Supreme Court Denies Cert in Altera

Despite the glut of high-powered amicus briefs in support of the taxpayer’s petition for certiorari and last week’s landmark APA decision on DACA (the relevance of which to the issues in Altera we covered here), the Supreme Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Altera this morning.

Supreme Court’s DACA Decision May Affect Altera

Altera’s petition for certiorari is pending at the Supreme Court. With the support of several amici, Altera has asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision (see our prior coverage here) to uphold the validity of Treasury’s transfer-pricing regulation (Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7A(d)(2)) requiring taxpayers to include employee-stock-option costs in the pool of costs that parties to cost-sharing arrangements must share. Two APA arguments loom large in Altera’s petition. Today’s Supreme Court decision on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the APA in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, may change the complexion of both arguments and provide the Court with an alternative route for the Court in handling Altera’s petition.

In today’s decision, the Court struck down efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate DACA because the initial action by the Acting Secretary of DHS failed to comply with the APA. DHS promulgated DACA in 2012. And in 2014, DHS sought to expand DACA by removing an age cap and creating a new program for parents (DAPA). That expansion was mired in litigation for several years and enjoined by the Fifth Circuit on the grounds that the expansion was more than a mere agency decision to not enforce particular immigration laws.

In 2017, the new administration sought not only to undo that expansion but altogether to rescind DACA, with DHS issuing a memorandum relying on little more than a citation to the Fifth Circuit’s decision (which addressed only the 2014 expansion) and reference to a letter from the Attorney General. The Fifth Circuit decision, however, had been limited to the aspects of the DACA expansion that related to eligibility for some public benefits (and not to the animating policy of forbearing deportations); the Attorney General’s letter reiterated only that the Fifth Circuit decision was correct. The NAACP (among others) challenged the administration’s attempt to rescind DACA based on this DHS memorandum. And in that suit, the D.C. District Court found that DHS’s “conclusory statements [in the memorandum] were insufficient to explain the change in [DHS’s] view of DACA’s lawfulness,” giving DHS a chance to explain itself more fully.

The new DHS Secretary offered up a second memorandum in which she stated that she “decline[d] to disturb” the first memorandum’s DACA rescission. That second memorandum had other conclusory statements and several prudential and policy reasons that were not in the first DHS memorandum. The D.C. District Court found the new explanations insufficient. That case and other related cases were appealed, and the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari in the California case in which it issued a decision today. The Supreme Court addressed, among other things, “whether the [DHS] rescission [of DACA] was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.”

The Court held that it was. There are two elements to that decision, both of which may bear on Altera’s arguments in its petition for certiorari. First, the Court held that “[d]eciding whether agency action was adequately explained requires, first, knowing where to look for the agency’s explanation.” And the Court held that it would look only to the first, conclusory DHS memorandum because “[i]t is a ‘foundational principle of administrative law’ that judicial review of agency action is limited to ‘the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.’” This means that DHS could have either (1) issued a new memorandum that better explained the reasoning behind the first memorandum (thus propping up the agency action embodied in the first memorandum) or (2) taken altogether new agency action with a distinct explanation (which new explanation would be subject to a distinct APA review). DHS did not take new action but sought instead to explain its earlier action. In doing so, however, DHS did not offer a better explanation of previously identified reasons, but rather offered reasons that were not in the first memorandum at all. (In the Court’s words, the “reasoning [of the second DHS secretary in the second memorandum] bears little relationship to that of her predecessor.”) The Court elaborated on the reasons why administrative law principles bar agencies from introducing new justifications for agency action after the fact, not the least of which is that “[c]onsidering only contemporaneous explanations for agency action … instills confidence that the reasons given are not simply ‘convenient litigating position[s].’” Therefore, the Court held, “[a]n agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted.”

This element of the Court’s decision goes to the heart of one of Altera’s leading arguments for certiorari. Altera observed that the government pivoted from arguing (in the regulatory preamble and before the Tax Court) that its cost-sharing regulation was consistent with the arm’s-length standard to arguing (in its briefs before the Ninth Circuit) that the addition of the “commensurate-with-income” language to section 482 permitted Treasury to adopt a rule under which a “comparability analysis plays no role in determining” the costs that taxpayers must share. Altera argued that by invoking one rationale in its rulemaking and then invoking a different rationale in litigation, Treasury violated the Chenery rule, which “ensures that an agency cannot say one thing in a rule-making proceeding, and then change its mind as soon as the rule is challenged in court.”

