- 16 -
Circuit explained in rejecting the same argument in Fluor Corp. &
Affiliates v. United States, 126 F.3d at 1404:
While there is some force to that argument, in the
end we do not find it persuasive. Section 6601(d) in
effect codifies the rule of Seeley Tube and Koppers for
all the carryback provisions that the statute covers.
Fluor's argument is that because Congress codified the
rule of Seeley Tube and Koppers for other carryback
provisions, but not for the foreign tax carryback, the
Seeley Tube-Koppers rule does not apply to the foreign
tax carryback. We do not accept the contention that,
by codifying the rule for some carrybacks, Congress
must necessarily have meant to repudiate it for any
carryback not included in the codification.
Nor are we prepared to reach a different conclusion because
of the failure of Congress, in the ensuing years from 1958 to
1997, to take action in respect of interest on underpayments
involving carrybacks of foreign taxes. This position was also
advanced and rejected in Fluor Corp. & Affiliates; the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit declared that Congress knew about
Manning v. Seeley Tube & Box Co., supra, and United States v.
Koppers Co., supra, and that since the rule of those cases:
did not depend on specific legislation imposing
deficiency interest, Congress had no need to legislate
in order to ensure that deficiency interest would be
imposed. Indeed, the contrary was true: In light of
Seeley Tube and Koppers, an informed Congress would
have assumed that specific legislation would be
required if it intended deficiency interest not to
accrue when a carryback eliminated a deficiency in the
carryback year. [Fluor Corp. & Affiliates v. United
States, 126 F.3d at 1404-1405.]
Beyond the foregoing analysis, we again observe, see supra
note 2, that, as a general rule, actions by subsequent Congresses
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011