Close
Close

Appeals court denies cost basis for failure to meet all-events test

RFP
Tax Hot TopicsTax Hot Topics
In AmerGen Energy Co. LLC v. U.S., No. 14-5067 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims decision that the taxpayer, an energy company, could not include future nuclear decommissioning liabilities it assumed when it purchased three nuclear power plants, in the basis of those acquired assets in its 2001 through 2003 tax returns. The court reasoned that this was because the economic performance requirement of Section 461(h) hadn’t been met.   

Between 1999 and 2000, AmerGen purchased three nuclear plants: Three Mile Island, Clinton Power Station and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating System. AmerGen paid approximately $93 million in cash for the three plants and assumed approximately $1.6 billion in nuclear decommissioning liabilities. As part of the purchase, AmerGen received decommissioning trust funds totaling approximately $974 million, including $393 million in qualified funds and $581 million in nonqualified funds. The trust funds were required to satisfy certain regulatory requirements for decommissioning. None of the three nuclear power plants purchased by AmerGen had been decommissioned as of the relevant 2001 through 2003 tax years.  

On its amended 2001 and 2002 tax returns, and on its tax return for 2003, AmerGen asserted that its cost basis in the purchased assets equaled the sum of the cash payments made, plus the decommissioning liabilities assumed. AmerGen claimed depreciation and amortization deductions related to certain of the purchased assets based on a cost basis that reflected the inclusion of the decommissioning liabilities. The IRS disagreed with AmerGen’s position and did not allow AmerGen to increase its basis in the acquired assets to the extent of the decommissioning liabilities. AmerGen paid the tax due, then sued the government for a refund in the Court of Federal Claims.   

The claims court considered whether AmerGen incurred the decommissioning liabilities at the time of purchase and, specifically, whether at that time those liabilities satisfied the economic performance requirement of Section 461(h). The claims court concluded that the timing rule of Section 461(h)(2)(B) applied. It reasoned that under the rule, economic performance would occur when AmerGen provided the required services, or the decommissioning.  Because AmerGen would not decommission its nuclear power plants until years later, the claims court concluded that AmerGen didn’t incur the decommissioning liabilities and thus couldn’t include them in the basis of the acquired assets at the time of purchase.

On appeal, AmerGen argued that the economic performance requirement codified in Section 461(h) doesn’t apply to calculating the basis of purchased assets. AmerGen asserted that the “all events test” is a term of art, and, according to case law before 1984, the test applied only to expense deductions by an accrual method taxpayer, not to basis calculations. AmerGen also argued that because the all-events test isn’t directed at a taxpayer using the cash method of accounting, the test doesn’t apply to purchase-price basis calculation, which concerns both cash method and accrual method taxpayers.

The appeals court agreed with the IRS’s view that Section 461(h) applies in determining when and whether an accrual method taxpayer incurs nuclear decommissioning liabilities for purposes of calculating the basis of an acquired nuclear power plant and associated assets. The court reasoned that Section 461(h)(1) plainly states that it applies for all “purposes of this title,” i.e., the Internal Revenue Code, not just to a subset of tax provisions, such as specific deduction provisions.  

Additionally, the text of Sections 461(h)(1) and (4) specifies that the sections apply “with respect to any item,” and thus the statutory all-events test is not limited to expense deductions. Before 1984, there was no statutory all-events test, and regulations provided a two-prong all-events test for determining when an expense was deductible for an accrual method taxpayer. When Congress enacted Section 461(h), however, it used broader language, namely, “with respect to any item” of a liability. Thus, Congress not only added the economic performance requirement in Section 461(h)(1), but also enacted a new and more inclusive all-events test in Section 461(h)(4) that is not limited to expense deductions by an accrual method taxpayer.

AmerGen also argued that even if Section 461(h) applied, economic performance of its decommissioning liabilities had already occurred under 461(h)(2)(A)(ii), which notes that if a taxpayer liability arises from another person’s providing property to the taxpayer, economic performance occurs as the person provides such property, and not under 461(h)(2)(B), which notes that if a taxpayer liability requires the taxpayer to provide property or services, economic performance occurs as the taxpayer provides such property or services. AmerGen argued that it became obligated to incur decommission costs when the sellers conveyed the nuclear power plant.  

The appeals court disagreed with AmerGen and concluded that Section 461(h)(2)(B) governs, because the liabilities at issue are services to be provided by the taxpayer, not property provided or a service to be provided to the taxpayer. The appeals court also found AmerGen’s other arguments unpersuasive, concluding that AmerGen didn’t incur the decommissioning liabilities and couldn’t include those liabilities in the basis of the asset acquired.

Contacts
Sharon Kay
+1 202 861 4140
sharon.kay@us.gt.com

Ellen Fitzgerald
+1 202 521 1558
ellen.fitzgerald@us.gt.com
.
Tax professional standards statement
This document supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the subject of this document, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss the potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this document may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this document is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.