Today’s decision provides some reason to think the Ninth Circuit was incorrect in looking to the rationale that the government offered in litigation to decide whether to uphold the cost-sharing regulation. As Altera has argued extensively, the rationale that the government has offered in litigation bears little resemblance to the reasons offered in the regulatory preamble. And because they offer such different characterizations of how the arm’s-length standard operates, it is difficult to reconcile the former with the latter. If the Ninth Circuit was incorrect in entertaining the government’s rationale offered in litigation, then there are significant problems with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion.

The second element of today’s decision that may be germane to Altera is the Court’s decision that DHS’s action to rescind DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA. The Court observed that the first DHS memorandum relied almost entirely on the Fifth Circuit’s decision (since the Attorney General letter cited in that memorandum also relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision). But that Fifth Circuit decision pertained only to the benefit-eligibility features of the DACA expansion and did not address what the Court called the “defining feature” of DACA—“the decision to defer removal (and to notify the affected alien of that decision).” And on that front, the first DHS memorandum “offers no reason for terminating forbearance.” In fact, the Court held, the DHS memorandum “contains no discussion of forbearance or the option of retaining forbearance without benefits” and therefore “‘entirely failed to consider [that] important aspect of the problem’” in violation of the reasoned decision-making standard in the Court’s State Farm decision. In particular, the Court here observed that in taking any action with respect to the forbearance aspects of the DACA rescission, DHS had to consider the consequences of rescission on aliens’ obvious reliance interests.

This second element may affect the outcome with respect to another one of Altera’s APA arguments. Altera argued that the regulation was the result of arbitrary and capricious agency decision-making. Treasury “purported to apply the arm’s-length standard” and “stated that whether that standard is satisfied depends on an empirical and factual analysis of real-world behavior of unrelated parties.” But then, Altera argued, when confronted with “extensive evidence demonstrating that unrelated parties would not share stock-based compensation,” Treasury “ignored or dismissed that evidence because it was inconvenient” and enacted the regulation. There is no dispute that Treasury was aware of that evidence when it finalized the disputed cost-sharing regulation, but Altera has argued that neither Treasury’s regulatory preamble nor the government’s subsequent litigating position adequately address that evidence. Just as DHS’s failure to consider obvious reliance interests in its attempt to rescind DACA created a fatal APA problem, so too, the taxpayer might argue, does Treasury’s failure to consider obvious evidence that runs counter to its cost-sharing regulation when enacting that regulation.

Although the Court’s decision on DACA is directly relevant to issues in Altera, it may not ultimately result in the Supreme Court hearing the case. But the DACA decision gives the Court an opportunity to deal with the Altera decision in a much less labor-intensive way. The Court can issue a “GVR” (grant, vacate, and remand) order, which is a one-paragraph order in which the Court grants certiorari, immediately vacates the judgment below, and remands the case to the court of appeals for “further consideration in light of” a new development not previously considered—usually an intervening Supreme Court decision.

In many cases in which the Court issues such orders, the remanded case is on all fours with the new Supreme Court decision, and the circuit court’s decision on remand is a formality. That would not be true in Altera. Even so, if the Court were to issue such a GVR, it would send a clear message about what the Ninth Circuit would need to do on such a remand. Invoking the GVR procedure would allow the Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s Altera decision without having to entertain full briefing and argument. The Court often issues numerous GVR orders on the last day of its Term before breaking for the summer recess. That is usually at the end of June, though the timing could get extended somewhat this year because of the delays in the Court’s spring argument schedule caused by the coronavirus. But some resolution of the pending Altera petition should be expected within the next few weeks.

Supreme Court Opinion – DHS v. Regents of Univ. of Cal

Ninth Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing

On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit denied Altera’s petition for rehearing en banc (which petition we discussed in our recent post here). The order issuing that denial includes a strong, 22-page dissent written by Judge Smith and joined by Judges Callahan and Bade. (Ten judges recused themselves, meaning that the vote was 10-3 against rehearing.) The dissent made several arguments for why the petition should have been granted, taking aim at the panel’s reasoning in upholding the regulation and warning about the decision’s broader effects.

Quoting State Farm, the dissent stated that it would have invalidated the regulations because Treasury’s “‘explanation for its decision [ran] counter to the evidence before’ it.” When it promulgated the regulations, Treasury asserted that it was applying the traditional arm’s-length standard, stating that “‘unrelated parties entering into [cost-sharing arrangements] would generally share stock-based compensation costs.’” But the evidence showed that “unrelated entities do not share stock-based compensation costs.”

