As part of a sale transaction, the board of “Gold Kist” (more widely known as Pilgrim’s Pride), decided to abandon certain securities for no consideration.  For tax purposes, the company then reported a $98.6 million ordinary loss.  Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 14-60295 (Feb. 25, 2015).  The IRS contended that this was a capital loss, rather than an ordinary loss, creating a tax deficiency of close to $30 million.  The Court agreed with the company, finding: “By its plain terms, [26 U.S.C.] § 1234A(1) applies to the termination of rights or obligations with respect to capital assets (e.g. derivative or contractual rights to buy or sell capital assets).  It does not apply to the termination of ownership of the capital asset itself.”  In rejecting a contrary view of the statute, Judge Elrod gives a powerful summary of several canons of construction: “We disagree.  Congress does not legislate in logic puzzles . . . “

The Fifth Circuit revised its original opinion in BNSF Railway Co. v. United States to expand and revise the discussion of ambiguity as part of the Chevron analysis of an IRS regulation; the outcome remained unchanged.  No. 13-10014 (Jan. 15, 2015).  The new discussion includes a reminder about the limited role of dictionaries, from the venerable en banc opinion about regulations for chicken processing in Mississippi Poultry Association, Inc. v. Madigan, 31 F.3d 293 (5th Cir.1994).  The canon of “noscitur a sociis” (“an ambiguous term may be given more precise context by the neighboring words with which it is associated” also makes one of its infrequent appearances.

In Forrte v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Fifth Circuit affirmed a finding of liability under the Texas Optometry Act, based on dealings between Wal-Mart and optometrists who leased space in its stores.  No. 12-40854 (revised, Aug. 25, 2014).  While the plaintiff optometrists did not claim actual damages, they obtained judgment for over $1,000,000, plus attorneys fees, based on mandatory statutory penalties.  Noting that the Act used the phrase “civil penalty,” the Fifth Circuit found that the damages fell within the cap set by Section 41.008(b) of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code  — “two times the amount of economic damages [plus] economic damages.”  In this case, that was zero, since the plaintiffs sought no other recovery.  The Court distinguished Vanderbilt Mortgage v. Flores, 692 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2012), based on the terms of the statutes at issue.  As the Texas Lawbook notes, this opinion has the potential to introduce uncertainty into other “Private Attorney General” statutes in Texas.

Even by the standards of tax cases, BNSF Railway Co. v. United States is arcane, but the underlying statutory analysis is of broad general interest.  No. 13-10014 (March 13, 2014). The first issue — the taxability of certain stock options — turned on whether a Treasury regulation about the meaning of the term “compensation” was entitled to Chevron deference.  The Fifth Circuit held that it was — as to the first Chevron factor, the Court found the term ambiguous, noting (1) the lack of a similar statute using the term, (2) variation among dictionary definitions, and (3) ambiguity in business usage, such as there was, at the time the relevant statute was passed in the 1920s-40s.  [Unintentional capitalist wit appears in footnote 63, which refers to the “Rand House Dictionary” rather than the “Random House Dictionary” in a citation about “capital or finance.”]  The Court then found the regulation reasonable, noting its general consistency with the goals and structure of the statute and its legislative history.  A second holding illustrates the application of the “specific-general canon” and “the rule against superfluities.”

The Bankruptcy Code requires that a plan receive a favorable vote from “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan.”  11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10).  In Western Real Estate Equities LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, LP, thirty-eight unsecured trade creditors of a real estate venture voted to approve the debtor’s plan, while the secured creditor voted against it.  No. 12-10271 (Feb. 26, 2013).  The secured creditor complained that the consent was not valid because the plan “artificially” impaired the unsecured claims, paying them over a three-month period when the debtor had enough cash to pay them in full upon confirmation.  Recognizing a circuit split, the Fifth Circuit held that section 1129 “does not distinguish between discretionary and economically driven impairment.”  The Court conceded that the Code imposes an overall “good faith” requirement on the proponent of a plan, but held that the secured creditor’s argument here went too far by “shoehorning a motive inquiry and materiality requirement” into the statute without support in its text.

A Louisiana statute requires a well operator to provide landowners “a sworn, detailed, [and] itemized statement” about drilling costs.  Brannon Properties v. Chesapeake Operating, No. 12-30306 (Feb. 21, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the operator, finding that the district court correctly concluded that its report lacked enough detail under the unambiguous language of the statute, and that the analysis should have ended there.  Id. at 5 (“The statute clearly connects the costs reported to the benefits received in exchange.  . . . [I]t must tell the unleased mineral owner what it is getting for its money.”).  The Court faulted the district court for proceeding to analysis of the statute’s purpose after reaching a conclusion that its terms were unambiguous, and also for finding an incorrect purpose inconsistent with those terms. Id. at 6-7.

The FDIC repudiated a North Texas office lease as receiver for a failed bank, the landlord sued for unreasonable delay in violation of the statute authorizing the FDIC’s action, and the FDIC defended on the ground that the delay caused no harm in a depressed real estate market and thus could not have been unreasonable.  Building Four Shady Oaks Management LP v. FDIC, No. 12-0080 (Dec. 21, 2012, unpublished).  The district court and Fifth Circuit agreed with the FDIC.  The opinion clearly illustrates basic statutory interpretation and how a factor such as “prejudice” may be incorporated by a statutory term such as “reasonable time.”