Hospital Corporation of America and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner , 107 T.C. No. 6 ( 1996 )

107 T.C. No. 6UNITED STATES TAX COURT
HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 10663-91, 13074-91 Filed September 12, 1996.
28588-91, 6351-92.
Ps own, operate, and manage hospitals and related
businesses. For taxable year ended 1987, pursuant to
sec. 448, I.R.C., Ps not already using an overall
accrual method changed their method of accounting to
that method. Also during 1987, HCAII, a wholly owned
subsidiary of HCA, sold all of the stock of some
subsidiaries that owned and operated hospitals and
other facilities. On audit, R determined that for
certain of those subsidiaries (Category B Corporations)
Ps had to include in income for taxable year ended 1987
the entire sec. 481, I.R.C., adjustment relating to the
change in method of accounting required by sec. 448,
I.R.C. Ps contend that, even though the Category B
Corporations were sold during 1987, pursuant to sec.
448(d)(7)(C)(ii), I.R.C., HCA is entitled to include
ratably in income over a 10-year period the portion of
the sec. 481(a), I.R.C., adjustment attributable to the
- 2 -
Category B Corporations.
Held: The cessation of trade or business provision
of sec. 1.448-1(g)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs., is a
permissible construction of sec. 448(d)(7)(C)(ii),
I.R.C.
Held further: the entire balance of the sec.
481(a), I.R.C., adjustment attributable to the Category
B Corporations must be included in Ps' income for
taxable year ended 1987.
N. Jerold Cohen, Randolph W. Thrower, J.D. Fleming,
Jr., Walter H. Wingfield, Stephen F. Gertzman, Reginald J. Clark,
Amanda B. Scott, Walter T. Henderson, Jr., William H. Bradley,
and John W. Bonds, Jr., for petitioners in docket No. 10663-91.
N. Jerold Cohen, Randolph W. Thrower, J.D. Fleming, Jr.,
Walter H. Wingfield, Stephen F. Gertzman, Reginald J. Clark,
Amanda B. Scott, Walter T. Henderson, Jr., William H. Bradley,
John W. Bonds, Jr., and Daniel R. McKeithen, for petitioners in
docket No. 13074-91.
N. Jerold Cohen, Walter H. Wingfield, Stephen F. Gertzman,
Amanda B. Scott, Reginald J. Clark, Randolph W. Thrower, Walter
T. Henderson, Jr., and John W. Bonds, Jr., for petitioners in
docket No. 28588-91.
N. Jerold Cohen, Reginald J. Clark, Randolph W. Thrower,
Walter T. Henderson, Jr., and John W. Bonds, Jr., for petitioners
in docket No. 6351-92.
Robert J. Shilliday, Jr., Vallie C. Brooks, and William B.
McCarthy, for respondent.
WELLS, Judge: These cases were consolidated for purposes of
- 3 -
trial, briefing, and opinion and will hereinafter be referred to
as the instant case. Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioners' consolidated corporate Federal income tax as shown
below.
TYE Deficiency
1978 $2,187,079.00
1980 388,006.58
1981 94,605,958.92
1982 29,691,505.11
1983 43,738,703.50
1984 53,831,713.90
1985 85,613,533.00
1986 69,331,412.00
1987 294,571,908.00
1988 25,317,840.00
Respondent also determined that the provision for increased
interest under section 6621(c) applied. Unless otherwise
indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The issue for decision in the instant opinion1 is whether
1
The instant case involves several issues, some of which have
been settled. The issues remaining to be decided involve matters
that may be classified into four reasonably distinct categories,
which the parties have denominated the tax accounting issues, the
MACRS depreciation issue, the HealthTrust issue, and the captive
insurance or Parthenon Insurance Co. issues. Issues involved in
the first three categories were presented at a special trial
session, and the captive insurance issues were severed for trial
purposes and were presented at a subsequent special trial
session. Separate briefs of the parties were filed for each of
the distinct categories of issues. In an opinion issued Mar. 7,
1996, we addressed one of the tax accounting issues. Hospital
Corp. of America v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-105. The
instant opinion addresses another of the tax accounting issues
(continued...)
- 4 -
certain petitioners which disposed of some of their hospitals and
related medical facilities during taxable year ended 1987 are
required to include in income for that year the entire section
481(a) adjustment relating to a change in method of accounting
during 1987 that is attributable to those hospitals and related
medical facilities.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated for trial pursuant to
Rule 91. The stipulated facts are incorporated herein by
reference and are found accordingly.
During the years in issue, petitioners were members of an
affiliated group of corporations whose common parent was Hospital
Corporation of America (HCA).2 HCA maintained its principal
offices in Nashville, Tennessee, on the date the petitions were
filed. For each of the years involved in the instant case, HCA
and its domestic subsidiaries filed a consolidated Federal
corporate income tax return (consolidated return) on Form 1120
with the Director of the Internal Revenue Service Center at
1
(...continued)
and specifically involves taxable year ended 1987, which year was
not involved in the prior Memorandum Opinion. Other issues will
be addressed in one or more separate opinions subsequently to be
released.
2
On Feb. 10, 1994, HCA was merged with and into Galen
Healthcare, Inc., a subsidiary of Columbia Healthcare Corp. of
Louisville, Kentucky, and the subsidiary changed its name to HCA-
Hospital Corp. of America. On that same date, the parent changed
its name to Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation.
- 5 -
Memphis, Tennessee.
Petitioners' primary business is the ownership, operation,
and management of hospitals. A detailed description of
petitioners' hospital operations is set forth in Hospital Corp.
of America v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-105, which will not
be reiterated here. Our findings of fact contained in that
Memorandum Opinion are incorporated herein. For clarity, some of
our findings of fact pertinent to the issue involved in the
instant opinion are repeated below.
For the years ended 1979 through 1986, petitioners operating
hospitals used either a hybrid or an overall accrual method of
accounting for reporting income for tax purposes. Additionally,
for those years some petitioners operating nonhospital businesses
used the cash method for reporting income for tax purposes. In
Hospital Corp. of America v. Commissioner, supra, we held that
petitioners' use of the hybrid method for the hospitals was
appropriate for the years ended 1981 through 1986, particularly
in view of the hospitals' operations.