Although the dissent stated that “[t]his should be the end of our analysis,” it went on to explain why the panel’s decision violates the Chenery rule that courts cannot provide “‘a [purportedly] reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given.’” The dissent observed that despite Treasury’s clear statement in the preamble that its cost-sharing rule was “based on a traditional arm’s length analysis employing (unsubstantiated) comparable transactions,” the panel upheld “Treasury’s convenient litigating position on appeal that it permissibly jettisoned the traditional arm’s length standard altogether.” That mismatch undermines the regulation’s validity under APA notice-and-comment principles because Treasury cannot offer one rationale in its preamble, dismiss public comments on that rationale, “and then defend its rule in litigation using reasoning the public never had notice of.” Compounding this notice problem, the panel accepted Treasury’s argument that it could jettison a traditional arm’s length analysis because of the addition of the “commensurate-with-income” sentence to section 482 in 1986. But Treasury had stated in the 1988 White Paper that the addition of that sentence did not amount to a “departure from the arm’s length standard.” So not only did the panel uphold the regulation based on a rationale that Treasury did not offer in its preamble, it also upheld the regulation based on a rationale that Treasury itself had previously disclaimed.

The dissent also took up a cause that we’ve explored here before. By its own terms, the commensurate-with-income provision in section 482 applies only to “transfers of intangible property.” The panel concluded that provision was implicated here because there were “future distribution rights” transferred in Altera’s cost-sharing arrangement. The dissent disagreed because (1) cost-sharing agreements contemplate the “development” of intangibles, which implies that not every intangible subject to the arrangement must have been transferred to the arrangement, and (2) the intangibles enumerated in the pertinent regulation do not include future intangibles because they are all “property types that currently exist.” The dissent therefore concluded that the commensurate-with-income language “simply does not apply to” cost-sharing arrangements.

Finally, the dissent detailed three “particularly deleterious” consequences of the panel’s decision. First, the decision will “likely upset the uniform application of the challenged regulation” because the Tax Court’s decision invalidating the regulation still applies to taxpayers outside of the Ninth Circuit. Second, the decision “tramples on the longstanding reliance interests of American businesses,” many of whom relied not just on the Tax Court unanimously invalidating the regulation but also on Treasury reaffirming the primacy of the arm’s-length standard in the 1988 White Paper and the 2003 regulatory preamble. The dissent observed that these reliance interests are far-reaching because at least 56 major companies have noted the Altera issue in annual reports. Third, the decision threatens international tax law uniformity insofar as the arm’s-length standard (setting aside GILTI and the latest from the OECD) has been the method for allocating taxable income among major developed nations.

At a minimum, the dissent should strengthen the Tax Court’s resolve to invalidate the regulation again for taxpayers from other circuits—the dissent remarked on the “uncommon unanimity and severity of censure” in the Tax Court’s decision. And the dissent can be read as encouragement for Altera to seek certiorari—the dissent stated that the panel’s reversal of a Tax Court decision that would have applied nationwide produces “a situation akin to a circuit split.” Unless extended, the time for Altera to file a petition for certiorari will expire on February 10.

Thanks to Colin Handzo for his help with this post.

Altera – Ninth Circuit Rehearing Denial

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Filed in Altera

As most expected, Altera filed a petition for rehearing en banc after the reconstituted three-judge panel decided to reverse the Tax Court’s invalidation of Treasury’s cost-sharing regulations. (A link to the petition is below.) As we explained previously, those regulations have been the subject of much controversy over the last two decades, and the success that Xilinx had with its petition for rehearing several years ago made it likely that Altera would ask for rehearing.

The petition picks up on one of the themes we discussed in our most recent post here. The taxpayer takes aim at the majority’s conclusion that the “commensurate with income” language added to section 482 in 1986 is relevant in the cost-sharing context. The taxpayer argues that language was aimed at addressing a different issue from the one before the court here—“how to value transfers of existing intangible property from one related entity to another” and not “intangible property yet to be created.”

The taxpayer makes four or five (the petition combines arguments (3) and (4) below) arguments for why its petition should be granted:

(1) The decision upsets settled principles about the application of the arm’s-length standard because the majority permitted Treasury to “cast aside the settled arm’s-length standard” for “a new standard” that is “purely internal.”

