U.S. Tax Court: Cost of goods sold includes only excise taxes actually paid in determining excise tax liability
A case concerning cost of goods sold in computing its excise tax liability
A case concerning cost of goods sold in computing its excise tax liability
The U.S. Tax Court held that a taxpayer may claim as part of its cost of goods sold (COGS) in computing its excise tax liability under section 4081 only the excise tax that the taxpayer actually incurred or paid, taking into account any tax credits claimed by the taxpayer under section 6426.
The case is: Growmark, Inc. v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. No. 11 (May 16, 2023). Read the Tax Court’s opinion [PDF 215 KB] (16 pages)
Summary
The taxpayer, a fuel blender, was an agricultural supply cooperative serving the supply needs of its member-patrons operating independent farming businesses.
The taxpayer claimed tax credits under section 6426(b) and (c) in determining its excise tax liability under section 4081.
As a fuel blender, the taxpayer may reduce its taxable income from fuel mixture sales by subtracting its COGS, including certain federal excise taxes. As part of its COGS, the taxpayer originally claimed its actual excise tax expense, reduced by its tax credits under section 6426(b) and (c). However, the taxpayer later asserted that it was entitled to claim its gross excise tax liability, unreduced by the tax credits it received, as part of its COGS.
The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s argument, finding that the legislative text was unambiguous, and the legislative history confirmed, that a taxpayer must use its actual excise tax expense, rather than gross excise tax liability, for purposes of calculating its COGS.
The Tax Court also acknowledged that three Courts of Appeals had already ruled on this issue and reached a similar conclusion, and the Tax Court found this reasoning persuasive. See Sunoco, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 322 (2016), aff’d 908 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert denied No. 18-1474 (October 7, 2019); Delek US Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 3d 812 (M.D. Tenn. 2021), aff’d 32 F.4th 495 (6th Cir. 2022); Exxon Mobil Corporation v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149760 (N.D. Tex. 2018), aff’d 43 F.4th 424 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for rehearing denied September 30, 2022.
The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 3712, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.