Close
Close

Supreme Court rejects ‘Bob Richards rule’

RFP
Tax Hot Topics newsletterThe U. S. Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision in Rodriguez v. FDIC (No. 18-1269) to reverse an expansive interpretation of a long-standing common-law rule for determining where to distribute a tax refund in a consolidated group when no tax-sharing agreement is in place.

The decision reverses the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which had applied an expansive application of the so-called “Bob Richards rule” to hold that the U.S. federal income tax refund to a U.S. consolidated group should be distributed to the member that generated the loss (in this case the FDIC acting as receiver for the bank subsidiary) and not the common parent (in this case the trustee for the bankruptcy estate of such corporation).

The Bob Richards rule was the result of the 1973 holding in In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp (473 F.2d 262) in which the 9th Circuit crafted a common-law rule holding that, where there was no tax sharing agreement in place, the income tax refund would be distributed to the member that generated the loss. Since then, the rule has been expanded by certain courts to apply even where there is a tax sharing agreement in place, but such agreement is not clear and unambiguous.

The Supreme Court held that the issue of how to distribute the federal income tax refund is not a matter for the narrow application of federal common law as the issue was not one where lawmaking is “necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.” Treasury regulations provide who the agent is who receives the income tax refund, but the Court held that at that point, the federal interest is terminated. The court held that the distribution of such refund is a matter for state law such as contract interpretation or equitable doctrines.

Contact:
Greg Fairbanks
Managing Director
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1503

Tax professional standards statement
This content 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 topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their 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 content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content 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.