Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A. Page 16

Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A. general information

Media for Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 10, 1972 in Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A.

Stephen H. Anderson:

I would -- we have not even studied that, yes.

Hopefully --

(Voice Overlap) But those years are still open and they are still (Inaudible)

Stephen H. Anderson:

Are they ever, yes.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Anderson.

Stephen H. Anderson:

Thank you.

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Brown you have one minute left.

Ernest J. Brown:

Just a --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Mr. Brown, for the post 1959 years, do you have any idea what the difference is to the Government in dollars?

Ernest J. Brown:

I do not have the record Justice Brennan I am sorry I do not know what the figures are.

There is a substantial difference and it stands and it is right in saying that the rates are, but there is still a substantial difference in the method of computation of income taxes for insurance companies and others.

I would like to point out briefly on the post -- this time when it been -- the banks suggested they might cancel the re-insurance.

American National said it was then paying insurance to -- commissions to in its designated agency.

But Mr. Anderson has referred to National Carbide which is rather interesting because there by contract income was payable to a parent corporation but it was taxed to subsidiaries because they are ended and in this case the adjustments, the parent corporation is no great hardship.

The parent corporation can make any adjustments.

The Commissioner will allow of course corresponding deductions to the --

Byron R. White:

Mr. Brown, let us assume that in this years that the holding companies that controlled banks was different from the holding company that controlled the insurance company in the sense that there -- the stock holdings were not identical.

Perhaps the boards were the same or overlapping.

Would that not make a difference?

Ernest J. Brown:

The statute does not require it.

Of course, identity requires common control of 50%, but in any event the possibility of divorce I take it cannot frustrate the use of 482 for the years when there is common control --

Byron R. White:

Well in (Inaudible) would it be -- if it were actually proved that there was divorce?

Ernest J. Brown:

It -- for the years after the divorce, not for the years before which was expected by the Court.

Thank you.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Brown.

Thank you Mr. Anderson.

The case is submitted.