Ford Motor Company v. United States
768 F.3d 580
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ford remitted about $875 million to the U.S. after IRS preliminarily found underpayment; remittances designated as “deposits in the nature of a cash bond” under Rev. Proc. 84-58.
- Ford later asked IRS to treat remittances as “advance tax payments”; IRS converted deposits to advance payments and applied them to deficiency.
- IRS later refunded deposits with interest as overpayments, but did not pay interest for the deposit period prior to conversion.
- District court granted judgment for the government, applying IRS deference and the Rev. Proc. 84-58 framework.
- This court previously affirmed, then the Supreme Court remanded to address jurisdiction and merits; the case now tests whether §6611 is a sovereign-immunity waiver and when overpayment interest accrues.
- The court holds that cash-bond deposits were not payments and thus not overpayments, so no pre-conversion interest is owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6611 waives sovereign immunity and if strict construction applies | Ford argues §6611 creates a substantive right to interest, not a jurisdictional waiver | United States contends §6611 is a limited immunity waiver requiring strict construction | Strict construction governs whether §6611 authorizes interest; court adopts strict-scope reading |
| When does overpayment interest accrue—the deposit date or the conversion date | Ford says overpayment interest starts on each deposit date | Government says interest starts only after conversion to advance tax payments | Deposits were not payments; interest accrues from conversion date only if treated as overpayment; here no pre-conversion interest |
| Role of Revenue Procedure 84-58 in interpreting §6611 | Ford insists HRP 84-58 supports retroactive conversion and deposit-date interest | Government argues revenue procedures are interpretive aids not controlling law | Rev. Proc. 84-58 does not compel retroactive conversion; interpretation remains §6611-focused |
| Jurisdictional basis for suit (1346(a)(1) vs Tucker Act) | Ford relies on 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(1) for overpayments | Government contends Tucker Act (1491) or other limits apply | Scripps governs; §1346(a)(1) provides jurisdiction for overpayment interest claims; settled as precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986) (need express consent to award interest; no general interest waiver)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (differentiates jurisdictional waivers from substantive rights to money damages)
- Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. United States, 201 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2000) (recognizes §6611 as a waiver for interest claims in some contexts)
- Scripps, E.W. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th Cir.2005) (confirms §1346(a)(1) jurisdiction over overpayment interest claims)
- Rosenman v. United States, 323 U.S. 658 (1945) (deposit not a payment under early precedent; later superseded by §6401(c))