For the consolidated return filed for the year ended 1987,
pursuant to section 448,3 petitioners not employing an overall
accrual method for computing taxable income for the years ended
3
Sec. 448, which was added to the Internal Revenue Code by
sec. 801 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat.
2345, provides generally that, with certain exceptions not
applicable in the instant case, a C corporation, a partnership
that has a C corporation as a partner, or a tax shelter may not
use the cash method of accounting to compute taxable income.
- 6 -
prior to January 1, 1987, changed their method of accounting to
that method. Commencing with taxable year ended 1987 those
petitioners took into account positive section 481(a)
adjustments4 necessary to effect the change to an overall accrual
method over the periods provided by section 448(d)(7)(C).5 Thus,
on the consolidated return for taxable year ended 1987, those
petitioners operating hospitals not theretofore reporting on an
4
Sec. 481(a) provides generally that, if a taxpayer's method
of accounting is changed from the method used for the preceding
taxable year, adjustments determined necessary solely by reason
of the change to prevent amounts from being duplicated or omitted
are to be taken into account for the year of change to compute
taxable income. A positive sec. 481(a) adjustment increases
taxable income, and a negative sec. 481(a) adjustment decreases
taxable income. Sec. 481(c) additionally provides generally that
the sec. 481(a) adjustment may be taken into account over the
period and pursuant to the terms and conditions permitted by
regulations. See also sec. 1.481-5, Income Tax Regs., now
incorporated in sec. 1.481-4, Income Tax Regs.
5
Sec. 448(d)(7) provides as follows:
(7) Coordination with section 481.--In the case of
any taxpayer required by this section to change its
method of accounting for any taxable year--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated
by the taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with
the consent of the Secretary, and
(C) the period for taking into account the
adjustments under section 481 by reason of such
change--
(i) except as provided in clause (ii),
shall not exceed 4 years, and
(ii) in the case of a hospital, shall be
10 years.
- 7 -
overall accrual method included as additional income one-tenth of
the income previously deferred under the hybrid method for years
ended prior to 1987. Those petitioners operating nonhospital
businesses not theretofore reporting on an overall accrual method
included additional income equal to one-fourth of the income
previously deferred under the cash method.
Also during 1987, pursuant to a reorganization plan of HCA,
effective September 1, 1987, HCA Investments, Inc. (HCAII), a
wholly owned subsidiary of HCA, sold all of the stock of certain
subsidiaries that owned and operated 104 hospitals, approximately
90 professional office buildings, and related medical facilities,
to HealthTrust, Inc.--The Hospital Company (HealthTrust)6 for a
combination of cash, preferred stock, and warrants to acquire
shares of HealthTrust common stock. The hospitals were located
in 22 States of the United States. Approximately 40 percent of
the hospitals were the only hospitals for the communities they
served, and approximately 20 percent of the remaining hospitals
were one of two hospitals for the communities they served.
In some instances, a subsidiary whose stock was sold to
HealthTrust operated one hospital, office building, or medical
6
Prior to Sept. 17, 1987, HealthTrust, under a different
name, was an inactive subsidiary of HCA, and HCAII owned all of
its stock. On Sept. 17, 1987, HCAII sold the shares of common
stock of HealthTrust that it then owned to an employee stock
ownership plan adopted by HealthTrust. Other issues relating to
the sale of the Category A Corporations and the Category B
Corporations to HealthTrust will be addressed in a separate
opinion subsequently to be released.
- 8 -
facility, or more than one such enterprise,7 and HealthTrust
wanted to acquire all of the subsidiary's assets. In those
instances, prior to the sale to HealthTrust, HCA transferred the
subsidiary's stock to HCAII in exchange for stock of HCAII.
Hereinafter, we sometimes will refer to those subsidiaries as
Category A Corporations.
In other instances, a subsidiary owned and operated more
than one hospital, office building, or medical facility, but
HealthTrust did not want to acquire all of the subsidiary's
assets. In those instances, the subsidiary (New Parent)
contributed to a newly formed subsidiary (New Subsidiary) the
hospitals, office buildings, or medical facilities (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the Facilities) that HealthTrust
wanted. The New Parent immediately thereafter transferred the
stock of the New Subsidiary to HCAII in exchange for stock of
HCAII. HCAII then sold the stock of the New Subsidiaries to
HealthTrust. Hereinafter, we sometimes will refer to the New
Subsidiaries as Category B Corporations. Each Category B
Corporation was a separate enterprise with a separate trade or
7
At the outset of its organization, HCA generally placed all
newly constructed or acquired hospitals in separate corporations.
In later years, in some cases, HCA placed all newly acquired or
newly constructed hospitals located in a particular State in a
separate corporation rather than having a separate corporation
for each hospital in that State. In a few instances, HCA
acquired a group of hospitals that, for various business reasons,
were placed in a single corporation or were allowed to remain in
the acquired corporation.
- 9 -
business and kept separate books and records. Each New Parent
continued to own and operate other hospitals, office buildings,
or medical facilities and remained in the hospital business as a
subsidiary of HCA.
For purposes of computing gain from the sale of the stock of
the Category A Corporations to HealthTrust, petitioners computed
HCAII's basis in that stock by taking into account each
subsidiary's earnings and profits through the date of sale. At
that time, the earnings and profits of each Category A
Corporation included only one-tenth of the section 481(a)
adjustment with respect to the change in method of accounting.
Petitioners anticipated that in HealthTrust's consolidated
Federal corporate income tax returns for the succeeding 9 taxable
years following 1987 the Category A Corporations would include
ratably in income the balance of their section 481(a) adjustments
relating to the change in method of accounting.
