ConAgra Foods, Inc. VS Cynthia Bridges, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0907 CONAGRA FOODS INC VERSUS CYNTHIA BRIDGES SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF LOUISIANA DATE OF JUDGMENT OCT 2 9 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER C562461 DIV 23 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILLIAM A MORVANT JUDGE Phyllis D Sims Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Christopher J Dicharry ConAgra Foods Inc Jenny N Phillips Baton Rouge Louisiana Elroy A James Florence B Saenz Counsel for Defendant Appellant Cynthia Bridges Secretary of the Department of Revenue State of Joe F Stevenson Louisiana Debra Morris Bradley S Blanchard Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND KLINE JJ Disposition AFFIRMED The Honorable William F Kline Jr is serving pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court KUHN J Defendant appellant Cynthia Bridges Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue State of Louisiana the Department appeals the trial court judgment s granting the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff appellee ConAgra Foods Inc ConAgra and concluding that the corporate taxpayer is entitled to a refund of amounts paid under protest interest and costs We affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 3 2007 ConAgra paid 123 in Louisiana corporation 833 taxes under protest and gave the Department notice of its intention to file suit for recovery of the protested payment ConAgra subsequently paid an additional 61 813 51 representing interest on December 26 2007 and notified the Department of its intention to file suit for recovery of that amount as well The payments totaling 175 represented taxes and interest as determined by the 61 646 Department for the fiscal years ending in May 2004 and 2005 ConAgra filed its petition seeking a refund of taxes paid under protest on December 26 2007 On February 13 2008 the Department filed an answer generally denying ConAgra allegations ConAgra subsequently filed a motion for s summary judgment averring entitlement to the refund as a matter of law and the Department filed a cross motion for summary judgment likewise contending that the issue of ConAgra entitlement to a refund was a matter of law but suggesting s as relief a ruling that the Department had correctly assessed the tax A hearing on the cross motions was held on December 7 2009 after which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department denied s ConAgra motion for summary judgment and dismissed its petition ConAgra 2 filed a motion for new trial Another hearing was held on the matter after which the trial court reversed itself by granting a new trial which denied the Department s motion for summary judgment granted ConAgra and decreed ConAgra was s entitled to a refund of the amounts paid under protest as well as interest and costs This appeal followed SUMMARY JUDGMENT LAW Summary judgments are reviewed on appeal de novo with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court determination of whether s summary judgment is appropriate Smith v Our Lady of the Lake Hosp Inc 93 2512 p 26 La 7 639 So 730 750 The motion should be granted 94 5 2d only if the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law La C art P B 966 As conceded by the parties the questions presented for our determination are purely legal ones rather than factual ones and therefore particularly appropriate for determination by summary judgment as a matter of law See La C art 966 P 1 C Hays v Louisiana State Bd of Elementary and Secondary Educ 2009 1386 p 4 La App 1st Cir 6 39 So 818 820 10 11 3d DISCUSSION The following facts are undisputed by the parties As a parent corporation ConAgra sold the stock of three whollyowned subsidiaries that operated in Louisiana to Pilgrim Pride Corporation Pilgrim Pride and UAP Holding s s Corporation UAP who were third parties unrelated to ConAgra Filing separate 3 forms with the Internal Revenue Service IRS Pilgrim Pride and UAP as the s purchasing corporations made special 10 h 338 tax elections with ConAgra the parent selling corporation under the Internal Revenue Code IRC relative to the tax consequences resulting from the transfer transactions It is undisputed that under federal law when the parties make a 338 10 h election the taxpayers are permitted to treat stock sales as if they were assets sales followed by a complete liquidation Therefore with the 338 election 10 h s ConAgra sale of the stock of its subsidiaries to Pilgrim Pride and UAP was s under the IRC deemed an assets sale and ConAgra as the former parent of the subsidiaries was permitted to treat the transaction as a deemed liquidation of the subsidiaries back into their former parent under 26 USCA 332 Most importantly it is undisputed that under federal law with the 338 election the 10 h subsidiaries tax attributes were preserved for the benefit of ConAgra as the selling parent corporation which acquired those tax attributes in the deemed 332 liquidation of the subsidiaries On appeal the Department contends t trial court erred in determining he that 338 which for federal tax purposes treats the sale of the stock of a 10 h subsidiary as a sale of the subsidiary assets followed by a liquidation of the s subsidiary resulted in ConAgra becoming the acquiring corporation for state corporate income tax purposes The Department reasons that because Pilgrim s Pride and UAP were the