United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Affiliates

493 U.S. 132, 110 S. Ct. 462, 107 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1989)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Affiliates

United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 132, 110 S. Ct. 462, 107 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1989)

JC

Facts

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) (defendant), a domestic corporation, had a wholly owned subsidiary, Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited (Goodyear G. B.). Goodyear paid income taxes for 1970 and 1971; during the same years, Goodyear G. B. filed income tax returns and paid taxes to Ireland and the United Kingdom. Goodyear G. B. also made distributions of dividends to Goodyear, which was its sole shareholder. Goodyear reported the dividends and then claimed credit for the relevant portion of the foreign taxes paid by Goodyear G. B. The credit provided under 26 U.S.C. § 902 allows the parent company of a foreign subsidiary to avoid double taxation by taking a credit for foreign taxes paid by the subsidiary. This was complicated by the following facts. In 1973, Goodyear G. B. claimed a net loss on its United Kingdom tax return, which Goodyear G. B. could then carry back to set aside portions of its 1970 and 1971 income. Based on those carried-back figures, the United Kingdom recalculated Goodyear G. B.’s liability and issued refunds for a large portion of the 1970 and 1971 foreign tax payments. This then caused the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, acting on behalf of the United States (plaintiff), to recalculate the tax credit claimed by Goodyear based on the foreign taxes paid by Goodyear G. B. Essentially, the government recalculated the tax paid but refused to recalculate the accumulated profits of Goodyear G. B., relying on American taxation principles to calculate accumulated profits. In contrast, Goodyear urged using British taxation principles to calculate accumulated profits, which would have taken the recalculations from the carried-back losses into consideration for the taxes paid and the accumulated profits from those years. Ultimately, Goodyear paid the claimed tax deficiencies but filed suit for a refund. The court of claims ruled for the government, but Goodyear appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership