Brigham v. United States

396 F. Supp. 823, 35 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1089, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13565
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 3, 1975
DocketCiv. A. No. 72-2283
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 396 F. Supp. 823 (Brigham v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brigham v. United States, 396 F. Supp. 823, 35 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1089, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13565 (E.D. Pa. 1975).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

McGLYNN, District Judge.

This is an action for the refund of Federal Income Taxes in the amount of $9,971.00 paid for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1966. In its amended answer, the defendant sets forth an offset defense.

It is the conclusion of this court that the defendant’s offset defense is invalid and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment for the amount of the refund.

For the purpose of resolving this dispute, the parties have stipulated to the following facts. In 1965, Numar S.A. (hereinafter “Numar”), a corporation organized under the law of Costa Rica, adopted a plan of complete liquidation and, within twelve months thereafter, sold all of its assets to United Fruit Company (hereinafter “United”) and distributed the proceeds less assets retained to meet claims to its shareholders in complete liquidation. The final liquidation distributions were received by the United States shareholders of Numar, which shareholders included plaintiffs, in 1966, the taxable year in question.

It is the defendant’s position that in computing the earnings and profits of a foreign corporation pursuant to Section 1248 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”)1 Code Section 1245 requires the inclusion of that gain realized upon the sale of the foreign corporation’s assets which would have been recognized under Code Section 1245 had the corporation been a domestic corporation.

If Numar had been a domestic corporation, the tax consequences of the liquidation to Numar would have been governed by Section 337(a) of the Code, and no gain or loss would have been recognized to Numar under this Section on the sale of its assets to United. However, $210,586.00 (recaptured depreciation) of the net gain in the amount of $4,371,720.00 realized by Numar on the sale of its assets would have been subject to the provisions of Section 1245(a) of the Code and taxable as ordinary income to the corporation.

From this the Government argueá that since excess depreciation is recog[825]*825nized as ordinary income to the corporation disposing of the property, it is taxable to shareholders of a foreign corporation upon liquidation notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1248(d)(2).

In general, Section 1248 provides that when a United States person receives a liquidating distribution from a controlled foreign corporation, which distribution is considered to be made in exchange for stock under Section 331 of the Code, then the gain recognized by the shareholder (subject to certain limitations) shall be taxed as a dividend to the extent of the earnings and profits of the foreign corporation accumulated after December 31, 1962.

Section 1248(c) of the Code provides that for purposes of Section 1248 corporate “earnings and profits shall be determined according to the rules substantially similar to those applicable to domestic corporations. . . .” Section 1248(d) provides “. . . the following, amounts shall be excluded . from the earnings and profits of a foreign corporation ... (2) . . . earnings and profits of the foreign corporation attributable to any net gain from the sale or exchange of property.”

On the basis of this latter section of the Code, the plaintiffs and other shareholders of Numar excluded from Nu-mar’s accumulated earnings and profits the entire gain realized from the sale of Numar’s assets to United.

The issue then is to reconcile Code Section 1248(d)(2) applying only to a twelve month liquidation of foreign corporations with Section 1245(a), which is applicable “notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle.”

One court, in construing these two provisions of the Code against the same factual background, concluded that Section 1245 “overrides” Section 1248(d) (2) and held that the excess depreciation is taxable as ordinary income to the shareholder of Numar. Pielemeier et al. v. United States of America, Nos. 72-3082 and 73-2013 (C.D.Cal.1974).

The rationale of that decision is that Section 1245 does not make a distinction between domestic corporations and foreign corporations and, therefore, it is applicable to both. I do not agree. Section 1245(a) requires recognition to the corporation of recaptured depreciation. Thus this Section deals solely with the person who disposes of depreciable property. Since a foreign corporation is not taxable, Section 1245(a) can have no bearing on the manner in which the foreign corporation treats gain on the sale of depreciable assets.

L2] But the Government argues, since Section 1248(d)(2) refers to Section 337(a) relating to a twelve month liquidation of a domestic corporation and since Section 1245(a) is admittedly a limitation on the benefits conferred by Section 337(a), it follows that Section 1245(a) also limits the benefits conferred by Section 1248(d)(2). Here again, both Sections 337(a) and 1245(a) deal with the recognition of gain to the corporation and not with the computation of the earnings and profits taxable to a shareholder upon liquidation.

The language of Section 1248(c)(1) providing that the earnings and profits of a foreign corporation “. . . shall be determined according to rules substantially similar to those applicable to domestic corporations . . . ” does not strengthen the defendants’ position because the unambiguous language of the following Subsection (d)- — clearly allows exceptions to the general rule by enumerating specific items of income and gain which are to be excluded from earnings and profits.

I conclude that Section 1245(a) dealing with a manner in which a domestic corporation shall treat gain from the sale of depreciable property does not negate or limit the explicit language of Section 1248(d)(2) which authorizes a shareholder of a foreign corporation, upon liquidation, to exclude from earnings and profits any net gain from the sale or exchange of property.

[826]*826If Congress meant 1245(a) to apply to foreign corporations and thus operate as an exclusion to the exclusion of 1248(d)(2), it would have tailored the language for a more suitable fit.

APPENDIX

Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U. S.C.):

SEC. 1248. Gain from certain sales or exchanges of stock in certain foreign corporations.
(a) General Rule. — If—
(1) a United States person sells or exchanges stock in a foreign corporation, or if a United States person receives' a distribution from a foreign corporation which, under section 302 or 331, is treated as an exchange of stock, and
(2) such person owns, within the meaning of section 958(a), or is considered as owning by applying the rules of ownership of section 958(b), 10 percent or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote of such foreign corporation at any time during the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange when such foreign corporation was a controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957),

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 F. Supp. 823, 35 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1089, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brigham-v-united-states-paed-1975.