Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
554 U.S. 33 (2008)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
On October 29, 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. (Piccadilly) (plaintiff) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On March 16, 2004, Piccadilly closed on a sale of its assets for $80 million. Piccadilly asked the court to apply the statutory exemption from paying stamp taxes on the sale of assets. The statute stated that the government could not impose stamp taxes on transfers of assets “under a [reorganization] plan confirmed.” On March 26, 2004, Piccadilly filed its reorganization plan with the bankruptcy court. Before the court confirmed the plan—which did not occur until October 21, 2004—the Florida Department of Revenue (department) (defendant) objected, seeking $39,200 in stamp taxes imposed on the sale of assets. The department argued that the stamp-tax exemption was not available to Piccadilly because the bankruptcy court had not confirmed Piccadilly’s reorganization plan at the time of the sale. Piccadilly argued that a “plan confirmed” under the statute was not unambiguously the same as a “confirmed plan.” The bankruptcy court granted Piccadilly summary judgment, finding that the exemption applied to preconfirmation transfers of assets if they were consistent with a plan ultimately confirmed. The district court and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