For purposes of determining gain from the sale of the stock
of the Category B Corporations to HealthTrust, petitioners
determined HCAII's basis in that stock based upon the values of
the assets and liabilities transferred by the New Parents to the
Category B Corporations as reflected on financial statement
balance sheets. Those assets included the full face amount of
the accounts receivable of the Category B Corporations, and hence
the assets encompassed some accounts receivable not theretofore
included in the income of those Category B Corporations employing
- 10 -
the hybrid method of accounting for taxable years ended prior to
1987. For taxable years ended after 1987, the New Parents
continued to report ratably over the remaining 9 years the
balance of the section 481(a) adjustments relating to the change
in method of accounting required by section 448(a), including the
portion of those section 481(a) adjustments attributable to the
Facilities.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent did not adjust
HCAII's basis in the stock of the Category A Corporations. As to
the Category B Corporations, however, respondent determined that
the New Parents had to include in income for taxable year ended
1987 the entire positive section 481(a) adjustments relating to
the change in method of accounting that were attributable to the
Facilities. Accordingly, to effectuate that determination, for
purposes of determining the gain from the sale of the stock of
the Category B Corporations to HealthTrust, respondent reduced
HCAII's basis in each Category B Corporation by the amount of its
positive section 481(a) adjustment relating to the change in
method of accounting that had not already been included in
income.
OPINION
During 1987, pursuant to a restructuring plan, HCA divested
itself of 104 hospitals, approximately 90 professional office
buildings, and related medical facilities that were owned and
operated by various wholly owned subsidiaries of HCA. In some
- 11 -
cases, all of the hospitals, office buildings, and related
facilities owned by a subsidiary (i.e., a Category A Corporation)
were divested. In that case, the stock of the Category A
Corporation was transferred to another wholly owned subsidiary of
HCA (HCAII) which in turn sold the stock of the Category A
Corporation to HealthTrust. The parties agree that under those
circumstances, in effect, the section 481(a) adjustment relating
to the change in method of accounting required by section 448(a)
that was attributable to the Category A Corporation remains with
the Category A Corporation and henceforth should be reported
ratably over the remaining applicable spread period in the
consolidated Federal corporate income tax returns filed by
HealthTrust for succeeding tax years.
In other cases, not all of the hospitals, office buildings,
and related medical facilities owned and operated by a subsidiary
were divested. In those cases, the HCA subsidiary (i.e., the New
Parent) formed a New Subsidiary (i.e., a Category B Corporation)
to which the New Parent transferred the Facilities that were to
be divested. The New Parent, however, continued to own and
operate at least one other hospital, professional office
building, or related medical facility. The New Parent then
transferred the stock of the Category B Corporation to HCAII,
which in turn sold that stock to HealthTrust. The parties agree
that the portion of the section 481(a) adjustment relating to the
change in method of accounting required by section 448(a) that is
- 12 -
attributable to those hospitals, office buildings, and related
medical facilities that the New Parent continued to own and
operate is to be included in the income of the New Parent ratably
over the remaining applicable spread period. The parties do not
agree, however, as to the proper tax treatment of the portion of
the section 481(a) adjustment that is attributable to the
Facilities transferred to the Category B Corporation, the stock
of which was then transferred to HCAII and immediately sold to
HealthTrust. Respondent contends that the New Parents ceased to
engage in the trade or business of the Facilities and,
consequently, the New Parents must include in income for 1987 all
of the section 481(a) adjustments relating to the change in
method of accounting required by section 448(a) that are
attributable to the Facilities. Petitioners counter that the New
Parents retained the deferred tax liability for the 10-year
spread of the section 481(a) adjustment applicable to the
Category B Corporations, the New Parents continued to engage in
their trade or business of owning and operating hospitals, and
therefore they may continue to report ratably in income over the
remaining applicable spread period the portion of the section
481(a) adjustments required under section 448(a) that are
attributable to the Facilities.
Petitioners contend that the New Parents are not required to
include in income for 1987 the entire balance of the positive
section 481(a) adjustments relating to the change in method of
- 13 -
accounting required by section 448(a) that are attributable to
the Facilities because section 448(d)(7)(C)(ii) clearly and
unambiguously gives hospitals a 10-year period in which to spread
any section 481(a) adjustment relating to a change in accounting
method required by section 448(a). As a result, petitioners
argue, resort to the legislative history of section 448 is not
appropriate. Petitioners contend further that the legislative
history of section 448(d)(7) supports the plain meaning of the
statute.
Respondent contends, on the other hand, that, upon
disposition of the hospital to which the adjustment relates, the
spread period that section 448(d)(7)(C)(ii) provides for
hospitals to account for section 481(a) adjustments relating to a
change in accounting method required under section 448(a) may be
less than 10 years. Respondent maintains that the legislative
history of section 448(d)(7) supports the position that the
spread period for hospitals is not to remain 10 years under such
circumstances.
In construing section 448(d)(7) our task is to give effect
to the intent of Congress. We begin with the statutory language,
which is the most persuasive evidence of the statutory purpose.
United States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S.
534, 542-543 (1940); Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293
U.S. 84, 93-94 (1934); General Signal Corp. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 103 T.C. 216, 240 (1994), supplemented by 104 T.C.
- 14 -
248 (1995). Ordinarily, the plain meaning of statutory language
is conclusive. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S.
235, 241-242 (1989).
Where a statute is silent or ambiguous, however, we look to
legislative history in an effort to ascertain congressional
intent. Burlington No. R.R. v. Oklahoma Tax Commn., 481 U.S.
454, 461 (1987); United States v. American Trucking Associations,
Inc., supra at 543-544; Peterson Marital Trust v. Commissioner,
102 T.C. 790, 799 (1994), affd. 78 F.3d 795 (2d Cir. 1996); U.S.
Padding Corp. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 177, 184 (1987), affd. 865
F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1989). Even where the statutory language
appears to be clear, we are not precluded from consulting
legislative history. United States v. American Trucking
Associations, Inc., supra at 543-544. Nevertheless, our
authority to construe a statute is limited where the agency
charged with administering that statute has promulgated
regulations thereunder.
