Supplying Some Missing Links

In addition to providing analysis and updates on pending tax appeals, this blog is intended to serve as a resource where readers can easily access the briefs and relevant opinions in those cases.  Because of the press of business and other reasons, the posting of a couple of the opinions in cases we have discussed has slipped through the cracks.  So we are providing links to those opinions here, even though the opinions are long past the point of “breaking news”:

The Second Circuit’s decision in TIFD (“Castle Harbour”), once again reversing the district court and holding that the banks did not qualify as partners under § 704(e)(1), and that the government could impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Calloway, affirming the Tax Court and holding that the transaction in question was properly treated as a sale, not a loan, and upholding the penalties.  The decision approves the multi-factor approach employed by the Tax Court majority, and notes infirmities in the alternative analytical approaches suggested by Judges Halpern and Holmes in their respective concurring opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (linked below).  The opinion was eventually entitled NFIB v. Sebelius, although we had covered it using the caption of one of the companion cases, HHS v. Florida.  The discussion of the Anti-Injunction Act, the issue that was covered in the blog, is found at pages 11-15 of the Court’s slip opinion.  Our prior coverage (linked here only so that I can show off my against-the-mainstream prediction that the legislation would survive) can be found here and here.  The majority’s key holding that the individual mandate could be upheld as an exercise of the Taxing Power is found at pp. 33-44.

NFIB v. Sebelius Supreme Court decision (Affordable Care Act)

 

Oral Argument Set for May 16 in Castle Harbour Redux

The Second Circuit has announced a May 16 oral argument date in TIFD III-E, Inc. v. United States, which is the second go-round for the case better known as Castle Harbour after the district court ruled again for the taxpayer on remand from the Second Circuit’s previous reversal.  (See our prior reports and the briefs here, here, and here.)  The identity of the three-judge panel will not be revealed until a later date.

Briefing Completed in Castle Harbour (Again)

On October 15, 2010, the government filed its reply brief in TIFD III-E Inc. v. United States, No. 10-70 (2d Cir.) (“Castle Harbour”).  The brief is linked below.  For our prior coverage of the case, see here and here.

In its reply, the government contends that I.R.C. section 704(e)(1) is inapplicable to the facts of the case, and that the provision only applies in the family partnership context, where parties are related.  The government asserts that section 704(e)(1) was not intended to apply, and indeed has never before been applied (and upheld) to an arm’s length transaction between two or more corporate entities.

Even assuming section 704(e)(1) applies, the government argues that the Dutch banks did not possess “capital interests” under the statute, because “capital interests” are legally equivalent to bona fide partnership interests, which the Second Circuit has already determined the Dutch banks did not possess.  In essence, the government argues that the test under section 704(e)(1) is the same as the test under Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949), and the Second Circuit having made its determination under that test, it is now law of the case that the Dutch banks did not have “capital interests.”

On a similar tack, the government also argues that under the facts of the case, the banks did not possess capital interests in the purported partnership.  The government attempts to rebut the taxpayer’s fact arguments by arguing that a number of these fact issues were previously considered by the Second Circuit, with the court rejecting them as support for the conclusion that the banks had a meaningful equity participation in the partnership.

With respect to section 704(b), the government asserts that the taxpayer’s discussion of 704(c) is a red herring, and that the section 704(b) substantial economic effect test requires that tax results follow economic results; i.e., tax benefits and burdens must coincide with the related economic benefits and burdens.  The government argues that the transaction at issue plainly fails that test:  the taxpayer received $288 million of the partnership’s actual income, but only paid tax on $6 million.  Meanwhile, the Dutch banks received $28 million of the partnership’s actual income, but were allocated $310 million of it.

The government also reiterates its position regarding penalties:  the District Court’s misconstruction of the facts and misapplication of the law do nothing to abrogate asserted penalties, and that the taxpayer really did not have substantial authority for its return position.

TIFD v US (Appellants Reply Brief 10-15-10)

Response Brief Filed in Castle Harbour Redux

On September 14, 2010, the tax matters partner (“TMP”) for Castle Harbour LLC filed its response brief in TIFD III-E Inc. v. United States, No. 10-70 (2nd Cir.) (brief linked below).  For our prior coverage of this case, see here.  As many readers are no doubt aware, this is the second time this case is before the Second Circuit.

In the response brief , the TMP frames the issues as: (1) whether the district court, upon remand, correctly determined the investment banks were partners under I.R.C. section 704(e)(1), (2) whether the IRS can reallocate income under I.R.C. section 704(b) despite the section 704(c) “ceiling rule,” and (3) whether the district court correctly decided that I.R.C. section 6662 accuracy-related penalties were not applicable.

First, the TMP argues that section 704(e)(1) creates an independent, objective alternative to the Culbertson test, with the critical issue being whether the purported partner holds a “capital interest.”  The TMP contends that, because the banks’ interests were economically and legally equivalent to preferred stock, and because preferred stock is treated as equity for tax purposes even though it possesses many characteristics of debt, the banks held “capital interests” under section 704(e)(1).  Accordingly, the TMP argues that the banks were bona fide partners in Castle Harbour, the Second Circuit’s application of Culbertson notwithstanding.

Second, the TMP contests the IRS’s ability to reallocate income under I.R.C. section 704(b) in spite of application of the section 704(c) ceiling rule (assuming the banks were bona fide partners).  The regulations under section 704(c) were amended to allow such a reallocation for property contributions occurring after December 20, 1993, which is after the contributions at issue in the case.  Accordingly, the TMP takes the position that the IRS is attempting an end-run around the effective date of the amended regulations.

Finally, the TMP also argues that victory at trial, based on the careful findings of fact by the district court, demonstrates that the transactions were primarily business-motivated, and furthermore, that substantial authority existed for the TMP’s return position.  Accordingly, the TMP contends that accuracy-related penalties should not apply, even if the IRS’s adjustment is ultimately upheld.

Taxpayer Response Brief in Castle Harbour II

Briefing Underway in Castle Harbour Redux

As many if not most tax practitioners are aware, Castle Harbour is the nickname of a partnership taxation case that has been the subject of a great deal of attention in recent years.  See TIFD III-E Inc. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.Conn. 2004), rev’d, 459 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2006).  The case involved a partnership arrangement that allocated 98% of the taxable income derived from fully depreciated aircraft leases to two foreign banks, even though the banks received only a relatively meager debt-like return on their partnership interests.  The IRS attacked the structure on two basic grounds: (1) that the overall arrangement was a sham, and (2) that the foreign banks were not bona fide equity partners, but rather held interests economically in the nature of secured loans.

The district court decided the case in the taxpayer’s favor, holding that the partnership arrangement was not a sham because there were legitimate business purposes for the deal, and the arrangement did have appreciable economic effects, even though the partners had tax avoidance motives in entering into the deal.  The Second Circuit reversed the district court on the IRS’ second argument, namely that the banks were not bona fide partners because they had no meaningful stake in the entrepreneurial success or failure of the venture.  The court’s holding was based on an application of the Supreme Court’s facts and circumstances test for bona fide partner status set forth in Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949).  The Second Circuit remanded the case for further consideration of an alternative argument by the taxpayer—that the partnership was a “family partnership” under I.R.C. section 704(e).

In a somewhat surprising turn, the district court held that the banks were partners in a partnership under section 704(e), irrespective of the Second Circuit’s ruling applying Culbertson.  The government, of course, has appealed to the Second CIrcuit, No. 10-70.  The government’s brief is linked below.  The taxapayer’s brief is due September 14, 2010.

United States opening brief in TIFD