From 1970 through 1982, P deducted additions to its bad debt reserve. The amounts deducted were calculated with reference to P's taxable income for each year. From 1980 through 1984, P sustained net operating losses (NOL's).
98 T.C. 105">*106 OPINION
Wells,
The instant case is before us on petitioner's motion for summary judgment. Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 114,193 in petitioner's Federal income tax for its taxable year ended April 11, 1986. At the time the petition in the instant case was filed, petitioner's principal place of business was located in Atlanta, Georgia. From 1970 through 1982, petitioner computed its deduction for the addition to its bad debt reserves using the percentage of taxable income method set forth in section 593(b)(2)(A). 1 From 1980 through 1984, petitioner sustained net operating losses (NOL's) within the meaning of section 172(c), which NOL's may be carried back under section 172(b)(1)(F) to each of the 10 taxable years preceding the loss years.
1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*14 The parties agree that the sole issue presented is the validity of subdivisions (vi) and (vii) of
The 1978 regulations changed the method by which a mutual institution's bad debt reserve addition is calculated in a year to which an NOL carryback is applied. The first regulations interpreting section 593 provided that taxable income is to be computed "without regard to any section providing for a deduction1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*15 the amount of which is dependent upon the amount of taxable income".
The issue of which of the two opposing interpretations should be sustained was decided by this Court in
In
If a court, using the traditional tools of statutory construction, such as the plain language, structure, and legislative history of the law, ascertains that Congress has addressed the precise question at issue, that is the end of the matter.
If, on the other hand, the court concludes that the statute is silent1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*18 or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
[have] firmly rejected the suggestion that a regulation is to be sustained simply because it is not "technically inconsistent" with the statutory language, when that regulation is fundamentally at odds with the manifest congressional design. [
A reviewing court should consider1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*19 the agency's reaction to objections raised by the public and how the agency rebutted vital relevant comments during the regulatory process.
Many factors have been applied to aid in the decision as to whether the agency's interpretation is a reasonable construction of the statute. A regulation which is a substantially1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*20 contemporaneous construction of the statute is entitled to special weight, as its drafters are presumed to have a greater awareness of congressional intent, and such construction is therefore more likely to reflect such intent.
If a regulation dates from a period after the enactment of the statute which it interprets, or repudiates an earlier interpretation, the manner in which it evolved merits inquiry.
An agency has the flexibility to modify its regulations in the light of experience and to respond to changed circumstances.
An agency which changes its position must acknowledge that its interpretation has shifted, and must supply a persuasively reasoned explanation for the change.
Furthermore, "an agency's action must be upheld, if at all, 1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*23 on the basis articulated by the agency * * * [at the time of the rule making]."
Turning to the instant case, as the foregoing authorities demonstrate,
In
We remain convinced that the 1978 regulations contravene Congress' intent. Although
In
Before turning to our disagreement with the specific reasons set forth in the 1978 memorandum, the stage should be set with a discussion of the reason Treasury initially advanced for the change made by the 1978 regulations. Treasury's original 3 view was that, by amending section 593(b)(2)(E) 4 in 1969, Congress intended to create an exclusive list of modifications to the taxable income of savings banks for purposes of the bad debt deduction. An examination of the manner in which such provision1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*27 came to form part of the Code, however, shows that Congress could not have had the intent ascribed to it by Treasury and that the congressional action cannot possibly bear the weight of inference which Treasury placed upon it. The 1969 amendments to section 593(b)(2)(E) consisted of technical amendments proposed by Treasury to remove from the taxable income base, upon which the bad debt reserve addition was calculated, certain types of income which did not give rise to bad debt losses. H. Rept. 91-413,
98 T.C. 105">*113 In summary, the 1969 amendments to section 593(b)(2)(E) represented a limited modification to the definition of taxable income and did not represent the result of a comprehensive congressional study of the taxable income base, which would be necessary if we were to accept Treasury's reasoning. The 1969 amendments constituted1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*29 nothing more than a narrowly focused and technical modification to the percentage method which was not expected to have anything more than a minor impact on the size of the bad debt deduction. Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, Summary of Testimony on Mutual Savings Institutions, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2 (J. Comm. Print 1969). The negative inference which Treasury drew from the 1969 amendments was clearly an insufficient basis for Treasury's change in course. Moreover, we note that, in 1962, Congress had added a limitation to the definition of taxable income in section 593(b)(2)(E) similar to the 1969 changes, but Treasury did not infer from that action that the list of modifications in section 593 was exclusive or that Congress disapproved of the 1956 regulations or
We considered such "exclusive list" justification in
Turning to a consideration of the justifications mentioned in the 1978 memorandum, the first justification noted by the Sixth Circuit was the statement that the change was being made in order to compute taxable income for purposes of section 593(b) as it "ordinarily" is under the Code. Although such statement implies that Treasury was attempting to achieve consistency in the definition of taxable income, in the 98 T.C. 105">*114 1956 and 1964 regulations, Treasury did not find it essential that the definition of taxable income for purposes of section 593(b) be the same as elsewhere in the Code. Moreover, Treasury did not explain how such consistency would better effectuate the congressional purpose underlying section 593(b). Furthermore, respondent does not uniformly adhere to the1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*31 definition of taxable income inherent in the 1978 regulations, but in some cases instead has adopted an ordering rule contrary to that adopted in the 1978 regulations. For instance, in
We also note that, by requiring the elimination or reduction of bad debt reserve additions which were reasonable in the year they were originally calculated, the 1978 regulations contravene the well-established principle that additions to bad debt reserves are not to be altered on account of events occurring after the year the reserve is calculated.
Courts have recognized that section 593 simply provides a method1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*32 for calculating an addition to bad debt reserves, a deduction for which was provided by section 166(c).
The next justification noted by the Sixth Circuit was the statement in the 1978 memorandum that "the percentage of 98 T.C. 105">*115 taxable income method is in substance a technique to lower the tax rate on thrift institutions." We are constrained to point out, however, 1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*33 that Congress has expressly permitted mutual institutions to use such method in figuring their deductions. Sec. 593(b)(2). Treasury cannot contravene Congress' will by imposing excessive restrictions on the method or impeding the ability of mutual institutions to make use of it simply because Treasury perceives it to be a tax reduction "technique." If respondent believes that the method is improper, he should apply to Congress for a change in the law, rather than seek to change tax policy by means of administrative fiat.
The legislative history of section 593 reveals that Treasury had repeatedly sought to persuade Congress to deny mutual institutions the right to use the percentage of income method. In 1951, when Congress first subjected mutual institutions to the Federal income tax, Treasury proposed that the deduction for bad debt reserve addition be calculated in the manner prescribed for commercial banks. 5Congress, however, decided to permit a deduction based on the taxable income of the mutual institution so as to permit maintenance of reserves sufficient to absorb losses experienced during downturns in the economy. 97 Cong. Rec. 11842 (1951) (statement of Sen. Lehman), 1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*34 11843 (statement of Sen. Dirksen), 11888 (statement of Sen. Butler), 11890 (statement of Sen. Capehart).
In connection with congressional consideration of the 1962 tax legislation, Treasury proposed abolition of the percentage method, arguing that it improperly allowed mutual institutions to build up reserves tax-free. Taxation of Mutual Savings Banks and Savings and Loan Associations: Hearings on Treasury Department Report on Taxation of Mutual Savings Bank and Savings and Loan Associations Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 11-14 (1961). Congress, however, declined to adopt Treasury's recommendation, although it did cap the deduction at 60 percent of a mutual institution's taxable income. H. Rept. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.,
98 T.C. 105">*116 Similarly, during the legislative process leading up to the Tax Reform Act1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*35 of 1969, Treasury again criticized the percentage method and urged its replacement with the bad debt reserve deduction based on actual experience. Tax Reform Studies and Proposals, U.S. Treasury Department, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 458-475 (J. Comm. Print 1968); Technical Memorandum of Treasury Position, Tax Reform Act of 1969, H. Rept. 13270, 80-84 (J. Comm. Print 1969). Congress again declined to abolish the method, although it did provide for a phased reduction in the maximum amount of the deduction to 40 percent of taxable income, while increasing the loss carryback and carryforward periods to protect institutions in the event of unusually heavy losses. H. Rept. 91-782,
The 1978 regulations, however, contravene the clearly expressed intent of Congress by denying mutual institutions the benefit of section 593 to the extent they experience net operating losses. The 1978 regulations in effect recapture percentage method deductions to the extent to which NOL carrybacks are applicable. In the case of mutual institutions experiencing losses, the 1978 regulations therefore1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*36 achieve what Congress repeatedly has denied Treasury: a form of repeal of the percentage method. The 1978 regulations thwart Congress' efforts to assure that mutual institutions would maintain adequate reserves to protect depositors by transforming reserve additions into little more than loans from the Treasury, to be called in when a mutual institution begins to suffer the consequences of a downturn in the economy.
Another justification mentioned by the Sixth Circuit was the statement in the 1978 memorandum that the method of calculating the bad debt reserve addition prescribed by the 1964 regulations resulted in an inappropriate and unintentional "pyramiding" of tax benefits. Evidently, Treasury found it objectionable that a mutual institution could reduce its taxable income by NOL carrybacks and still claim a reserve addition based on the amount of net income originally reported for a taxable year. Such a result was not found improper in
We also note a statement made in the 1978 memorandum which was not discussed by the Sixth Circuit but which discloses the apparent arbitrariness of Treasury's action. The 1978 memorandum states that the rule was not changed in the early 1970s, when initially considered by Treasury, because of poor economic conditions. If the change were being made because the rule was "patently wrong", as suggested by Treasury, we fail to see why Treasury did not go forward with its responsibility in carrying out its perception of Congress' intent. The fact that Treasury waited 7 years to effectuate the change in assumedly better economic times indicates that Treasury was usurping Congress' role in deciding how much and when to raise the effective tax on mutual institutions.
The Sixth Circuit identified an additional justification that was not mentioned in the 1978 memorandum. The Sixth 1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*39 Circuit reasoned that the "trend" in the congressional enactments toward a curtailment of the bad debt reserve deduction was evidence that Congress intended to reduce the deduction 98 T.C. 105">*118 available for addition to bad debt reserves and therefore Treasury's interpretation was consistent with such intent.
Finally, we are not convinced that Treasury adequately rebutted the "vital1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*40 relevant comments" received by it from the industry during the period the changes were being considered.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Treasury failed to offer a cogent, persuasive explanation for the change as required by
To reflect the foregoing,
Nims, Chabot, Korner, Shields, Hamblen, Cohen, Clapp, Swift, Colvin, Halpern, and Beghe,
Whalen,
98 T.C. 105">*119 Halpern,
I write separately to emphasize1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*41 the distinction between the reenactment doctrine and the reasoning of the majority.
As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
Apparently, it is that potential overbreadth that concerned the Sixth Circuit in
The re-enactment doctrine is merely an interpretive tool fashioned by the courts for their own use in construing ambiguous legislation. It is most useful in situations where there is some indication that Congress noted or considered the regulations in effect at the time of its action. Otherwise the doctrine may be as doubtful as the silence of the statutes and legislative history to which it is applied. [
Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit failed to understand that implicit in the compromise achieved by Congress in 1969 is some understanding regarding taxable income. As we noted in
A. Commercial banks | 23.2 |
B. Mutual savings banks | 6.1 |
C. Savings and loan associations |
1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*43 In response to the foregoing statistics, the House Report comments:
Since your committee's bill increases appreciably the 23.2 percent effective rate of tax for commercial banks, it is your committee's intention not only to bring the level of taxation of mutual savings banks (presently 6.1 percent) up to the level of savings and loan associations (16.9 percent), but also to provide an increase in the 16.9 percent rate somewhat comparable to the increase in the 23.2 percent rate for commercial banks. * * * [H. Rept. 91-413,
Undoubtedly, Congress was aware of the definition of "taxable income" used in computing the percentage-of-taxable-income bad debt deduction when it considered the existing and expected percentage of economic income to be paid as taxes by mutual savings banks. Moreover, there are two readily apparent ways Congress could have chosen to modify that deduction to increase the tax paid by mutual savings banks. The 1969 Congress could have elected (1) to reduce the base against which the percentage was applied to something less than what it was understood to be at that time or (2) to reduce the percentage of taxable1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*44 income allowed to be deducted. With respect to the goal of achieving the proper aggregate tax to be achieved from mutual savings banks overall, it would have made little difference whether Congress chose the former, the latter, or some combination of the two. Whether the percentage bad debt deduction was to be computed by taking, for example, two-thirds of 50x or one-third of 100x would have been, quite logically, immaterial with respect to the total tax sought to be collected. However, given the relationship between the definition of taxable income and the percentage thereof deductible, Congress' decision to adjust the latter is only meaningful if it presupposes a particular definition of the former. Given that there was no discussion of altering the then established rule of determining taxable income without respect to NOL's, Congress must have assumed that such rule would continue to apply.