The limitation on our authority is found in the so-called
Chevron rule as stated in the following passage:
When a court reviews an agency's construction of
the statute which it administers, it is confronted with
two questions. First, always, is the question whether
Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at
issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the
end of the matter; for the court, as well as the
agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed
intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines
Congress has not directly addressed the precise
question at issue, the court does not simply impose its
own construction on the statute, as would be necessary
- 15 -
in the absence of an administrative interpretation.
Rather, if the statute is silent 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. [Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467
U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984); fn. refs. omitted.]
See also NationsBank v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S.
___, 115 S. Ct. 810, 813 (1995); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v.
LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 647-648 (1990). The Supreme Court
further has stated that a reviewing court
need not conclude that the agency construction was the only
one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the
construction, or even the reading the court would have
reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial
proceeding. * * * [Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., supra at 843 n.11.]
Accordingly, "If the administrator's reading fills a gap or
defines a term in a way that is reasonable in light of the
legislature's revealed design, we give the administrator's
judgment 'controlling weight.'" NationsBank v. Variable Annuity
Life Ins Co., 513 U.S. at ___, 115 S. Ct. at 813-814. Despite
the fact that the Chevron rule "has had a checkered career in the
tax arena", Central Pa. Sav. Association v. Commissioner, 104
T.C. 387, 391-392 (1995), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, to which an appeal of the instant case would lie absent
stipulation of the parties to the contrary, has stated that where
"Congress has not directly spoken to the precise question at
issue, the [Chevron] rule * * * should be applied". Peoples Fed.
Sav. & Loan Association v. Commissioner, 948 F.2d 289, 299 (6th
- 16 -
Cir. 1991), revg. T.C. Memo. 1990-129. "If there are gaps left
by silence or ambiguity of the statutes in question, agencies may
fill the gaps with necessary rules, providing they are
reasonable, and courts should not interfere with this process."
Id. at 300.
Petitioners contend that the unambiguous language of section
448(d)(7)(C)(ii) allowing hospitals to spread over a 10-year
period a section 481(a) adjustment relating to a change in method
of accounting required under section 448(a) may not be limited
under any circumstances. Respondent contends, on the other hand,
that a hospital business is entitled to the benefits of a 10-year
spread only for as long as the hospital engages in the specific
trade or business which generated the section 481(a) adjustment
being spread over those 10 years.
As we stated above, in accordance with the Chevron rule, our
first task in construing section 448(d)(7)(C) is to determine
whether Congress addressed the precise question in issue. As we
view the matter, the specific question we must resolve in the
instant opinion is whether a taxpayer may continue to spread
ratably over a 10-year period a section 481(a) adjustment
attributable to a hospital that relates to a change in method of
accounting made to conform the hospital's method of accounting to
the requirements of section 448(a) even after the taxpayer ceases
to operate that hospital. The question is one of first
impression.
- 17 -
Section 448(d)(7)(C)(i) generally provides that a taxpayer
required by section 448(a) to change from the cash method of
accounting may spread the section 481(a) adjustment attributable
to that change over a period that "shall not exceed 4 years".
Section 448(d)(7)(C)(ii), however, provides that, for "a
hospital", the spread period "shall be 10 years." See supra note
5.
Respondent argues that the phrase "shall not exceed", which
modifies the 4-year spread period provided in clause (i) of
section 448(d)(7)(C), applies also to the 10-year spread period
specified for hospitals in clause (ii) of that section.
Respondent relies on the following excerpt from H. Rept. 99-426,
at 608-609 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 608-609, to support
the position that Congress did not intend to give hospitals,
under all circumstances, an unlimited 10-year period for the
section 481(a) adjustment:
Transitional rules
The committee bill treats any change from the cash
method of accounting required as a result of the committee
bill as a change in the taxpayer's method of accounting,
initiated by the taxpayer with the consent of the Secretary
of the Treasury. In order to prevent items of income and
expense from being included in taxable income either twice
or not at all, an adjustment under section 481 is required
to be made. The amount of such adjustment will be included
in income over a period not to exceed five taxable years.
It is expected that the concepts of Revenue Procedure 84-74,
1984-2 C.B. 736, generally will apply to determine the
actual timing of recognition of income or expense as a
result of the adjustment.4
In the case of the business of operating a hospital,
- 18 -
the transitional rules will apply with the section 481
adjustment amount to be included in income over a period not
to exceed ten taxable years, rather than five. * * *
[Emphasis supplied.]
___________
4
Under that revenue procedure, the adjustment from a
change in accounting generally is included in income
over a period equal to the less [sic] of the number of
years the taxpayer has used the accounting method or a
specified number of years.
Petitioners assert that the quoted excerpt is based on
language that was not enacted.8 Under the bill as originally
proposed, the spread for hospitals was a period that "shall not
exceed" 10 years. The law as enacted, however, provides for a
spread period that "shall be" 10 years. Petitioners argue that
the fact that the provision was changed demonstrates that the
difference in treatment for hospital and nonhospital businesses
was intentional.
Petitioners maintain further that the legislative history
relating to section 448(d)(7)(C) confirms that Congress intended
to make a distinction between hospitals, which were given a fixed
10-year period to spread section 481(a) adjustments required as a
8
As originally reported by the House Committee on Ways and
Means on Dec. 7, 1985, the provision in the bill that
subsequently became sec. 448(d)(7)(C) provided as follows:
the period for taking into account the adjustment under
section 481 by reason of such change [from the cash
method to an accrual method of accounting] shall not
exceed 5 years (10 years in the case of a hospital
described in section 144(b)(3)). [H.R. 3838, 99th
Cong., 1st Sess. sec. 902 (1985).]
- 19 -
result of the enactment of section 448(a), and other businesses,
which were given a 4-year period that could be shortened under
appropriate circumstances. In support of their position,
petitioners rely on H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (Vol. 2), at II-288 to
II-289 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1, 288-289, which states in
pertinent part as follows:
Any adjustment required by section 481 as a result of such
change [from the cash method to an accrual method] generally
shall be taken into account over a period not to exceed four
years. * * * In the case of a hospital, the adjustment
shall be taken into account ratably over a ten-year period.
