liability loss" arises from a statutory liability only if "the act or failure to act giving rise to such liability occurs at least 3 years before the beginning of the taxable year." The DOJ argued that under the express terms of the statute, the interest that accrued against the taxpayer during the three-year period preceding the year in which it claimed its interest deduction (1991) cannot give rise to a specified liability loss. Sec. 6601(a) provides that interest accrues on an unpaid tax liability from the date the liability arises until the date it is paid, while Sec. 6622 provides for daily compounding of interest. Therefore, when read in conjunction with each other, the DOJ argued, those provisions establish that interest on a Federal tax deficiency accrues on a daily basis. Consequently, in its brief, the DOJ concluded: [b]ecause interest imposed by the Internal Revenue Code The Internal Revenue Code is the body of law that codifies all federal tax laws, including income, estate, gift, excise, alcohol, tobacco, and employment taxes. These laws constitute title 26 of the U.S. Code (26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. accrues on a daily basis, and the accrual of such interest may be terminated at any time by payment of the outstanding tax liability, a taxpayer is guilty of a separate "failure to act" that gives rise to a discrete interest "liability" for purposes of Sec. 172(f)(1)(B)(i) each day that the taxpayer fails to satisfy an outstanding obligation. As a result, any interest that accrues within three years of the beginning of the relevant taxable year cannot give rise to a specified liability loss under that provision. FROM RICHARD C. FARLEY, JR., J.D., LL.M LL.M Legum Magister (Master of Laws) ., WASHINGTON, DC Robert Zarzar, CPA Partner Washington National Tax Service PricewaterhouseCoopers Washington, DC |
|
||||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion