• Login
  • Register
  • PRO
    • PRO Compliance plan
    • PRO Compliance
    • PRO subscription plans
    • Curated articles
    • In-depth
    • Market intelligence
    • Practice guides
    • PRO Reports New
    • Lexology GTDT
    • Ask Lexy
  • PRO
  • Latest
  • GTDT
  • Research
  • Learn
  • Experts
  • Store
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Influencers
  • About
  • Explore
  • Legal Research
  • Primary SourcesBeta
  • PRO Compliance

Introducing PRO Compliance
The essential resource for in-house professionals

  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides
Getting The Deal Through joins Lexology
GTDT and Lexology Navigator have merged

CONTENT DEVELOPMENT

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics New
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons Beta
  • Ideation

CLIENT INTELLIGENCE

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates New
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre New

COMPETITOR INTELLIGENCE

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates New

Lexology PRO

Power up your legal research with modern workflow tools, AI conceptual search and premium content sets that leverage Lexology's archive of 900,000+ articles contributed by the world's leading law firms. 

PRO Compliance plan
PRO subscription plans

Premium content

  • Curated articles
  • In-depth
  • Market intelligence
  • Practice guides
  • PRO Reports New

Analysis tools

  • Lexology GTDT
  • Ask Lexy
Explore all PRO content PRO Compliance
  • Find experts
  • About
  • Firms
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

D.C. Circuit Sends Tax Allowance for Partnership Pipelines Back to FERC

Sidley Austin LLP

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

USA July 7 2016

Sidley Austin provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Attorney Advertising - For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, 212.839.5300; One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, 312.853.7000; and 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202.736.8000. JULY 7, 2016 SIDLEY UPDATE D.C. Circuit Sends Tax Allowance for Partnership Pipelines Back to FERC On July 1, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) sided with pipeline shippers (Shippers) who challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) policy of including an income tax allowance in the transportation rates of pipelines organized as limited partnerships. In its decision in United Airlines v. FERC, No. 11-1479 1 , a D.C. Circuit panel of Judges Sentelle, Griffith and Kavanaugh vacated three FERC orders related to rate filings by SFPP, an interstate petroleum products pipeline, finding that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it “ha[d] not adequately justified its tax allowance policy for partnership pipelines.” Depending on how FERC rules on the issue on remand, its decision could have a significant impact on the rates of interstate oil and gas pipelines that are organized as limited partnerships. United Airlines is the third D.C. Circuit decision in the past dozen years regarding the income tax allowance in transportation rates of oil and gas pipelines organized as limited partnerships rather than corporations. The D.C. Circuit previously considered FERC’s tax allowance policy for partnership pipelines in BP West Coast Products, LLC v. FERC, 374 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. FERC, 487 F.3d 945 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In BP West Coast Products, the D.C. Circuit held that it was unable to “conclude that FERC’s inclusion of the income tax allowance in SFPP’s rates is the product of reasoned decisionmaking.”2 Three years later in ExxonMobil, the D.C. Circuit “held that FERC’s policy of permitting partnership pipelines to receive a tax allowance was ‘not unreasonable’ in light of ‘FERC’s expert judgment about the best way to equalize after-tax returns for partnerships and corporations.’”3 It is this “reasoned decisionmaking” (or lack thereof) that Shippers challenged in United Airlines, but Shippers’ challenge was based on grounds not at issue in ExxonMobil or BP West Coast Products. Many practitioners thought, and FERC argued, that the income tax allowance for partnership pipelines had been settled in ExxonMobil. While acknowledging the result of that decision, however, the court in United Airlines found that ExxonMobil had “implicit[ly] reserve[ed]” a separate question, namely, “whether the combination of the discounted cash flow return on equity and the tax allowance results in double-recovery of taxes for partnership pipelines . . .”4 Finding that FERC “failed to demonstrate that there is no double-recovery 1 Slip op. at 25 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 1, 2016) available here. 2 374 F.3d at 1288. 3 487 F.3d at 953. 4 Slip op. at 19. SIDLEY UPDATE Page 2 of taxes for partnership, as opposed to corporate, pipelines,” the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. 5 Notwithstanding its holding, the court made clear that, on remand, FERC is free to continue to provide partnership pipelines with an income tax allowance if it either (1) provides a sufficient explanation that its current policy does not result in double-recovery of taxes for such pipelines, or (2) takes another approach to assure there is no double-recovery, e.g., by “remov[ing] any duplicative tax recovery for partnership pipelines directly from the discounted cash flow return on equity,” or “eliminating all income tax allowances and setting rates based on pre-tax returns.”6 Citing ExxonMobil, the court observed that “FERC has a justifiable basis for its attribution of partner taxes to the partnership pipeline,” because “‘investors in a limited partnership are required to pay tax on their distributive shares of the partnership income, even if they do not receive a cash distribution,’” whereas “‘a shareholder of a corporation is generally taxed on the amount of the cash dividend actually received.’”7 Thus, “allocation of partner-level taxes to a partnership pipeline may not result in a ‘phantom tax’ of the type we rejected in BP West Coast.” Nevertheless, if FERC elects on remand to continue providing a tax allowance to partnership pipelines, it must “ensure parity between equity owners in partnership and corporate pipelines.”8 It remains to be seen, of course, how FERC will deal on remand with the income tax allowance for partnership pipelines. Among other questions is whether FERC will distinguish partnership pipelines whose limited partnership interests are held solely by corporations from those whose interests are held by both corporations and individual taxpayers. With respect to pipelines whose partnership interests are held solely by corporations, FERC may provide a sustainable rationale for concluding that a tax allowance is appropriately included in a partnership pipeline’s cost of service. Although such pipelines incur no income taxes at the entity level, their income is distributed entirely to corporate partners, which pay corporate-level income taxes in the year such distributions are made. Thus, for income tax allowance purposes, FERC may conclude that partnership pipelines whose interests are held solely by corporations should be entitled to the same income tax allowance as corporate pipelines. Until this issue is finally resolved, however, the exposure for partnership pipelines remains since the regulated entity pays no income taxes. If you have any questions regarding this Sidley Update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work, or Eugene R. Elrod Partner [email protected] +1 202 736 8206 Kenneth W. Irvin Partner [email protected] +1 202 736 8256 Lorrie M. Marcil Partner [email protected] +1 202 736 8273 William A. Williams Partner [email protected] +1 202 736 8767 Lauren C. Freeman Associate [email protected] +1 212 839 6792 Sidley Energy Practice Sidley has a diversified and global Energy practice. We represent clients in virtually every aspect of the energy industry, including upstream oil and gas developers, oilfield service companies, natural gas pipelines, crude oil and refined product pipelines, electric utilities, merchant electric transmission companies, independent power producers, alternative energy developers, suppliers and 5 Id. at 19, 25. 6 Slip op. at 24. 7 (citations omitted) 8 Id. SIDLEY UPDATE Page 3 contractors, energy trading companies, and the financial institutions that serve companies in all of these industry segments. Our energy practice encompasses all types of transactional, litigation and regulatory matters. To receive Sidley Updates, please subscribe at www.sidley.com/subscribe. BEIJING ∙ BOSTON ∙ BRUSSELS ∙ CENTURY CITY ∙ CHICAGO ∙ DALLAS ∙ GENEVA ∙ HONG KONG ∙ HOUSTON ∙ LONDON LOS ANGELES ∙ MUNICH ∙ NEW YORK ∙ PALO ALTO ∙ SAN FRANCISCO ∙ SHANGHAI ∙ SINGAPORE ∙ SYDNEY ∙ TOKYO ∙ WASHINGTON, D.C. Sidley and Sidley Austin refer to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer. www.sidley.com