* * *
The conferees intend that the timing of the section 481
adjustment other than for a hospital will be determined
under the provisions of Revenue Procedure 84-74, 1984-2 C.B.
736. * * *
We agree with petitioners that Congress intended to provide a
different section 481(a) adjustment period for hospitals from the
period provided for nonhospital businesses. We do not agree,
however, that the wording of the statute requires the conclusion
that under no circumstances may the 10-year spread period for
hospitals be shortened.
In our view, petitioners have focused their analysis too
narrowly in construing section 448(d)(7)(C). We agree that the
phrase "shall be 10 years" by itself appears clear on its face.
The language of a statute, however, cannot be viewed in
isolation. See Norfolk S. Corp. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 13,
40, supplemented by 104 T.C. 417 (1995). In construing the
meaning of section 448(d)(7)(C), it is necessary to consider all
- 20 -
of the words of the statute as well as their context, the
purposes of the law, and the circumstances under which the words
were employed. See Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132
(1993); Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 488 U.S. 19(1988); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 17 F.3d 965, 967 (7th
Cir. 1994), affg. 98 T.C. 518 (1992). Furthermore, we must view
the statute in context as a whole and with a view to its place in
the overall statutory scheme. King v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 502
U.S. 215, 221 (1991); Stanford v. Commissioner, 297 F.2d 298, 308
(9th Cir. 1961), affg. 34 T.C. 1150 (1960); Norfolk S. Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra at 41.
Section 448(d)(7)(C)(ii) provides that, for purposes of
determining the period for taking into account a section 481(a)
adjustment relating to a change in method of accounting required
under section 448(a), the spread period "in the case of a
hospital, shall be 10 years." Petitioners' analysis of the
statutory language focuses primarily on the phrase "shall be 10
years." Their analysis basically ignores the other words in the
statute and the purposes of the statutory provision as a whole.
On brief, neither party addresses the significance of
Congress' choice of the term "a hospital" in section
448(d)(7)(C)(ii) to the precise question involved in the instant
opinion. Indeed, petitioners generally paraphrase section
448(d)(7)(C)(ii) to read: "the period for taking into account
the adjustment under section 481 for hospitals shall be 10
- 21 -
years." (Emphasis added.) We believe, however, that Congress'
choice of the words "in the case of a hospital" rather than the
phrase "in the case of hospitals" renders section
448(d)(7)(C)(ii) ambiguous inasmuch as it is silent as to the
question of whether, where a taxpayer is engaged in the business
of operating hospitals, the tax benefit of spreading over 10
years a section 481(a) adjustment required to conform a
hospital's method of accounting to section 448(a) belongs to the
hospital to which the adjustment is attributable or to the
taxpayer that owns that hospital. Neither the statute nor the
legislative history addresses that precise question.
Additionally, the language of section 448(d)(7)(C) gives no
indication that Congress gave any consideration to the treatment
of the section 481(a) adjustment where a hospital ceases to
engage in the trade or business giving rise to that section
481(a) adjustment or where the hospital terminates existence
prior to the end of the spread period. Nor is there any evidence
in the legislative history of section 448 that Congress ever had
a specific or particular intent with respect to that question.
The statute, thus, has left gaps creating ambiguity as to
its precise meaning.9 Regulations issued under section
9
Moreover, by treating the change in method of accounting
required under sec. 448(a) as a change initiated by the taxpayer,
see sec. 448(d)(7)(A), it could be argued that the statute
indicates a congressional intent to permit the Commissioner to
impose reasonable terms and conditions on the making of that
(continued...)
- 22 -
448(d)(7)(C) attempt to fill the gaps by requiring both hospital
and nonhospital businesses that either cease to engage in the
trade or business to which a section 481(a) adjustment relates or
terminate existence prior to the end of the spread period to take
into account in the year of cessation or termination any
remaining portion of the section 481(a) adjustment. Under such
circumstances, the Chevron rule prevents us from substituting our
own construction of section 448 if the Commissioner's
interpretation is reasonable. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan
Association v. Commissioner, 948 F.2d at 300.
Are the Regulations Valid?
Final regulations interpreting section 448(d)(7)(C) are
provided in section 1.448-1(g), Income Tax Regs.10 The final
9
(...continued)
change pursuant to the provisions of secs. 1.446-1(e)(3) and
1.481-5, Income Tax Regs., that would prevent a taxpayer from
escaping forever taxation upon income previously deferred under
the hybrid method.
10
Sec. 1.448-1(g), Income Tax Regs., provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(g) Treatment of accounting method change and
timing rules for section 481(a) adjustment--(1)
Treatment of change in accounting method. * * *
(2) Timing rules for section 481(a) adjustment--(i) In
general. Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3) of this section, a taxpayer required
by this section to change from the cash method must take the
section 481(a) adjustment into account ratably (beginning
with the year of change) over the shorter of--
(A) The number of taxable years the
(continued...)
- 23 -
10
(...continued)
taxpayer used the cash method, or
(B) 4 taxable years, provided the
taxpayer complies with the provisions of
paragraph (h)(2) or (h)(3) of this section
for its first section 448 year.
(ii) Hospital timing rules--(A) In general. In the
case of a hospital that is required by this section to
change from the cash method, the section 481(a) adjustment
shall be taken into account ratably (beginning with the year
of change) over 10 years, provided the taxpayer complies
with the provisions of paragraph (h)(2) or (h)(3) of this
section for its first section 448 year.
* * * * * * *
(iii) Untimely change in method of accounting to comply
with this section. Unless a taxpayer (including a hospital
and a cooperative) required by this section to change from
the cash method complies with the provisions of paragraph
(h)(2) or (h)(3) of this section for its first section 448
year within the time prescribed by those paragraphs, the
taxpayer must take the section 481(a) adjustment into
account under the provisions of any applicable
administrative procedure that is prescribed by the
Commissioner after January 7, 1991, specifically for
purposes of complying with this section. Absent such an
administrative procedure, a taxpayer must request a change
under §1.446-1(e)(3) and shall be subject to any terms and
conditions (including the year of change) as may be imposed
by the Commissioner.
