July 28, 2014

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Divided Circuit Case Regarding Creditability of Foreign Taxes

The Supreme Court of the United States recently granted certiorari to hear an appeal by PPL Corporation (PPL) regarding whether a so-called windfall profits tax paid by a subsidiary of PPL to the United Kingdom is creditable as a foreign income tax under IRC §901 for purposes of U.S. income tax.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari premised on a direct conflict between decisions reached by two different U.S. courts of appeals on the same issue and nearly identical facts. 

To alleviate the burden of double taxation, IRC §901 grants U.S. citizens and corporations an income tax credit for “the amount of any income, war profits and excess-profits taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year to any foreign country or to any possession of the United States.”  Historically, whether a foreign tax was creditable was judged based on U.S. tax law principles and not on the label ascribed by the foreign government that imposed the tax. 

In two separate cases before the same judge, the U.S. Tax Court found in favor of the taxpayers, ruling that UK windfall profits tax was creditable as a foreign income tax.  The Tax Court weighed hundreds of pages of expert reports and trial testimony in both cases.  The Tax Court determined that the inquiry of whether a foreign tax is creditable for U.S. income tax purposes is based upon the “predominant standard for creditability” laid out in Treasury Regulation §1.901-2, which was first enacted in 1983.  Under that approach, a foreign tax is an income tax “if and only if the tax, judged on the basis of its predominant character,” satisfies three tests.  The foreign tax must be imposed on realized income (i.e., income that has already been earned), the basis of gross receipts (i.e., revenue) and net income (i.e., gross receipts less significant costs and expenditures).  See Treas. Reg. §1.901-2(a)(3).

The Tax Court held that by “implicating the circumstances of application in the determination of the predominant character of a foreign tax, the drafters of the 1983 regulations clearly signaled their intent that factors extrinsic to the text of the foreign tax play a role in determining the tax’s character.”  The Tax Court held that this approach was consistent with the case law that preceded the regulations.  Lastly, the Tax Court looked at the practical effect that the U.K. windfall tax had on the companies that paid it, the circumstances of its adoption and the intent of the members of Parliament who enacted it, and concluded that the substance of the tax was to tax excess profits. 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) appealed both decisions and venue lay in two different U.S. circuit courts of appeals.  In PPL Corporation v. Commissioner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the Tax Court, holding in favor of the IRS.  In that case, the Third Circuit adopted the IRS’s formulaic approach for determining whether a foreign tax is creditable under U.S. law.  The Third Circuit refused to consider the practical effect of the UK windfall tax and the intent of its drafters, and instead focused solely on the text of the tax statute, which in its estimation was a tax on excess value and not profits. 

On the other hand, in Entergy Corporation v. Commissioner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court and ruled in favor of the taxpayer.  That court looked beyond the statute and reviewed the tax’s practical effect on the taxpayer.  The court explained that Parliament’s decision to label an “entirely profit-driven figure a ‘profit-making value’ must not obscure the history and actual effect of the tax.”  The Fifth Circuit openly acknowledged the circuit split with the Third Circuit’s PPL decision and rejected the Third Circuit’s reasoning as incorrectly “exemplifying the form-over-substance methodology that the governing regulation and case law eschew.” 

In the PPL case, the Supreme Court will likely set forth the test of how U.S. taxpayers should determine whether a foreign tax is creditable for U.S. income tax purposes.  Many tax professionals believe this case may have important implications for the role of substance over form in the context of tax law.  This decision may have far-reaching ramifications for many U.S. taxpayers who routinely claim foreign tax credits. 

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author


Martha Groves Pugh is counsel in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in its Washington, D.C., office.  She focuses her practice on federal income tax issues with a particular emphasis on the nuclear and energy industries.  Marty has helped clients seek and receive many private letter rulings and has extensive experience in drafting legislative language for tax proposals. Her practice also includes tax planning for proposed transactions and advising clients on audits, appeals and litigation issues.


About the Author


James A. Riedy is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C., office.  James focuses his practice on international tax matters, which includes a broad range of U.S. tax issues for U.S. multinational corporations, including:

  • Consulting:  day-to-day advice on technical international tax matters, such as foreign tax credits, subpart F, PFIC, sourcing, foreign currency and section 367

  • Transactional:  advice on the tax aspects of structuring and...

202 756 8314

Kevin Spencer is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C., office.  He focuses his practice on tax controversy and litigation issues.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.