Wisconsin Steel could not constitute a unitary business group.
DISCUSSION
lL Standard of Review

On an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision, a district court "may affirm, modify, or
reverse a bankruptcy court's judgment, order, or decree, or remand with instructions for further
proceedings." Fed. R. Bankr, P. 8013. Review of the bankruptcy court's factual findings is subject
to a clearly erroneous standard. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; Fed. R. Civ. P. 52. Whether an entity falls
within a unitary business group is generally a question of fact. Citizens Utilities Co. v. Dept. of
Revenue, 111 Il.2d 32, 39, 488 N.E.2d 984, 986 (1986). Where the facts are undisputed, the
conclusion on the existence of a unitary business group is a matter of law. Borden, Inc. v. Illinois
Dept. of Revenue, 295 Ill. App. 3d 1001, 1004, 692 N.E.2d 1335, 1338 (1st Dist. 1998). The court
reviews the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo. In re Thirtyacre, 36 F.3d 697, 700 (7th
Cir. 1994); see also In re Galvan, No. 97 C 591, 1998 WL 246015, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 1998)
(where the facts are undisputed in a bankruptcy appeal, the court reviews de novo).

IL. Unitary Business Group under § 1501(a)(27)

The dispute on appeal turns on whether Envirodyne exercised strong centralized management
over Wisconsin Steel for tax years 1988 and 1989. A state has the power to tax out-of-state activities
of associated corporations by formula apportionment only when the corporations constitute a unitary
business. Container Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 165-67 (1983). Under the Illinois
Income Tax Act, 35 ILCS § 5/1501(a)(27) (1998) (“the Tax Act”), a unitary business group must
satisfy a three-prong test: (1) the companies must be in common ownership; (2) the companies must

be in the same general line of business; and (3) there must be functional integration through the


authority, nor the exercise of that authority over any particular function (through centralized
operations) is determinative itself; the entire operation of the group must be examined[.]” 86 Ill.
Adm. Code. § 100.9700(g). Indeed, potential for control is relevant to the existence of a unitary
business group. Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159,177 n. 16 (1983);
Borden, 295 ll. App. 3d at 1009, 692 N.E.2d at 1341. In Central Utilities, the court emphasized that
evidence of a “mere flow of funds arising out of a passive investment or a distinct business
operation” is insufficient to form a unitary business group. Central Utilities, 111 Il.2d at 47, 488
N.E.2d at 990. Consequently, the IDR’s narrow interpretation of § 1501(a)(27) is contrary to
Borden, A.B. Dick, Hormel Foods, PPG Indus., Central Utilities and the IDR. regulations. See also
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Lenckos, 84 Il.2d 102, 116, 417 N.E.2d 1343, 1351 (1981) (“A unitary
business operation is one in which there is a high degree of interrelationship and interdependence”
between a parent and its subsidiary).

Second, the IDR asserts Envirodyne undertook a significant change in its operational
procedures in 1980 that resulted in a lack of centralized management over Wisconsin Steel. In
support, the IDR contends Michael Lyonexercised control over all final decisions at Wisconsin Steel
in 1980 when he became Wisconsin Steel’s president. The bankruptcy court determined
Envirodyne’s relationship with Wisconsin Steel was not substantially altered in 1988 and 1989.
Although Lyon exercised control over final decisions, he continued to consult with key Envirodyne
officers on significant decisions. Moreover, a number of factors that emerged during the Wisconsin
Steel bankruptcy proceedings establish Envirodyne’s continued exercise of strong central
management and involvement. Envirodyne assumed liability for Wisconsin Steel’s pension plans,

an obligation it had not previously undertaken. Envirodyne and Wisconsin Steel shared office space,


appointed the subsidiaries’ officers; and Borden provided tax and accounting services at cost or for
no charge. Borden, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 1006-1007, 692 N.E.2d at 1339-40,

Similarly, in.A.B. Dick, the court found a unitary business group. A.B. Dick’s officers were
actively involved in Videojet, A.B. Dick’s subsidiary; A.B. Dick provided funding for Videojet’s
acquisition of another company; A.B. Dick approved Videojet’s tax filings; A.B. Dick reviewed and
approved all purchase requests over $500; A.B. Dick controlled the salaries of Videojet personnel,
and A.B. Dick had final authority over the introduction and pricing of new Videojet products. A.B.
Dick, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 99, 678 N.E.2d at 1107.

