- 44 -
prespinoff group was settled at the time the tentative refunds
were issued. Having assumed that petitioner was the former
common parent of the group, we held it no longer had “authority
to act for the group” and receive the tentative refunds on the
group’s behalf. Id. When respondent paid the tentative refunds
to the former common parent, he paid the wrong taxpayer. Id.
In the case at hand, respondent is not attempting to recover
the tentative refunds from a taxpayer who never received them,
actually or constructively. We are therefore not willing to make
the same assumptions we made in Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra. Rather than assume the identity of the group that was the
continuation of the prespinoff group was clear when the tentative
refunds were paid because of respondent’s concession 10 years
later, we examine the issue in light of the facts as they
actually existed when the tentative refunds were paid.
Consistent with this premise, we accordingly decide whether the
tentative refunds issued to petitioner were rebates when it was
unclear to respondent whether petitioner or Interlake was the
continuing common parent of the prespinoff affiliated group.
We are thus presented with an issue different from the one that
was opined on by the bankruptcy court.
The bankruptcy court’s treatment of the tentative refunds
paid for 1981 and 1984 confirms our conclusion that the
bankruptcy court did not decide the issue we are being asked to
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011