(3) Special timing rules for section 481(a) adjustment--
(i) One-third rule. If, during the period the section 481(a)
adjustment is to be taken into account, the balance of the
taxpayer's accounts receivable as of the last day of each of
two consecutive taxable years is less than 66 2/3 percent of
the taxpayer's accounts receivable balance at the beginning
of the first year of the section 481(a) adjustment, the
balance of the section 481(a) adjustment (relating to
accounts receivable) not previously taken into account shall
be included in income in the second taxable year. This
paragraph (g)(3)(i) shall not apply to any hospital * * *
(continued...)
- 24 -
regulations, effective generally for taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1986, were promulgated in 1993 pursuant to the
Commissioner's authority found in section 7805(a) to "prescribe
all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this
title". T.D. 8514, 1994-1 C.B. 141; sec. 1.448-1(i)(1), Income
Tax Regs.11 The final regulations interpreting section
10
(...continued)
* * * * * * *
(iii) Cessation of trade or business. If the taxpayer
ceases to engage in the trade or business to which the
section 481(a) adjustment relates, or if the taxpayer
operating the trade or business terminates existence, and
such cessation or termination occurs prior to the expiration
of the adjustment period described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this section, the taxpayer must take into account, in
the taxable year of such cessation or termination, the
balance of the adjustment not previously taken into account
in computing taxable income. For purposes of this paragraph
(g)(3)(iii), the determination as to whether a taxpayer has
ceased to engage in the trade or business to which the
section 481(a) adjustment relates, or has terminated its
existence, is to be made under the principles of §1.446-
1(e)(3)(ii) and its underlying administrative procedures.
11
Sec. 1.448-1(i), Income Tax Regs., provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(i) Effective date. (1) In general. Except as
provided in paragraph (i)(2), (3), and (4) of this section,
this section applies to any taxable year beginning after
December 31, 1986.
* * * * * * *
(4) Transitional rule for paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this section. To the extent the provisions of
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section were not
reflected in paragraphs (g) and (h) of §1.448-1T (as
(continued...)
- 25 -
448(d)(7)(C) adopted, with certain modifications, applicable
provisions under temporary regulations, as amended, originally
promulgated in 1987. T.D. 8514, supra; see T.D. 8143, 1987-2
C.B. 121.12 Since Congress did not expressly delegate authority
to the Commissioner to fill the gaps left by Congress, the
Commissioner's authority is implicit rather than explicit. For
the reasons discussed below, we find reasonable the provision of
section 1.448-1(g)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs., regarding the
acceleration of the balance of the adjustment not previously
taken into account upon a cessation of the respective businesses
to which the section 481 adjustment relates (hereinafter the
cessation-of-business acceleration provision).
Section 448(d)(7)(C) specifically coordinates section 448
with section 481(a). Section 448 effectuates Congress' intent to
require most large corporations to use an overall accrual method
of accounting. See H. Rept. 99-426, at 604-607 (1985), 1986-3
C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 604-607. Section 448(d)(7)(C) generally is
effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986.
11
(...continued)
set forth in 26 CFR Part 1 as revised on April 1,
1993), paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section will not
be adversely applied to a taxpayer with respect to
transactions entered into before December 27, 1993.
12
The temporary income tax regulations relating to sec. 448 as
originally promulgated in T.D. 8143, 1987-2 C.B. 121, were
amended by T.D. 8194, 1988-1 C.B. 186; T.D. 8329, 1991-1 C.B. 62;
and T.D. 8514, 1994-1 C.B. 141.
- 26 -
Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 801(d), 100 Stat.
2348. Section 448(d)(7) provides coordination with section 481
for those taxpayers that are required by section 448(a) to change
from the cash method of accounting.
Section 481 was enacted during 1954. It was designed to
prevent items of income or expense from being omitted or
duplicated as a result of a change in method of accounting
initiated by either the taxpayer or the Government. S. Rept.
1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 307-311 (1954). Prior to the enactment
of section 481, consistent with rules laid down by the decided
cases, adjustments needed to prevent such omission or duplication
could be made only if the change in method of accounting was
initiated by the taxpayer. Dearborn Gage Co. v. Commissioner, 48
T.C. 190, 200 (1967); S. Rept. 1622, supra at 307-311. The
provision does not apply, however, to adjustments attributable to
years before 1954 unless the change in method of accounting is
initiated by the taxpayer. Sec. 481(a)(2). Section 481(c)
provides that a spread of the section 481(a) adjustment over more
than 1 year is allowed only as permitted under regulations.
Regulations interpreting section 481(c) provide that a section
481(a) adjustment may be taken into account under terms and
conditions agreed to by the Commissioner and the taxpayer. Sec.
1.481-5, Income Tax Regs.
Absent a provision similar to the cessation-of-business
acceleration provision, any portion of a section 481(a)
- 27 -
adjustment being reported ratably over a number of years that had
not yet been accounted for at the time a taxpayer ceased to
engage in the trade or business to which the adjustment relates
might be omitted from the income of the trade or business which
gave rise to that section 481(a) adjustment. Thus, in the
absence of a cessation-of-business acceleration provision, a
taxpayer could contravene the general intent of section 481(a),
which is to prevent the omission or duplication of an item of
income or expense as a result of a change in method of
accounting, by merely restructuring its business. Under such
circumstances, the taxpayer would distort its overall lifetime
income.
The rationale for the difference in the spread period for
the section 481(a) adjustment granted hospital and nonhospital
businesses is not explained in either the language of section 448
or its legislative history. It is clear, however, that Congress,
for whatever reason, gave hospitals a longer spread period than
nonhospital businesses in reporting a section 481(a) adjustment
relating to the change in method of accounting required by
section 448(a). Nevertheless, there is nothing in the statute or
its legislative history to indicate that Congress intended to
give hospital businesses an advantage in determining the total
amount of the section 481(a) adjustment that would be required to
be included in income. In other words, in giving hospitals a
longer period within which to account for the section 481(a)
- 28 -
adjustment, Congress expressed no specific intent to give
hospitals a mechanism to contravene the provisions of section
481(a) and thereby omit items of income which they previously had
deferred under the cash method.
