Intermet Corporation & Subsidiaries - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
               Eric R. Fox, Dirk J.J. Suringa, Hamish P.M. Hume, and                  
          Clifton B. Cates, for petitioner.                                           
               Wilton A. Baker, Alfred C. Bishop, Jr., Steven J. Hankin,              
          and Teri A. Culberton, for respondent.                                      

                                SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION                                  
               WELLS, Chief Judge:  This case is before the Court on remand           
          from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Intermet Corp.           
          & Subs. v. Commissioner, 209 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2000), revg. and            
          remanding 111 T.C. 294 (1998).  In Intermet Corp. & Subs. v.                
          Commissioner, supra, the Court of Appeals held that Intermet                
          Corporation and its subsidiaries (hereinafter petitioner) is                
          eligible to carry back for 10 years pursuant to section                     
          172(b)(1)(C), certain expenses, i.e., State tax liabilities and             
          interest on Federal and State tax liabilities, provided that                
          those expenses qualify as “specified liability losses” within the           
          meaning of section 172(f)(1)(B).  The issue presented on this               
          remand for further proceedings consistent with the Court of                 
          Appeals’ opinion is whether the expenses so qualify as specified            
          liability losses.  Unless otherwise indicated, section references           
          are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and               
          Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and                  
          Procedure.                                                                  
                                     Background                                       
               This case was submitted to the Court on the basis of fully             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011