purchasers of the subsidiaries in the deemed assets sale each was the acquiring corporation who succeed to all of the assets of the 2 See generally 26 USCA 338 entitled Certain stock purchases treated as asset acquisitions 3 26 USCA 332 provides detailed tax consequences for complete liquidations of subsidiaries See also 26 USCA 381 1 a 4 purchased ConAgra subsidiary including the subsidiaries tax attributes in particular the net operating loss carryovers NOLs La R 47 which appears in the Chapter setting forth the Louisiana S 287 86 Corporation Income Tax Act sets forth applicable provisions for the NOLs deduction providing in pertinent part 1 Net operating loss carryovers 1 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter to the contrary the acquiring corporation shall succeed to and take into account as of the close of the day of distribution or transfer the aggregate net operating loss carryovers of the distributors or transferor corporation as determined under this Section subject to federal law and the limitations provided thereunder According to the relevant provisions of 26 USCA 381 a General rule In the case of the acquisition of assets of a corporation by another corporation 1 in a distribution to such other corporation to which section 332 relating to liquidations of subsidiaries applies the acquiring corporation shall succeed to and take into account as of the close of the day of distribution or transfer the net operating loss carryovers as described in subsection c of the distributor or transferor corporation A close scrutiny of the two statutes reveals that the language utilized in La S 86 R 47 287 is nearly identical to that employed under federal law And 1 I the express provisions of La R 47 indicate that the determination S 287 1 I 86 of the acquiring corporation that shall succeed to and take into account as of the close of the day of distribution or transfer the aggregate net operating loss carryovers of the distributors or transferor corporation is subject to federal law 4 See La R 47 et seq S 287 2 5 and the limitations provided thereunder Because the Department has conceded that under federal law ConAgra as the parent selling corporation of the subsidiaries is entitled to succeed to and take into account the remaining tax attributes after the deemed sale of the assets to Pilgrim Pride and LAP in the s deemed liquidation of the subsidiaries back into the parent and mindful of the nearly identical provisions of both the Louisiana and the federal statutes clearly ConAgra is the acquiring corporation of the NOLs for Louisiana state income tax purposes as well See also La R 47 stating that e as S 287 B 701 xcept otherwise provided or clearly appearing from the context any term used in the Louisiana Corporation Income Tax Act shall have the same meaning as when used in a comparable context at federal law and La R 47 setting forth S 287 L 701 express legislative findings and declarations relative to the adoption of s Louisiana corporation net income tax including that certain provisions of the laws of the United States relating to definitions and the allowance of deductions will s preparation of Louisiana Corporation Income Tax returns by implify taxpayers and a in the interpretation of the corporation income tax law id through increased use of federal judicial and administrative determinations and precedents The Department asserts that allowing a transaction in which a parent corporation sells its whollyowned subsidiaries to a third party to permit two acquiring corporations i the third party insofar as the transfer of the assets and e the parent corporation insofar as the transfer of the NOLs results in inconsistent different meanings for the term acquiring corporation as used throughout Title 47 which addresses Revenue and Taxation The Department points to La R S 2 b 1 I 133 47 addressing the acquisition of assets of a corporation by another corporation and 138 providing for tax consequences in the acquisition c 1 A of one corporation in exchange for stock of a corporation which is in the control of the purchasing corporation as limiting the term acquiring corporation to but one entity But the plain language of La R 47 states Notwithstanding S 287 1 I 86 any other provisions of this Chapter to the contrary in its expression of the entity entitled to succeed and take into account the NOLs of the distributors or transferor corporation as determined under that section Thus to the extent that the provisions of La R 47 and 138 are contrary to that S 133 b 1 I c 1 A determination of the proper entity entitled to succeed and take into account the NOLs of the distributors or transferor corporation they do not apply according to La R 47 Accord La R 47 Accordingly the trial S 287 1 I 86 S 287 B 701 court correctly determined that ConAgra was entitled to the NOLs as the acquiring corporation under La R 47 and granted summary judgment in S 287 1 86 favor of the taxpayer awarding it a refund of the amounts paid under protest as well as interests and costs DECREE For these reasons the trial court judgment is affirmed Appeal costs in the s amount of 1 are assessed against defendant Cynthia Bridges Secretary of 00 918 the Louisiana Department of Revenue State of Louisiana AFFIRMED ConAgra notes it will only be entitled to use the NOLs if it has future Louisiana earnings within the time periods prescribed by law See La R 47 S 287 86 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