98 T.C. 105">*121 Amazingly, however, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has concluded that Congress simply did not care whether NOL's are to be deducted in arriving at the figure for taxable income.
The facts belie the Sixth Circuit's apparent conclusion that Congress has acted in that irrational a manner. In 1969, it was settled that taxable income was determined without taking NOL's into account. Congress' computations, discussions, and the eventual compromise must necessarily have been based upon that understanding of what taxable income meant. 1 Accordingly, the Commissioner's use of a different definition of taxable income is, in this context, inconsistent with the Tax Reform Act of 1969. I respectfully concur with the majority.
1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*46 Chabot, Hamblen, and Beghe,
Gerber,
I respectfully dissent for the reasons already expressed in the dissenting opinion at
The majority's opinion provides us with a large body of Supreme Court articulations concerning the review of regulations which, irrespective of one's particular leaning, would adequately support one's position. The majority's opinion, however, does not provide an adequate rationale or explanation for invalidating the regulations under consideration. 1 That was the shortcoming found by the Court of Appeals in
1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*47 The majority's explanation of the Sixth Circuit's opinion is substantially more complex than the Sixth Circuit's opinion. The Circuit Court's opinion addresses the method of review and the role of the judiciary in reviewing regulatory promulgations. The Circuit Court pointed out that, irrespective of whether or not the statute is ambiguous, where an administrative agency's regulatory formulation is a permissible and reasonable interpretation, "a court may not substitute its own construction."
In declining to follow the Sixth Circuit's opinion, the majority evaluated and countered each of the Secretary's reasons for reversing the regulation policy. Suffice it to note that the majority's reasons 1992 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 12">*48 do not negate those of the Circuit Court, but simply reiterate some of the reasoning from
The rule, correctly articulated by the Circuit Court, is intended to keep courts from substituting their judgment for that of administrative agencies. The majority's holding violates the rule's proscriptive purpose.
Parker, Jacobs, Wright, Parr, and Ruwe,
1. Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Attachment to Memorandum to Secretary Blumenthal from Acting Asst. Secretary (Tax Policy) Lubick, Joint Exh. 130-DZ in
3. Treasury's original justification for the change was set forth in a Technical Memorandum attached to Transmittal Memorandum from Acting Commissioner Swartz to Assistant Secretary Cohen, July 7, 1971, Exh. 24-X in
4. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 redesignated such subparagraph as sec. 593(b)(2)(D). Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 901(b)(2)(B), 100 Stat. 2085, 2378.↩
5. Staffs of the Treasury and Joint Comm. on Taxation, Mutual Savings Banks and Building & Loan Associations 4 (1951).↩
1. Unfortunately, Congress does not appear to have said so explicitly. No Code provision or quotation from the written legislative history can be produced to directly support the point. That does not mean, however, that Congress was indifferent with respect to the ordering rule at question in this case. Where logical reasoning, applied to the sum of the facts and circumstances, can disclose a clear congressional intent, we are obliged to utilize that tool.↩
1. In this regard, the majority's opinion here is no less deficient than the majority's opinion in