Today Bob Probasco continues his update on overpayment interest suits. Part One can be found here Christine
And now Bank of America
Bank of America filed its case in the Western District of North Carolina (WDNC). As noted above, Pfizer chose its forum to take advantage of a favorable Second Circuit precedent; Bank of America likely chose the WDNC to avoid an unfavorable precedent. Approximately $141 million of the $163 million at issue involves interest netting and, as the government pointed out, Bank of America currently has another interest netting case pending in the CFC.
The case in the WDNC likely raises the “same taxpayer” issue (see discussion here and here). It involved overpayments and underpayments for tax years ranging from 1987 to 2009, for six different entities that ultimately merged into a seventh, the plaintiff. Federal Circuit precedent, from Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2016), allows separate companies that merge to be considered the “same taxpayer.” But it also applies a “temporal requirement” that the two entities must be the “same” for the entire period of overlap between the overpayment and the underpayment. Effectively, this means that the latest of the two tax years with balances to be netted must be after the date of the merger. Based on information in the complaint, most of the amount at issue appears to be precluded by the holding in Wells Fargo. Bank of America’s case in the CFC, on the other hand, did not have a Wells Fargo problem. Settlement negotiations began almost immediately and are ongoing.
Bank of America had a strong incentive to file the current case in the WDNC. As I stated before, in my second post on interest netting, I think Wells Fargo was an overly narrow construction of the statute. But the CFC is bound by that precedent, while the WDNC might reach a different conclusion. Unfortunately, the amounts at issue exceeded the limitation on Tucker Act jurisdiction by a district court. Thus, Bank of America had to argue that the case fell under “tax refund jurisdiction” and the government promptly filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that claims for additional overpayment interest are only cognizable under Tucker Act jurisdiction. A magistrate judge reviewed the motion to dismiss and concluded that “tax refund jurisdiction” encompasses claims for additional overpayment interest. In Bank of America Corp. v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109238, the district court judge agreed and adopted the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation.
read more...The court found the interpretation of § 1346(a)(1) in E.W. Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2005) persuasive. The statute provides concurrent jurisdiction for district courts and the CFC over actions for the recovery of “any sum alleged to have been excessive . . . under the internal-revenue laws.” The Scripps court concluded that a claim for overpayment interest fit that part of the statute. The “sum” at issue is not the amount of overpayment interest at issue; it is the total balance the United States retained, the net of tax liability, penalties, underpayment interest, and overpayment interest.
That’s a bit abstract; here’s a simple illustration. Say that the taxpayer originally paid $5,000,000 but the IRS eventually determined that the correct tax liability was only $4,500,000 and refunded $500,000. The sum retained by the government is $4,500,000; it received $5,000,000 but then refunded $500,000. But if the government should have paid (but did not) $80,000 of overpayment interest, it should have only retained $4,420,000, the net of $5,000,000 originally received and $580,000 (tax refund plus overpayment interest) paid back to the taxpayer. The sum actually retained ($4,500,000) is “excessive,” more than the proper amount of $4,420,000. I think this is a somewhat strained reading of the statute, but it persuaded the Scripps court and the district court in Bank of America.
The opinion also noted that most courts that have considered the issue have held that claims of additional overpayment interest fall within “tax refund jurisdiction.” Strictly speaking, that may be true, but it fails to address a couple of limitations on that statement. First, only one Circuit Court (the Sixth), and few district courts outside the Sixth Circuit, have directly addressed the issue. Historically, most claims for overpayment interest have been filed in the CFC rather than district court. It’s not at all clear that other Circuit Courts would reach the same conclusion. For example, although technically dicta, in Sunoco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 663 F.3d 181, 190 (3d Cir. 2011) the Third Circuit stated that actions for overpayment interest in district court fall under § 1346(a)(2) rather than § 1346(a)(1).
Second, the CFC (which handles most interest cases) generally won’t have disputes as to which jurisdictional statute applies, for structural reasons. District court jurisdiction is split between § 1346(a)(1), for tax refund actions, and § 1346(a)(2), for Tucker Act claims, because there is a dollar limitation for the latter. The CFC has no such dollar limitation and only has one relevant jurisdictional statute, § 1491(a)(1), which is similar to the language of § 1346(a)(2). When a case includes both underpayment interest and overpayment interest (most interest netting cases do), some practitioners may specify both § 1346(a)(1) – under Chapter 85 of Title 28, governing district court jurisdiction, but referencing the CFC – and § 1491 for jurisdiction, just in case. But the CFC may not address the jurisdictional statute at all in those cases. When it does, it often refers to jurisdiction for both tax refunds and overpayment interest as arising under the Tucker Act, i.e., § 1491; only the underlying cause of action and statute of limitations are different. That was the only jurisdictional basis that Paresky mentioned and there are many other examples.