To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.
Sidley Austin LLP - Eugene R. Elrod, Kenneth W. Irvin, Lorrie M. Marcil, William A. Williams and Lauren C. Freeman
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • USA
  • Energy & Natural Resources
  • Litigation
  • Tax
  • Sidley Austin LLP

Tagged with

  • District of Columbia
  • Federal Reporter
  • Income tax
  • FERC
  • Limited partnership
  • Remand (court procedure)
  • ExxonMobil
  • New York State Bar Association
  • United Airlines

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Significant Energy Legislation Poised to Become Law with COVID-19 Relief *
  2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Finalizes 16 Nationwide Permits *
  3. EPA Publishes “Transparency in Science” Final Rule *
  4. DOJ Releases Detailed Statistics on FCA Recoveries Through FY 2020 *
  5. Preparing Your 2020 Form 10-K: A Summary of Recent Key Disclosure Developments, Priorities, and Trends *

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology
loading...

Related topic hubs

  1. FERC
  2. USA
  3. Litigation
  4. Energy & Natural Resources

Related USA articles

  1. D.C. Circuit Overrules FERC on Partnership Pipeline’s Tax Recovery *
  2. D.C. Circuit Reopens Controversy Concerning Regulated Master Limited Partnership Taxation *
  3. DC Circuit Decision Likely to Reignite FERC Debate Over Tax Allowance for Pass-through Entities *

Related international articles

  1. Skadden Energy Law Handbook Fourth Edition (Nov. 2016) * - Global
Terra Nicolay
Senior Corporate Counsel
Chevron
What our clients say

"I am a big fan. The information is very useful indeed."

Back to Top
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Law Business Research

© Copyright 2006 - 2021 Law Business Research