The cessation-of-business acceleration provision is in
harmony with the purposes of both sections 448 and 481 and is not
inconsistent with the statutory scheme as a whole. Moreover, the
cessation-of-business acceleration provision accelerates the 10-
year period given hospitals to spread the section 481(a)
adjustment only under explicit and limited circumstances that
prevent the omission or duplication of income. We believe the
regulation implements the purpose of the statute in a reasonable
manner and, thus, must be upheld as a permissible construction of
the statute. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 842-843; United States v. Correll, 389
U.S. 299, 307 (1967).
Does the Cessation-of-Business Acceleration Provision Apply in
the Instant Case?
Additionally, petitioners contend that acceleration of the
section 481(a) adjustment is not required in the instant case
because the hospitals that transferred assets to the Category B
Corporations did not cease to engage in the hospital business
after the sale of those assets to HealthTrust. Respondent
counters that a taxpayer ceases business when there is an
elimination of the taxpayer's business completely or when there
- 29 -
is a sale or termination of one of several businesses being
conducted by the taxpayer. In respondent's view, the New Parents
ceased to conduct the business of those hospitals transferred to
the Category B Corporations and then sold to HealthTrust;
therefore, the New Parents are not entitled to spread over 10
years any portion of the section 481(a) adjustments attributable
to those hospitals. Thus, respondent maintains, the New Parents
must recognize for 1987 all of the section 481(a) adjustments
relating to the change in method of accounting attributable to
the Category B Corporations.
Petitioners counter that in the instant case the section
481(a) adjustments relate to the trade or business of operating
hospitals, and that no petitioner ceased to engage in that trade
or business. Petitioners argue that respondent's position
interprets the provisions of section 1.448-1(g)(3)(iii), Income
Tax Regs.,13 as if the principles of Rev. Proc. 84-74, 1984-2
13
In their opening brief, petitioners refer to sec. 1.448-
1(g)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs., as temporary regulations. Prior
to modification by the final regulations, the applicable
cessation of business provision reads as follows:
(iii) Cessation of trade or business. If a taxpayer
ceases to engage in the trade or business to which the
section 481(a) adjustment relates prior to the expiration of
the adjustment period described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this section, the taxpayer must take into account,
in the year of such cessation, the balance of the adjustment
not previously taken into account in computing taxable
income. If the taxpayer is acquired in a transaction to
which section 381 applies, and the acquiring corporation
continues to engage in the trade or business to which the
(continued...)
- 30 -
C.B. 736, apply to hospitals as well as to other types of
business. That interpretation, petitioners contend, is
inconsistent with the statutory language and its legislative
history and is not required by the literal language of the
regulations. We find petitioners' reading of the regulation too
broad.
Petitioners appear to base their position in part on the
following language contained in H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (Vol. 2),
at II-288 (1988), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1, 288: "The conferees
intend that the timing of the section 481 adjustment other than
for a hospital will be determined under the provisions of Rev.
Proc. 84-74, 1984-2 C.B. 736." Rev. Proc. 84-74, 1984-2 C.B.
13(...continued)
section 481(a) adjustment relates, the acquiring taxpayer
shall continue to take into account the section 481(a)
adjustment as if it were the distributor or transferor
taxpayer. [Sec. 1.448-1T(g)(3)(iii), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 22772-22773 (June 16, 1987).]
In their brief, however, petitioners quote the final regulations
in discussing the cessation-of-business acceleration provision.
Based on the quoted language and the substance of their
arguments, it is clear to the Court that petitioners utilized the
final regulations in formulating their arguments relating to the
cessation-of-business acceleration provision. We agree that the
final regulations are applicable in the instant case and,
therefore, we restrict our discussion to those regulations.
Nonetheless, for purposes of the specific issue before the Court,
our conclusion that petitioners must include in income for 1987
all of the sec. 481(a) adjustments relating to the Category B
Corporations would be the same had we relied on the cessation-of-
business provision as it was defined in the temporary
regulations.
- 31 -
736,14 as did its predecessor and as does it successor,
prescribed general administrative procedures under section 1.446-
1(e), Income Tax Regs., for taxpayers to obtain the consent of
the Commissioner for changes in methods of accounting for Federal
income tax purposes. The revenue procedure provided, among other
things, rules for determining the appropriate period for taking
into account the section 481(a) adjustments relating to changes
in methods of accounting and under specified circumstances
required acceleration of the reporting of the section 481(a)
adjustment, including in the event that a taxpayer ceased to
engage in the trade or business to which the section 481(a)
adjustment related, on which occasion the taxpayer had to include
any unreported section 481(a) adjustment in income for the year
when trade or business ceased. See Rev. Proc. 84-74, secs. 5.06-
5.09, 1984-2 C.B. at 742-744.
We do not read the cryptic passage in the conference report
as a clear expression of congressional intent to restrict the
Commissioner's authority to compel acceleration of the 10-year
spread of a section 481(a) adjustment relating to a change in
method of accounting required under section 448(a) should a
14
Rev. Proc. 84-74, 1984-2 C.B. 736, which clarified,
modified, and superseded Rev. Proc. 80-51, 1980-2 C.B. 818,
effective for Forms 3115, Application for Change in Accounting
Method, filed for taxable years beginning on or after Oct. 29,
1984, Rev. Proc. 84-74, secs. 1, 11, 1984-2 C.B. at 737, 751, was
modified and superseded by Rev. Proc. 92-20, 1992-1 C.B. 685,
effective for Forms 3115 filed on or after Mar. 23, 1992, Rev.
Proc. 92-20, secs. 1, 14, 1992-1 C.B. at 688, 706.
