Ford V. Us
Published on Nov 19, 2015
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FOARD VURSUESSIS
US
FORD "UNDERPAID" TAXES
FROM '83-'89( NOBODY ON THE WEB TELLS ME ANYTHING!)
Justices:
William J. Brennan, Jr. October 16, 1956-July 20, 1990 Eisenhower
Potter Stewart October 14, 1958-July 3, 1981 Eisenhower
Byron Raymond White April 16, 1962-July 28, 1993 Kennedy
Thurgood Marshall October 2, 1967-October 1, 1991 Johnson
Warren Earl Burger June 23, 1969-September 26, 1986 Nixon
Chief Justice 1969-1986
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. January 7, 1972-June 26, 1987 Nixon
William H. Rehnquist January 7, 1972 Nixon
Chief Justice from September 26, 1986
John Paul Stevens December 19, 1975 Ford
Sandra Day O’Connor September 25, 1981 Reagan
Antonin Scalia September 26, 1986 Reagan
Anthony M. Kennedy February 18, 1988 Reagan
CHIEF JUSTICE:
WARREN EARL BURGER
Oral arguments:
United States
Ford Motor Company remitted hundreds of millions of dollars to the United States Treasury after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified Ford that it had underpaid its taxes in prior years. Ford designated the funds as “deposits in the nature of a cash bond” but later asked the government to convert its remittances into “advance tax payments,” which are treated differently under the IRS's revenue procedures. When the government subsequently reexamined its computations and determined that Ford had overpaid its taxes in the relevant timeframe, the United States refunded Ford's payments with interest. But the government refused to pay Ford any interest for the period during which the United States held Ford's money as deposits—before the remittances were converted to advance tax payments. Ford demands about $450 million in additional interest from the government. The district court rejected Ford's claim, and so do we.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1679569.html#sthash.U0NIEQmf.dpuf
Oral argument of ford:
Ford filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing for the first time that § 6611 was not a waiver of sovereign immunity. Instead, Ford argued that the applicable immunity waiver came from 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1)—the statute that vested the district court with jurisdiction to adjudicate Ford's case. Ford had not raised that argument in its briefs, and both this panel and the en banc court declined to rehear the appeal. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1679569.html#sthash.ifV2xPFq.dpuf
ROGERS, J., concurring. I join the majority’s opinion, except for Part III.A. For the compelling reasons given in the remainder of the majority’s opinion, the Government does not owe interest on the amounts paid by Ford as a deposit. There is no need at all to address the applicability of the strict construction canon for waivers of sovereign immunity, and I would therefore not do so. See Leval, Judging Under the Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1249 (2006).
Cite as: 571 U. S. ____ (2013) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 13–113. Decided December 2, 2013 PER CURIAM. When a taxpayer overpays his taxes, he is generally entitled to interest from the Government for the period between the payment and the ultimate refund. See 26 U. S. C. §6611(a). That interest begins to run “from the date of overpayment.” §§6611(b)(1), (b)(2). But the Code does not define “the date of overpayment.” In this case, after the Internal Revenue Service advised Ford Motor Company that it had underpaid its taxes from 1983 until 1989, Ford remitted a series of deposits to the IRS totaling $875 million. Those deposits stopped the ac- crual of interest that Ford would otherwise owe once the audits were completed and the amount of its underpay- ment was finally determined. See §6601; Rev. Proc. 84– 58, 1984–2 Cum. Bull. 501. Later, Ford requested that the IRS treat the deposits as advance payments of the addi- tional tax that Ford owed. Eventually the parties deter- mined that Ford had overpaid its taxes in the relevant years, thereby entitling Ford to a return of the over- payment as well as interest. But the parties disagreed about when the interest began to run under 26 U. S. C. §6611(b)(1). Ford argued that “the date of overpayment” was the date that it first remitted the deposits to the IRS. Ibid. The Government countered that the date of over- payment was the date that Ford requested that the IRS treat the remittances as payments of tax. The difference between the parties’ competing interpretations of §6611(b) is worth some $445 million. Ford sued the Government in Federal District Court,
DISSENTING OPINION:
A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS MADE.
Effects
571 U.S. ___
Decided December 2, 2013.
Certiorari granted. Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded.
THIS CASE HAS BEEN APPEALED 6 TIMES.
IT WILL PROBABLY BE APPEALED MORE IN THE FUTURE.
