Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
12-43
Term
2012 Term
Oral Argument Date
February 20, 2013
Questions Presented
Whether, in determining the creditability of a foreign tax, courts should employ a formalistic approach that looks solely at the form of the foreign tax statute and ignores how the tax actually operates, or should employ a substance-based approach that considers factors such as the practical operation and intended effect of the foreign tax.
Case Updates
Supreme Court holds UK tax can be claimed for foreign tax credit
May 20, 2013
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Third Circuit and held that the tax at issue may be claimed for foreign tax credit.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
December 20, 2012
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Third Circuit's decision and reject the IRS Commissioner's hyperformalistic application of the credit for foreign “excess profit taxes” under section 901of the tax code. In this case, the IRS denied a tax credit to the plaintiff company saying that the taxes it paid overseas did not qualify for the section 901 tax credit. NCLC argued in its amicus brief that the IRS Commissioner's rigidly formalistic approach should be rejected as an administrative overreach that breaks with the historical understanding of this particular tax provision. Historically, the understanding of whether a section 901 tax credit was available has turned on the economic substance of the foreign tax assessment. The approach advocated the the IRS Commissioner and adopted by the Third Circuit improperly ignores the substance of the British windfall tax at issue here. Additionally, NCLC argued that the Commissioner's position is opportunistic and inconsistent with the Government's usual emphasis on substance over form.
Case Documents
- Cert. Petition -- PPL Corp. et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Respondent's Brief -- PPL Corp. et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- N. Jerold Cohen et al. amicus brief -- PPL Corp. et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Rosanne Altshuler et al., amicus brief -- PPL Corp. et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Petitioner's Brief -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Respondent's Brief -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Reply Brief -- PPL Corp. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- NCLC amicus brief -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Patrick J. Smith merits amicus brief -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Entergy Corp. merits amicus brief -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- American Electric Power Co. merits amicus brief -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Anne Alstott et al. amicus brief in support of respondent -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Oral argument transcript -- PPL Corp. v. Comm. of Internal Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Decision -- PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.pdf