Rodriguez v. FDIC was a United States Supreme Court case (589 U.S. ____ (2020)) in which the court held that the Bob Richards rule was not appropriately crafted and federal judges should not apply it when resolving disputes about tax allocations to members of an affiliated group filing a consolidated return.[1][2]
| Rodriguez v. FDIC | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 3, 2019 Decided February 25, 2020 | |
| Full case name | Rodriguez, as chapter 7 trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of United Western Bancorp, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for United Western Bank |
| Docket no. | 18-1269 |
| Citations | 589 U.S. (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 473 F.2d 262 |
| Holding | |
| 473 F.2d 262 (The Bob Richards Rule) is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking, 914 F.3d 1262 vacated and remanded | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Gorsuch, joined by a unanimous court |
Background
editThe United Western Bank entered FDIC receivership in 2011,[3] in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis after suffering losses from exposure to mortgage backed securities and commercial borrower defaults.[4] After a federal judge ruled in a separate lawsuit challenging the bank shutdown that regulators' decision to put the bank into receivership was reasonable and within their discretionary powers the bank's parent company, United Western Bancorp, entered into chapter 7 bankruptcy, and Simon Rodriguez – the plaintiff in Rodriguez v. FDIC– was named as the trustee. The dispute arose between bankruptcy trustee Simon Rodriguez and the FDIC over who would receive the $4 million refund issued by the IRS.[1][5] In 2015, the IRS paid the income tax return filed by United Western Bancorp in 2011 to the bankruptcy court, handing the court the mandate to figure out to whom the refund is due.[5]
Legal matters
editUnder 26 U.S.C. § 1501 the IRS allows consolidated tax returns and issues refunds as a single payment. The IRS has little involvement in how the payment is distributed among group members and when disputes arise federal courts would presumably apply state laws. Some courts have instead created a federal common law rule known as the Bob Richards rule, taking its name from the case In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.[6]
With the bankruptcy court given the responsibility of finding out to whom the money should be paid out, the court used a previous agreement between United Western Bancorp and United Western Bank to hold that the money should be paid to United Western Bancorp; however, this was appealed by the FDIC to a United States district court.[5]
The district court overturned the decision of the previous court with the rationale that under the Bob Richards rule gave the money to United Western Bank as they were the entity that suffered monetary loss.[7] Rodriguez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appeals court upheld the district court's ruling[5] and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.[8][9]
Decision
editThe previous judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to the Tenth Circuit to decide without considering the Bob Richards rule. The Supreme Court found that the Bob Richards rule was "not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking", which went beyond the ability permitted of federal judges to "appropriately craft the rule of decision".[1] Justice Gorsuch cites the fourth Cort v. Ash factor: Corporations are generally "creatures of state law",[10] and state law is adequate for resolving a dispute about the distribution of a consolidated corporate tax refund.
Further proceedings
editOn remand from the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit held that the outcome under state law was the same as it was under the Bob Richards rule, reaffirming their previous decision that the refund belonged to the FDIC as receiver, and not the trustee for the bank's failed parent company Western United Bancorp.[11] The judgment was then remanded to the bankruptcy court.[12]
References
edit- ^ a b c Rodriguez v. FDIC, 589 18-1269 (U.S. 25 February 2020).
- ^ Jones, Roger J. (February 26, 2020). "Supreme Court Tackles Tax-Related Cases". The National Law Review. X (57). Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ "First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Raleigh, North Carolina, Assumes All of the Deposits of United Western Bank, Denver, Colorado4". Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Retrieved December 28, 2023.
- ^ "Ruling sends bankrupt United Western Bank toward liquidation". The Denver Post. Bloomberg News. March 11, 2013. Retrieved December 28, 2023.
- ^ a b c d Bonner, Paul (February 26, 2020). "Supreme Court overturns consolidated group tax refund allocation rule". Journal of Accountancy. AICPA. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ 473 F. 2d 262
- ^ Jones, Barbara L. (February 25, 2020). "Rodriguez v. FDIC". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ Rodriguez v. FDIC, PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 18-_ (U.S. April 2019).
- ^ "Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 11, 2022.
- ^ "Corporations are creatures of state law, and investors commit their funds to corporate directors on the understanding that, except where federal law expressly requires certain responsibilities of directors with respect to stockholders, state law will govern the internal affairs of the corporation." Cort v. Ash, 422 US 66 at 84
- ^ "Tenth Circuit Upholds FDIC Ownership of Tax Refunds in Cases of Failed Banks". FDIC. Retrieved December 28, 2023.
- ^ In re: UNITED WESTERN BANCORP, INC., 17-1281 (10 cir. 26 May 2020).
External links
edit- Text of Rodriguez v. FDIC is available from: Cornell Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation at Ballotpedia