(2) The decision “validates bad rulemaking” because, contrary to the majority’s account of the regulation’s history, “[n]o one involved in the rulemaking thought the IRS was interpreting ‘commensurate with income’ to justify a new standard that did not depend on empirical evidence.” And under the law in Chenery, the court must assess the “‘propriety of [the agency’s] action solely by the grounds invoked by the [agency]’ in the administrative record.”

(3) The decision is irreconcilable with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Xilinx, which held that parties would not share in employee stock option costs at arm’s length.

(4) The decision “threatens the uniform application of the tax law” because, under the Golsen rule, the Tax Court will continue to apply its unanimous decision declaring the regulation invalid to cases arising anywhere outside the Ninth Circuit.

(5) As evidenced by the glut of amicus briefs, the treatment of employee stock options in cost-sharing arrangements is “exceptionally important.”

It is likely that additional amicus briefs will be filed in support of the rehearing petition. And given the prominence of the issue, we anticipate that the court will order the government to file a response to the petition. We will report on further developments as warranted.

Altera Petition for Rehearing En Banc July 2019

Observations on Changes in the Ninth Circuit’s Second Altera Decision

As we posted earlier here (with a link to the new decision), the Ninth Circuit issued a new decision in Altera after replacing the late Judge Reinhardt with Judge Graber on the panel. But the result was the same as the withdrawn July 2018 decision—the Ninth Circuit upheld the validity of Treasury’s cost-sharing regulation that requires taxpayers to include the cost of employee stock options under qualifying cost sharing arrangements (QCSAs). Today, we present some observations after comparing the majority and dissent in the new decision with those in the Ninth Circuit’s withdrawn decision.

In the new decision, Judge Thomas recycled much of the language and logic from his withdrawn opinion, and Judge O’Malley reused much of her original dissent. Although they are few, some changes in the two opinions are interesting and notable. Overall, the changes serve to sharpen the disagreements between the parties (and the disagreements between the majority and dissent) in ways that will focus the discussion in the likely event of a rehearing en banc petition (or possible petition for certiorari). We focus here on two aspects of the changes.

Was There a Transfer of Intangibles that Implicated the Commensurate-With-Income Language in the Second Sentence of Section 482?

The majority did not address this issue in its withdrawn opinion, so some background is in order. When Treasury proposed cost-sharing regulations that explicitly required related parties to include employee-stock-option costs in the pool of shared costs, commenters put forward evidence that unrelated parties do not share employee-stock-option costs. But Treasury did not heed those comments and ultimately determined that the arm’s-length standard would be met if the regulations required taxpayers in QCSAs to include the cost of employee stock options in the pool of shared costs, regardless of what a comparability analysis might show about whether unrelated parties share those costs. So in order to uphold the Treasury Regulations, the majority had to conclude that the arm’s-length standard under section 482 does not mandate the use of comparable transactions.

In reaching that conclusion, the majority relied on the history of section 482 and especially on the addition of the second sentence of section 482. That second sentence provides that “[i]n the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible property…, the income with respect to such transfer or license shall be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.” The majority held that the Congressional intent behind the addition of that language in 1986 is what made it reasonable for Treasury to conclude that it was permitted “to dispense with a comparable transaction analysis in the absence of actual comparable transactions.”

Was there a “transfer (or license) of intangible property” such that Treasury could invoke the commensurate-with-income language to justify dispensing with a comparable-transaction analysis? There was indeed a transfer of intangibles at the outset of the QCSA in this case; Altera transferred intangible property to its QCSA with its foreign subsidiary. But that initial transfer is unrelated to the disputed employee-stock-option costs. Those stock-option costs relate to subsequently developed intangibles, not to the value of the pre-existing intangibles that Altera initially contributed. Then-applicable Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7A(g)(2) required a buy-in payment only for “pre-existing intangibles.”

It is, then, wholly unclear how those employee-stock-option costs for as-yet undeveloped intangibles constitute a “transfer (or license) of intangible property” such that the commensurate-with-income language is implicated at all. The taxpayer argued—both in its initial and supplemental briefing—that by its own terms, the commensurate-with-income language is not implicated once a QCSA is in place and therefore that language is irrelevant to the dispute. The taxpayer reasoned that “no ‘transfer (or license)’ occurs when entities develop intangibles jointly” because jointly developed intangibles “are not transferred or licensed between the parties, but rather are owned upon their creation by each participant.”

