Menu
Tax Notes logo
HOMETax Notes ResearchFederalCourt Documentscourt opinions and orders

ENERGY COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO FOREIGN TAX CREDIT FOR SUBSIDIARY'S PAYMENT OF U.K. WINDFALL PROFITS TAX.

SEP. 9, 2010

Entergy Corp. et al. v. Comm.

DATED SEP. 9, 2010
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    ENTERGY CORPORATION & AFFILIATED SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
  • Court
    United States Tax Court
  • Docket
    No. 25132-06
  • Judge
    Halpern, James S.
  • Cross-Reference
    For the Tax Court opinion in PPL Corp. et al. v. Commissioner,

    135 T.C. No. 15, No. 25393-07 (Sep. 9, 2010), see Doc

    2010-19825.

    For the prior Tax Court opinion on a separate tax issue in Entergy

    Corp et al. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-166 (Jul. 28, 2010),

    see Doc 2010-16804 or 2010 TNT 145-11.
  • Parallel Citation
    T.C. Memo 2010-197
    T.C.M. (RIA) 2010-197
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2010-19826
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2010 TNT 175-4

Entergy Corp. et al. v. Comm.

 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

 

 

Filed September 9, 2010

 

 

Stephen D. Gardner and William H. O'Brien, for petitioner.

Michael C. Prindible and Melissa D. Arndt, for respondent.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

 

HALPERN, Judge: Entergy Corp. (petitioner) is the common parent of an affiliated group of corporations (the group) making a consolidated return of income. By notice of deficiency respondent determined deficiencies of $17,341,254 and $61,729,798 in the group's Federal income tax for its 1997 and 1998 taxable (calendar) years, respectively. The only issue remaining for decision is whether respondent properly denied a foreign tax credit for the United Kingdom (U.K.) windfall tax paid by petitioner's indirect U.K. subsidiary.1 That issue is identical to the issue in PPL Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. ___ (2010), which we also decide today. Moreover, the material facts with respect to that issue are identical to the corresponding facts in PPL.

Unless otherwise stated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1997 and 1998.

The parties have stipulated that, in 1997, petitioner's indirect U.K. subsidiary, London Electricity plc, became liable for the U.K. windfall tax, a "one-off" (i.e., one-time) tax of £139,962,622, which it timely paid in two equal installments on December 2, 1997 and 1998. The sole issue is whether the U.K. windfall tax constituted an income or excess profits tax under section 901(b)(1), thereby entitling petitioner to a foreign tax credit under section 901(a) for London Electricity's payment of that tax. In PPL, we answer that question in the affirmative. Respondent makes no argument that leads us to believe we have erred in PPL. We rely on PPL in holding for petitioner on the windfall tax issue.

An appropriate order and decision will be issued.

 

FOOTNOTE

 

 

1 We decided a separate issue in Entergy Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-166.

 

END OF FOOTNOTE
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Case Name
    ENTERGY CORPORATION & AFFILIATED SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
  • Court
    United States Tax Court
  • Docket
    No. 25132-06
  • Judge
    Halpern, James S.
  • Cross-Reference
    For the Tax Court opinion in PPL Corp. et al. v. Commissioner,

    135 T.C. No. 15, No. 25393-07 (Sep. 9, 2010), see Doc

    2010-19825.

    For the prior Tax Court opinion on a separate tax issue in Entergy

    Corp et al. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-166 (Jul. 28, 2010),

    see Doc 2010-16804 or 2010 TNT 145-11.
  • Parallel Citation
    T.C. Memo 2010-197
    T.C.M. (RIA) 2010-197
  • Code Sections
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2010-19826
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2010 TNT 175-4
Copy RID