Intel Corporation and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 16

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011