The majority said little about this issue in its withdrawn opinion and did not address the taxpayer’s argument. In its new opinion, the majority addressed the argument and declared itself “unpersuaded.” It held that “[w]hen parties enter into a QCSA, they are transferring future distribution rights to intangibles, albeit intangibles that are yet to be developed.” The majority does not, however, explain how “intangibles that are yet to be developed” are “pre-existing intangible property” under Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7A(g)(2) or, perhaps more importantly, how such undeveloped future intangibles can constitute intangible assets at all under the words of the statute. Instead, the majority leaned on the language in the second sentence of section 482 providing that the commensurate-with-income standard applies to “any” transfer of intangible property, holding that “that phrasing is as broad as possible, and it cannot reasonably be read to exclude the transfers of expected intangible property.”

The dissent seized on whether there was any transfer of intangibles that implicated the commensurate-with-income language. The dissent stated that “[t]he plain text of the statute limits the application of the commensurate with income standard to only transfers or licenses of intangible property.” And it observed that there is a contradiction between the majority’s conclusion that QCSAs “constitute transfers of already existing property” and Treasury’s own characterization (in the very preamble of the disputed regulations) of QCSAs “as arrangements ‘for the development of high-profit intangibles,’” inferring that parties cannot transfer something that is not yet developed. The dissent concluded that Treasury’s failure to make “a finding that QCSAs constitute transfers of intangible property” should be, as a matter of review under the APA, fatal to Treasury’s cost-sharing regulations.

Has the Arm’s-Length Standard Historically Required a Comparable-Transaction Analysis?

The majority made several changes from its withdrawn opinion in its account of the history of the arm’s-length standard under section 482. The changes appear to be aimed at bolstering the majority’s conclusion that Treasury was justified in concluding that the arm’s-length standard does not necessitate a comparable-transaction analysis. These changes take a couple of forms.

First, the changes add justifications for the proposition that the arm’s-length standard has not always mandated a comparable-transaction analysis in all cases. The withdrawn opinion included some evidence for this historical account, recounting the Tax Court’s Seminole Flavor decision from 1945 (where the Tax Court “rejected a strict application of the arm’s length standard in favor of an inquiry into whether the allocation…was ‘fair and reasonable’”). In its new opinion, the majority added the observation that Treasury provided for an unspecified fourth method for pricing intangibles in its 1968 regulations. And the majority refined its discussion of the Ninth Circuit’s 1962 decision in Frank, still quoting the language from that opinion denying that “‘arm’s length bargaining’ is the sole criterion for applying” section 482 (as it did in the withdrawn opinion) but then adding the new assertion that the “central point” of Frank is that “the arm’s length standard based on comparable transactions was not the sole basis” for reallocating costs and income under section 482. (As the dissent pointed out, a later Ninth Circuit decision limited the holding in Frank to the complex circumstances in that case and noted that the parties in Frank had stipulated to apply a standard other than the arm’s-length standard.)

Second, the majority made changes to add a series of new and more sweeping assertions that under section 482, Treasury has always had the leeway to dispense with comparable-transaction analyses in deriving the correct arm’s-length price. For instance, as a rejoinder to the taxpayer’s argument that the arm’s-length standard requires a comparable-transaction analysis, the majority wrote that “historically the definition of the arm’s length standard has been a more fluid one” and that “courts for more than half a century have held that a comparable transaction analysis was not the exclusive methodology to be employed under the statute.” It added similarly broad historical statements elsewhere in the new opinion, all in service of concluding that Treasury acted reasonably in dispensing with a comparable-transaction analysis in its cost-sharing regulations: “[a]s demonstrated by nearly a century of interpreting § 482 and its precursor, the arm’s length standard is not necessarily confined to one methodology” (p. 33); “the arm’s length standard has historically been understood as more fluid than Altera suggests” (p. 41); and “[g]iven the long history of the application of other methods…Treasury’s understanding of its power to use methodologies other than a pure transactional comparability analysis was reasonable” (p. 49).

In one of the subtler but more interesting changes from the withdrawn opinion, the majority’s new opinion removed a single word. In its withdrawn opinion, the majority said that Treasury’s 1988 White Paper “signaled a dramatic shift in the interpretation of the arm’s length standard” by advancing the “basic arm’s length return method…that would apply only in the absence of comparable transactions….” (emphasis added). But consistent with its conclusion in the new opinion that “for most of the twentieth century the arm’s length standard explicitly permitted the use of flexible methodology,” the majority appears to have concluded that shift in the White Paper was not so “dramatic,” dropping that word altogether in its new opinion. (In this vein, the majority also removed its assertion in the withdrawn opinion that “[t]he novelty of the 1968 regulations was their focus on comparability.”)

The new dissenting opinion disputed the majority’s historical account, stating that the first sentence of section 482 “has always been viewed as requiring an arm’s length standard” and that before the 1986 amendment, the Ninth Circuit “believed that an arm’s length standard based on comparable transactions was the sole basis for allocating costs and income under the statute in all but the narrow circumstances outlined in Frank.” And the dissent observed that even with the 1986 addition of the commensurate-with-income language, “Congress left the first sentence of § 482—the sentence that undisputedly incorporates the arm’s length standard—intact,” thus requiring a comparable-transaction analysis everywhere that comparable transactions can be found. The dissent pointed out that the White Paper clarified that this was true “even in the context of transfers or licenses of intangible property,” quoting Treasury’s own statement in the White Paper that in that context the “‘intangible income must be allocated on the basis of comparable transactions if comparables exist.’”

Ninth Circuit Again Upholds Cost-Sharing Regulation in Altera

The Ninth Circuit issued a new opinion in Altera today after having withdrawn its July 2018 opinion. But today’s opinion does not change the result—by a 2-1 vote, the Ninth Circuit upheld the validity of the Treasury Regulation under section 482 that requires taxpayers to include the cost of employee stock options in the pool of costs that must be shared in qualifying cost sharing arrangements. Judge Thomas again wrote the panel’s opinion, Judge O’Malley again dissented, and Judge Graber—who was added to the panel to replace the late Judge Reinhardt—voted with Judge Thomas.

Although it borrows heavily from the withdrawn opinion (indeed, much of the language remains similar if not the same), there are some notable differences between today’s opinion and the withdrawn opinion. We will post some observations after a more careful comparison.

The taxpayer may seek a rehearing of the decision by the full Ninth Circuit (which is likely after the success that another taxpayer had in the Ninth Circuit’s rehearing of a similar issue in Xilinx). A petition for rehearing would be due July 22.

Altera Ninth Circuit Opinion June 2019

Altera Case Submitted for Decision

The reargument of the Altera case was held on October 16. Chief Judge Thomas, who penned the original majority decision, was quiet during the argument, asking only one question. But both Judge O’Malley, who wrote the original dissent, and Judge Graber, who is the new judge on the panel and who might reasonably be expected to cast the deciding vote, were very active questioners. A video tape of the argument can be viewed at this link.

The oral argument was not quite the last gasp in the parties’ presentations to the panel. At the end of the week, counsel for Altera filed a post-argument letter further addressing some of the points that were raised at the argument. The letter stated that some of the statements made by government counsel at the argument were contrary to the provisions of Treas. Reg. § 1.482-4(f)(2)(ii), and that these departures from the existing regulations underscored why adminstrative law principles “do not permit an abandonment of arm’s-length evidence and the parity principle, even if the statute permitted it, without complying with the rules governing administrative procedure.” The government filed its own letter in response, asserting that its counsel’s statements did “not contradict any Treasury regulations” and did not implicate the administrative law principles referenced by Altera.

These letters are attached below.

The case is now submitted for decision. Ordinarily, one would expect several months to elapse after argument before a decision from the Ninth Circuit would issue in a complex case. (The original opinion in this case was issued more than nine months after the oral argument.) Given that Judges Thomas and O’Malley have already written opinions in the case, however, it is very possible that a decision could come much sooner.

Altera – Altera post-argument letter

Altera – Government post-argument letter

 

Supplemental Briefing Completed in Altera

Attached are the four supplemental briefs filed by the parties in the Altera case.  First, in anticipation of the reargument of the case, with Judge Graber now sitting on the panel in place of the deceased Judge Reinhardt, the court invited the parties to file supplemental briefs limited to half of the length of a normal court of appeals brief.  This briefing opportunity was designed to give the parties the chance to restate or add to their arguments on the issues previously addressed in the case, having now had the opportunity to read the competing opinions of Judges Reinhardt and O’Malley that had been vacated.  Although the court’s order took pains to tell the parties that they were “permitted, but not obligated,” to file “optional” supplemental briefs, it will surprise no one that both parties took advantage of the option and filed supplemental briefs on September 28 that pressed right up against the 6500 word limit.  In addition to the parties’ briefs, four supplemental amicus briefs were filed by:  1) the Chamber of Commerce; 2) a group of trade associations; 3) Cisco; and 4) a group of law school professors, with that last one being in support of the government.

