 United Dominion Industries, Incorporated v. United States, 208 F.3d 452 4th Cir. 2000 . On November 27, 2000, the Supreme Court…

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-2380 v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant. 
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
(S. Ct. No. 00-157)
Argued: December 2, 1999
Decided: March 24, 2000
Decided on Remand: August 1, 2001
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and
Margaret B. SEYMOUR, United States District Judge
for the District of South Carolina,
sitting by designation.
Remanded by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Traxler and Judge Seymour concurred.
COUNSEL
Richard Farber, Edward T. Perelmuter, UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Eric R. Fox,
Dirk J. J. Suringa, IVINS, PHILLIPS & BARKER, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.

-- 1 of 2 --

OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
The Government appealed the adverse judgment of the district
court, entered on July 22, 1998, directing that the Internal Revenue
Service refund to United Dominion Industries, Incorporated, excess
income tax payments made ten years prior to the filing of the consoli-
dated returns at issue. These refunds were the result of deductions
claimed by United Dominion from "carrying back" millions of dollars
in product liability losses sustained by its subsidiaries. We reversed
and ordered the matter remanded, holding that such losses were
deductible only to the extent they offset income earned by the
affected companies individually, rather than by the group as a whole.
See United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, 208 F.3d 452 (4th
Cir. 2000).
On November 27, 2000, the Supreme Court granted United Domin-
ion’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Thereafter, the Court issued its
opinion reversing our judgment and remanding the cause for further
proceedings. See United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, 121
S. Ct. 1934 (2001). In so doing, the Supreme Court endorsed the
single-entity approach advocated by United Dominion and approved
by the district court. We now find ourselves in receipt of the Court’s
certified judgment.
In conformance with the Supreme Court’s decision, we reinstate
the original judgment ordering payment of the refunds in the stipu-
lated amount, plus statutory interest. This case is hereby remanded to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
and that of the Supreme Court.
REMANDED
2 UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES v. UNITED STATES

-- 2 of 2 --