- 32 -
taxpayer cease to engage in the trade or business to which that
adjustment relates. As we discussed above, we find the
cessation-of-business acceleration provision a permissible
construction of the statute inasmuch as it fulfills the
congressional objective of coordinating section 448(a) and
section 481(a) in a reasonable manner. In our view, the presence
of a similar provision in Rev. Proc. 84-74 is not sufficient to
defeat its inclusion in the regulations.
The rules and requirements of Rev. Proc. 84-74 were detailed
and complex. The language of section 448(d)(7)(C) and of its
legislative history gives no indication that Congress even
focused on the cessation-of-business acceleration provision
contained in that revenue procedure. Moreover, the requirement
that the balance of a section 481(a) adjustment must be taken
into income when a taxpayer ceases to engage in the trade or
business to which the section 481(a) adjustment relates is not a
condition unique to Rev. Proc. 84-74. Indeed, commencing at
least from the early 1970's, a cessation-of-business acceleration
provision appears to have been included customarily as a
condition to consent to a spread of a section 481(a) adjustment
whenever the Commissioner issued a change in accounting method
ruling. See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 85-134, 1985-2 C.B. 160; Rev. Rul.
80-39, 1980-1 C.B. 112; Rev. Rul. 77-264, 1977-2 C.B. 187; Rev.
Rul. 70-318, 1970-1 C.B. 113; see also Rev. Proc. 85-8, 1985-1
C.B. 495 (procedure for accrual basis taxpayers to change method
- 33 -
of accounting for bad debts from the specific charge-off method
to the reserve method); Rev. Proc. 84-27, 1984-1 C.B. 469(mandatory procedure for taxpayers to change their method of
accounting for interest on indebtedness when they had been
reporting interest income or deductions in accordance with the
Rule of 78 computation); Rev. Proc. 83-54, 1983-2 C.B. 569(procedure for taxpayers to expeditiously obtain consent to
change their method of accounting for gambling receivables); Rev.
Proc. 78-22, 1978-2 C.B. 499 (procedure for farmers, nurserymen,
and florists to change from accrual method to cash method of
accounting); Rev. Proc. 70-16, 1970-1 C.B. 441, amplifying Rev.
Proc. 67-10, 1967-1 C.B. 585 (procedure for taxpayers to
expeditiously obtain consent to change from the cash method to
the accrual method of accounting) to add specifically the
condition that any remaining balance of a section 481(a)
adjustment must be included in income for the year that the
taxpayer ceased to engage in the trade or business to which the
adjustment related; Rev. Proc. 70-15, 1970-1 C.B. 441, amplifying
Rev. Proc. 64-51, 1964-2 C.B. 1003 (procedure for taxpayers to
expeditiously obtain consent to change their method of accounting
for bad debts from the specific charge-off method to the reserve
method) to add specifically the cessation-of-business
acceleration provision; see also Shore v. Commissioner, 69 T.C.
689, 691-692 (1978), affd. 631 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1980)
(Commissioner is given authority under sections 446(e) and 481(c)
- 34 -
to prescribe the cessation-of-business acceleration provision as
a condition to obtaining consent to a change in method of
accounting and a spread of the resulting section 481(a)
adjustment). Accordingly, we conclude that the presence of a
cessation-of-business acceleration provision in Rev. Proc. 84-74
does not render section 1.448-1(g)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs.,
inconsistent with section 448(d)(7)(C).
Additionally, we conclude that requiring the Category B
Corporations to include the entire balance of the section 481(a)
adjustment in income for 1987 is within the scope of section
1.448-1(g)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs. The cessation-of-business
acceleration provision contained in the regulations is applicable
whenever a "taxpayer has ceased to engage in the trade or
business to which the section 481(a) adjustment relates" prior to
the end of the adjustment period. The determination as to
whether a taxpayer has ceased to engage in the trade or business
to which the section 481(a) adjustment relates, or has terminated
its existence, is made under the principles of section 1.446-
1(e)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., and its underlying administrative
procedures. Sec. 1.448-1(g)(3)(iii), Income Tax Regs.
Respondent has taken the position that where a corporation
maintains different divisions for each trade or business and one
of the divisions ceases to engage in its trade or business, the
corporation ceases to engage in that trade or business and,
therefore, must include in income any remaining portion of a
- 35 -
section 481(a) adjustment relating to the division's trade or
business. Rev. Proc. 87-55, sec. 4.05(1), 1987-2 C.B. 671, 673;
see also Rev. Rul. 80-39, 1980-1 C.B. 112 (a corporation seeking
permission to change its method of accounting for one of its
divisions must agree to include the balance of the related
section 481(a) adjustment in income for the year in which the
division ceases to engage in that trade or business). In the
instant case, petitioners stipulated that each Category B
Corporation was a separate enterprise with a separate trade or
business and kept separate books and records. The assets of
those Category B Corporations consisted of those Facilities owned
and operated by the New Parents that HealthTrust wanted to
acquire. The Facilities were separate trades or businesses of
the New Parents. Indeed, 40 percent of the hospitals were the
only hospitals for the communities they served, and 20 percent of
the remaining hospitals were one of two hospitals for the
communities they served. The New Parents ceased to engage in
those trades or businesses when the Facilities were transferred
to the Category B Corporations and sold to HealthTrust.
Consequently, although the New Parents continued to own and
operate other hospitals, office buildings, or medical facilities,
they did not continue the business of those Facilities which had
been spun off to the Category B Corporations. Requiring the New
Parents to include in income the portion of the section 481(a)
adjustment attributable to the Category B Corporation for the
- 36 -
year they were sold to HealthTrust is reasonable because the New
Parents ceased operating the businesses that gave rise to that
portion of the section 481(a) adjustment. Moreover, permitting
the New Parents to continue to account for a section 481(a)
adjustment attributable to businesses they no longer operate
would distort the income of the New Parents over the remaining
adjustment period.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that petitioners must
include in income for 1987 all of the section 481(a) adjustment
relating to the change in method of accounting attributable to
the Category B Corporations.
To reflect the foregoing,
Appropriate orders
will be issued.