This deluge of paper, however, was not enough for the panel.  On the same day that the supplemental briefs were due, the court issued the following order inviting another set of supplemental briefs on the question whether Altera’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations:

“The parties should be prepared to discuss at oral argument the question as to whether the six-year statute of limitations applicable to procedural challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), applies to this case and, if it does, what the implications are for this appeal. Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1077-79 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 737 (2018). Additionally, the parties are permitted, but not obligated, to file optional simultaneous supplemental briefs on this question on or before October 9, 2018. The briefs should be no longer than 6,500 words [that is, half the length of an ordinary appellate brief].”

The court’s injection of this new issue into the case was potentially a very significant development.  If the court were to conclude that Altera’s APA challenge was barred by the statute of limitations, the Ninth Circuit decision in Altera would not shed any light on any of the important issues thought to be presented involving the APA or the substance of the cost-sharing regulations.

In the end, however, it appears that the court’s latest order will not amount to anything.  Altera filed a full-fledged supplemental brief in response to the court’s order in which it raised several objections to the court’s suggestion, including an argument that the government had waived any possible statute of limitations claim.

More significantly, the government did not embrace the court’s suggestion either.  The government simply filed a short letter brief in which it stated that any prepayment suit filed by Altera within the six-year limitations period would have been barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.  (In this connection, the government cited to its brief in the Chamber of Commerce case; see our coverage of that appeal here.)  Hence, the government acknowledged that it would be “unfair” to Altera if that six-year period were held to bar its later suit because that would have the effect of depriving Altera of any ability to sue in the Tax Court.   Moreover, the government noted that the limitations period is not “jurisdictional” and therefore, even if it would otherwise be applicable, the government had waived its right to invoke a limitations defense just as Altera argued in its brief.  The government concluded by stating its position that the six-year statute of limitations that is generally applicable to  APA challenges “does not apply to this case.”  Thus, there is no realistic possibility that the Ninth Circuit will toss the case on statute of limitations grounds, and it can be expected to address the important issues presented by the Tax Court’s opinion.

The oral argument is scheduled for October 16.

Altera – Altera Supplemental Brief

Altera – Government Supplemental Brief

Altera – Altera Statute of Limitations Supplemental Brief

Altera – Government Statute of Limitations Letter Brief

Altera Set for October 16 Reargument

The Ninth Circuit has announced that the panel (with Judge Graber substituted for the deceased Judge Reinhardt) will hear a new oral argument in the Altera case on the afternoon of October 16.  This announcement eliminates the possibility that Judge Graber would simply review the materials in the case and decide to join the prior majority opinion.  The outcome of the case now appears to be up for grabs, and most likely in the hands of Judge Graber unless either Judge Thomas or Judge O’Malley changes his or her mind in the case.

Altera Opinion Withdrawn

In a surprising move, the Ninth Circuit announced today that it has withdrawn its opinion in Altera “to allow time for the reconstituted panel to confer on this appeal,” even though no petition for rehearing has been filed yet.  See our prior report on the Altera decision here.  The mention of  the “reconstituted panel” refers to an order issued by the court last week that appointed Judge Graber as a replacement judge for Judge Reinhardt, who passed away in March.

At the time, the order appointing Judge Graber seemed to be an exercise in closing the barn door after the horse is gone.  But it now appears that Judge Graber is being asked to review the case and give her independent judgment regarding the issues, notwithstanding the decision issued in July.  If so, that would place the outcome in doubt again, since the two other living judges, Chief Judge Thomas and Judge O’Malley, differed on their views of the case.

In some courts, the death of a judge while a case is under consideration automatically means that the judge’s vote will not count.  Unless the remaining two judges agree, that death would necessitate appointing a third judge to render a decision.  But the Ninth Circuit does not follow that approach.  The now-withdrawn opinion recited that “Judge Reinhardt fully participated in this case and formally concurred in the majority opinion prior to his death.”  For whatever reason, the court now seems to have decided on its own that it made a mistake in allowing Judge Reinhardt to cast the decisive vote from the grave in such an important case.

Altera – Ninth Circuit order substituting Judge Graber

Altera – Ninth Circuit order withdrawing opinions

 

Next Page »