The government also relied on similar language in § 1346(a)(1) and Code section 7422(a). Here’s § 1346(a)(1), with the relevant language italicized:
Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws
And here’s Code section 7422(a), which states requirements for refund suits, also with the relevant language italicized:
No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary, according to the provisions of law in that regard, and the regulations of the Secretary established in pursuance thereof.
The government argued that: (a) it is well-established actions for overpayment interest are not refund suits; (b) § 1346(a)(1)’s language is virtually identical to that in section 7422; (c) therefore, § 1346(a)(1) is limited to refund suits, just as section 7422 is; and (d) therefore, district courts only have jurisdiction over actions for overpayment interest under § 1346(a)(2), which is limited to $10,000.
Bank of America circumvented this conclusion by arguing that § 1346(a)(1) includes both refund suits and “non-refund” suits, such as those for overpayment interest. There are very minor differences in the language of the two statutes, but the court identified one significant difference that convinced it to agree with Bank of America’s argument. Section 7422(a) includes a qualifying header: “No suit prior to filing claim for refund.” And § 1346(a)(1) has no header. I’m not sure how much should be read into that; Chapter 85 of Title 28 appears to have no headers or titles at the paragraph level, and few at the subsection level, as opposed to the section level.
These issues might be reviewed by the Fourth Circuit on appeal at some point, but not soon. The WDNC’s opinion just denied the motion to dismiss; now the parties will need to proceed to the merits of the case. The case has more complex facts and legal issues (including the “same taxpayer” issue) than Bank of America’s CFC case, so a final determination might take a long time.
Conclusion
Now we have three recent cases that addressed the issue but with somewhat inconsistent results. Pfizer and Bank of America concluded that district courts’ “tax refund jurisdiction” encompasses claims for overpayment interest. Paresky did not address the jurisdictional statute, because the case was originally filed in the CFC, but may now with the post-transfer motion before the SDF. The CFC and Federal Circuit might view the issue differently than Pfizer and Bank of America did, but their jurisdictional statute doesn’t differentiate as the district court jurisdictional statute does and they will never rule on the district court statute.
Pfizer concluded that the Code statute of limitations applies. Paresky concluded that the general federal 6-year statute of limitations applies, but that may change in the SDF. Bank of America didn’t directly address the statute of limitations, as the government did not assert untimely filing as a basis for the motion to dismiss, but the court certainly suggested that it would not apply the Code statute of limitations.
These issues potentially could be addressed on appeal by three different Circuits – the Second (Pfizer), the Eleventh (Paresky), and the Fourth (Bank of America). So far, only the Sixth Circuit has ruled on whether district court jurisdiction for these cases fits under § 1346(a)(1). It will be interesting to see if a circuit split develops that would give the government an opportunity to overturn Scripps. And we might even see a decision in Bank of America that would create a circuit split on the “same taxpayer” issue and allow taxpayers an opportunity to overturn that part of the Wells Fargo result.
The fact that it has been over 18 months now between the oral argument in Pfizer and an opinion must certainly mean that the ultimate ruling in Pfizer will not be unanimous. Indeed, it is possible that one judge, say, will hold that the district court lacks jurisdiction under 1346(a)(1), another will hold that the court would have had jurisdiction under 1346(a)(1), but lacks jurisdiction because the relevant SOL is 6532(a) (which the judge calls jurisdictional), and a third judge finds that 1346(a)(1) provides jurisdiction and that the 6-year SOL of 28 usc 2401(a) applies, so suit was timely brought. In this situation, two judges would find no jurisdiction, so they would transfer the case to the CFC. It is not clear to me that an appeal could be taken because of this transfer, so I am not sure how one gets Supreme Court review.
Then again, what if one judge thinks that jurisdiction is not supplied by 1346(a)(1), and the other two judges think that 1346(a)(1) supplies jurisdiction, the 2-year SOL of 6532(a) applies, and that time period is not jurisdictional (as Harvard argues), but that Pfizer alleged an estoppel argument to get around this 2-year SOL too late (as the district court held)? In that case, it seems that a majority finds jurisdiction, but grants summary judgment to the IRS (a merits holding). The case then ends. It does not get transferred to the CFC. Transfer to the CFC is only permitted if suit was brought in a court that lacked jurisdiction. Could Pfizer still bring a new suit in the CFC? Well, the facts are not good. The tax year here was 2008. Pfizer filed its return in Sept. 2009. The IRS then sent checks that were lost. In March 2010, the IRS sent new checks, but refused to send interest on the amount paid for the months between the two sets of checks (which would have been about $8 million). Three days short of 6 years after the second set of checks were sent, Pfizer brought suit in district court. I assume that, if the cause of action arose in March 2010, under 28 usc 2501 (which the CFC would apply), Pfizer had to bring a suit for refund in the CFC within 6 years thereafter. Such a suit would now be too late. The Supreme Court has held, under stare decisis, that the 6-year SOL of 28 usc 2501 is still jurisdictional, so there could be no equitable tolling of that statute during the time the district court case was being fought. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008).