On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. FDIC,1 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the application of the so-called “Bob Richards” rule, a judicial doctrine that was developed in the context of a bankruptcy case almost 60 years ago concerning ownership of tax refunds secured by the parent corporate entity on behalf of a bankrupt subsidiary included in a consolidated group tax return.
On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.
On February 25, 2020, the United States Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation[1] struck down a judicial federal common law rule—known as the Bob Richards rule—that is used by courts to allocate tax refunds among members of a corporate affiliated group where the group does not have a written tax sharing agreement in place, or, at least in some federal Circuits, where an agreement fails to allocate the refunds unambiguously.
On Feb. 25, The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,[1] a case involving a dispute between (1) the trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct bank holding company, and (2) the FDIC, as receiver for the bank holding company’s failed bank subsidiary, over the ownership of a federal income tax refund that was payable by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to the bank holding company as the parent of a consolidated tax filing group.
The importance of clarity in drafting agreements can never be understated. And while there are strategies available to spouses of business owners to help protect a family in bankruptcy, it is imperative to properly plan and draft to receive such protection from the Courts. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, _____________ F.3d ________________ (3rd Cir. 2020) (“Somerset”), recently decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, offers a prime example of both cautionary concepts.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch (Rodriquez v. FDIC No 18-12690), the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (In reUnited Western Bancorp, Inc., 914 F. 3d 1262 (10th Cir, 2019)) that awarded a federal income tax refund of a failed bank to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver.
A basic tenet of bankruptcy law, premised on the legal separateness of a debtor prior to filing for bankruptcy and the estate created upon a bankruptcy filing, is that prepetition debts are generally treated differently than debts incurred by the estate, which are generally treated as priority administrative expenses. However, this seemingly straightforward principle is sometimes difficult to apply in cases where a debt technically "arose" or "was incurred" prepetition, but does not became payable until sometime during the bankruptcy case. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.
The Bottom Line
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 3, 2019 in Simon E. Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 18-1269 (Sup. Ct.).
On September 9, 2019, the Treasury Department and IRS issued new proposed regulations (REG-125710-18) (the “Proposed Regulations”) affecting how companies with net operating losses (“NOLs” and such entities, “Loss Companies”) will calculate the ability to use such losses following an ownership change in the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, P.L. 115-97 (2017) (“TCJA”).