H.J. Heinz Co. v. Commonwealth

678 A.2d 860, 1996 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 275
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 28, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 678 A.2d 860 (H.J. Heinz Co. v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Commonwealth, 678 A.2d 860, 1996 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 275 (Pa. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

MeGINLEY, Judge.

H.J. Heinz Company (Heinz) petitions for de novo review of the order of the Board of Finance and Revenue which sustained the action of the Board of Appeals of the Department of Revenue (Department) and approved, in part, the Department’s resettlement of Heinz’s Pennsylvania corporate net income tax liability for the fiscal year ending April 27,1988.

Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1571(f)1 Heinz and the Department stipulated to the following facts:

I. H.J. Heinz Company ... is a Pennsylvania corporation....
2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various prepared food products both within and without Pennsylvania. Petitioner also engages in holding company activities.
3. The tax year involved is the 52/53 week fiscal year ended April 27, 1988, for which period the Petitioner reported Corporate Net Income Tax in the amount of $59,-701....
4. Corporate Net Income tax in the amount of $77,681 was settled against Petitioner by the Department of Revenue on May 22, 1990 and was approved by the Department of the Auditor General on June 15,1990....
5. Within the time provided by law, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Resettlement with the Department of Revenue and the Department of the Auditor General (the “Board of Appeals”)....
6. Said Petition for Resettlement was granted in part and refused in part by the Department of Revenue and the Department of the Auditor General. On April 10, 1991, the Department of Revenue made a Resettlement of the Corporate Net Income tax for said period in the amount of $72,-293, which Resettlement was approved by [862]*862the Department of the Auditor General on April 22,1991.
10. In preparing its U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, federal Form 1120, on a consolidated basis, Petitioner deducted the Federal Environmental Tax on line 17_ In preparing its pro-forma separate company federal return for Pennsylvania Corporate Net Income Tax purposes, Petitioner did not deduct the Federal Environmental Tax on line 17. However, Petitioner deducted the Federal Environmental Tax in the amount of $336,133 on line 2(c) (“Other Deductions”) of the Pennsylvania Corporate Net Income Tax report in computing its Pennsylvania taxable income.2

Stipulation of Facts, October 30, 1995, (S.F.) Nos. 1-6 and 10.

Heinz filed a timely petition for resettlement with the Department’s Board of Appeals. On April 10, 1991, the Board of Appeals resettled Heinz’s corporate net income tax liability in the amount of $72,292. The Board of Appeals allowed Heinz to deduct the federal environmental tax on line 2(c), but then added the $336,133 deduction back to Heinz’s taxable income. Heinz petitioned for review. After notice and argument the Board of Finance and Revenue denied Heinz’s petition for review, concluding:

Petitioner’s request for relief is denied because the federal environmental tax is similar to Pennsylvania corporate net income tax in that both start from federal line 28.
Federal environmental tax is based on AMTI [alternative minimum taxable income], which begins with line 28 of Federal Form 1120 and ends with net or taxable income. Therefore, the federal environmental tax is within the scope of taxes added back under 72 P.S. § 7401(3)l.(o).
If other net income taxes imposed by the Federal government are added-baek to line 28 income for Pennsylvania purposes, there is no reason not to add this net income based tax back.

Opinion of the Board of Finance and Revenue, October 29,1991, at 2. It is this determination that Heinz appeals.

The sole issue for our review is “whether the Federal Environmental Tax computed pursuant to and imposed by Section 59A of the Internal Revenue Code constitutes a ‘ ... [sic] tax imposed on or measured by net income’, as provided by Section 401(3)l.(o) of the Pennsylvania Tax Reform Code of 1971, [Act of March 4, 1971,] P.L. 6, os amended, 72 P.S. § 7401(3)l.(o).” S.F. No. 14. Heinz asserts that the federal environmental tax is not a tax measured by net income and therefore is not added back when calculating corporate net income tax liability.3

This Court is entitled to the broadest scope of review in considering an appeal from an order of the Board of Finance and Revenue. Eastern Diversified Metals Corp. v. Commonwealth, 6 Pa.Cmwlth. 605, 297 A.2d 167 (1972). Although this Court hears such appeals in its appellate jurisdiction, we function essentially as a trial court and may rule on the established record or on a stipulation of facts entered into by the parties. Norris v. Commonwealth, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 423, 625 A.2d 179 (1993).

Section 401(3)l.(a) of the Pennsylvania Tax Reform Code of 1971 (Tax Code), 72 P.S. § 7401(3)l.(a) provides that taxable income for the purposes of the Pennsylvania corporate net income tax is “taxable income for the calendar or fiscal year as returned to and ascertained by the federal government_”4 Section 401(3)1.(o) of the Tax Code, 72 P.S. § 7401(3)l.(o) provides that “[i]n arriving at ‘taxable income’ for Federal Tax purposes for any taxable year beginning on or after Janu[863]*863ary 1,1981, no deduction shall be allowed for taxes imposed or measured by net income.” Initially, this Court must determine whether “taxable income” as the term appears in Section 401(3)l.(o) is the same as “net income”. If so, we must then decide whether the federal environmental tax is imposed or measured by net income such that the tax is not deductible and must be added back to Heinz’s taxable income.

Neither the Internal Revenue Code nor the Tax Code define the term net income. However, Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C § 61, defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived ...” and Section 63 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63 defines taxable income as “gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).”5 Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined net income as “gross income less all the deductions and carry-back losses ascertained and allowed by ... the Federal Government_” Commonwealth v. Budd Co., 379 Pa. 159,165,108 A.2d 563, 566 (1954), appeal denied, 349 U.S. 935, 75 S.Ct. 782, 99 L.Ed. 1264 (1955). In resolving this controversy we must avoid becoming entangled in a hyper-technical analysis of what constitutes net income. Simply stated, taxable income is gross income less the allowable deductions and is essentially the same as net income.

Heinz accurately notes, however, that the federal environmental tax is measured by the “modified alternative minimum taxable income” as set forth under Section 59A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.

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

Related

Roxborough Manayunk Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Commonwealth
687 A.2d 1202 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
678 A.2d 860, 1996 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hj-heinz-co-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1996.