United States v. Home Concrete & Supply (2011)
- Docket
- 11-139
- Decided
- 2011-01-01
Summary
Question: 1. Can an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis in sold property qualify as an "omi[ssion] from gross income" that triggers the extended six-year assessment period? 2. Is a final regulation from the Department of the Treasury reflecting the IRS's view that an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis which can trigger the extended six-year assessment period entitled to judicial deference? Conclusion: No and no. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for a four-justice plurality, affirmed the Fourth Circuit decision. The Supreme Court held that Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner decides this case. It interpreted language almost identical to the statute in question. Also, the statutory history shows that Congress intended to exclude overstatements of basis from the extended statute of limitations period. A treasury regulation cannot change Colony's the interpretation of the statute. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. He agreed that Colony decides the case, but argued that the court should not have ruled on whether to give treasury regulations deference. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy dissented, arguing that the Treasury regulation only interpreted a statute that had no established meaning. He argued that courts should be open to new interpretations through regulations when Congress amends a statute. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.