The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, March 25, 1996
Decision: Thursday, June 20, 1996
Issues: Federal Taxation, Priority of Federal Fiscal Claims

Advocates

Kent L. Jones (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Steven Jack McCardell (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligated CF&I Steel Corporation (CF&I) to make annual funding contributions to pension plans they sponsored. The required contribution for the 1989 plan totaled $12.4 million. CF&I failed to make the payment and petitioned the Bankruptcy Court for Chapter 11 reorganization. The Government filed a proof of claim for tax liability arising under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 4971(a), which imposes a 10 percent "tax" on any "accumulated funding deficiency" of plans such as CF&I's. The court allowed the claim, but rejected the Government's argument that the claim was entitled to priority as an "excise tax" under the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court also subordinated the Section 4971 claim to those of all other general unsecured creditors under the Bankruptcy Code's provision for equitable subordination. The court later approved a reorganization plan for CF&I giving lowest priority (and no money) to claims for non-compensatory penalties. The District Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Is the Internal Revenue Code's 10% tax liability claim on any "accumulated funding deficiency" in pension plans an "excise tax" under the Bankruptcy Code? May the Government's tax claims be given a lower priority than competing claims by other creditors in bankruptcy proceedings?

Conclusion

No and no. In an opinion authored by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the Internal Revenue Code's 10% tax liability claim on any "accumulated funding deficiency" in pension plans, 26 U.S.C. Section 4971(a), does not create an excise tax under the Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, the Court held that the subordination of the Government's tax claim to those of other creditors was an error.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Internal Revenue Code
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, United States v. Reorganized CF& I Fab. of UT, 518 U.S. 213 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_325/>
(last visited ).