Various factors demonstrating Envirodyne’s centralized control over Wisconsin Steel are
analogous to those present in A.B. Dick and Borden. Envirodyne pledged stock as part of the
Wisconsin Steel acquisition; Envirodyne recruited, engaged, and appointed Wisconsin Steel’s
officers and directors; Envirodyne assisted Wisconsin Stee! to obtain financing; Envirodyne handled
Wisconsin Steel’s tax returns and provided accounting oversight and assistance; Envirodyne
provided Wisconsin Steel free insurance coverage; Envirodyne and Wisconsin Steel shared office
space, and Envirodyne provided office services and utilities at no cost; Envirodyne’s officers were
responsible for the negotiation and formation of Wisconsin Steel’s reorganization plan; Envirodyne
funded the reorganization plan; Envirodyne assumed liability for pension claims asserted by former
Wisconsin Stee] employees; and Envirodyne’s officers were responsible for recording and keeping
Wisconsin Steel’s board minutes.

Significantly, in A.B. Dick Co., the court found instructive that Videojet relied upon A.B.
Dick for legal, insurance, and real estate services, and A.B. Dick provided assistance in purchasing,

accounting, and personnel matters. A.B. Dick, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 240, 678 N.E.2d at 1106.


exercise of strong centralized management. A.B. Dick Co. v. McGraw, 287 Ill. App.3d 230, 232-33,
678 N.E.2d 1100, 1104 (4th Dist. 1997). The parties do not dispute the first prong. The bankruptcy
court determined Wisconsin Steel and Envirodyne were in the same line of business, and they were
a unitary business group under § 1501(a)(27). The IDR appeals the bankruptcy court’s finding on
the third-prong of the test.

Section 1501(a)(27) provides that a unitary business exists where: “the members are
functionally integrated through the exercise of strong centralized management where, for example,
authority over such matters as purchasing, financing, tax compliance, product line, personnel,
marketing, and capital investment is not left to each member.” 35 ILCS § 5/1501(a)(27). The factors
enumerated in § 1501(a)(27) are “exemplary only and not exclusive.” Hormel Foods Corp. v.
Zehnder, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1200, 1209-10, 738 N.E.2d 145, 152 (1st Dist. 2000). A unitary business
can be formed through the existence of functional integration or strong centralized management. A.B.
Dick, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 233, 678 N.E.2d at 1102 (“wherever there is functional integration of
operations there is also strong centralized management and vice versa”). To determine strong
centralized management, the court must “examine the entire operation as a whole.” Hormel Foods
Corp., 316 Ill. App. 3d at 1210, 738 N.E.2d at 153.

The bankruptcy court relied upon Borden and A.B. Dick in concluding that Envirodyne and
Wisconsin Steel constituted a unitary business group. In Borden, the court determined Borden
exercised strong centralized management over its subsidiaries. Borden’s auditors monitored the
subsidiaries’ activities and accounting procedures; the companies filed consolidated financial
reports; Borden prepared tax returns for its subsidiaries; the companies had a centralized cash

management system; Borden approved all operating budgets and capital expenditures; Borden


Ct., Ist Dist., Jan. 29, 2002), the court found a unitary business group in the absence of significant
financial integration and commingling of funds.’ In PPG, the court determined PPG and Oil & Gas,
its subsidiary, were unitary because: Oil & Gas directors were PPG officers or employees; the Oil
& Gas director of daily operations was a PPG employee; PPG paid Oil & Gas employees’ salary;
PPG provided accounting, legal, and tax services; PPG executed Oil & Gas contracts; and PPG
approved and executed the final contract to sell Oil & Gas. PPG Indus., 2002 WL 11301, at *6. The
court concluded PPG’s exercise of significant control over Oil & Gas resulted in a unitary business
group under § 1501(a)(27). Id.

Similarly, Envirodyne’s provision of tax and accounting services to Wisconsin Steel, the
overlap in key personnel between the two companies, Envirodyne’s provision of office space, storage
of books and records, and assumption of pension fund liability demonstrate the same degree of
involvement and control. Notably, PPG’s final decision to sell Oil & Gas is similar to Envirodyne’s
final decision to file a bankruptcy petition for Wisconsin Steel. Jd. And PPG Indus. found a unitary
business group in the absence of significant financial integration and commingling of funds. Indeed,
PPG’s payment of Oil & Gas employees’ salary and expenses is analogous to Envirodyne’s
investment of $2.7 million for Wisconsin Steel’s reorganization plan and provision of utilities and
office services at no cost. The existence of some financial involvement coupled with other factors
of centralized control is sufficient to establish a unitary business group. The absence of total
financial integration and common cash management is not dispositive. See Hormel Foods, 316 Ill.
App. 3d at 1209-10; 738 N.E.2d at 152-53.

The IDR regulations bolsters this conclusion: “neither the existence of central management

> PPG Indus. was decided shortly after the parties completed briefing in this appeal.

8


Minute Order Fofm 06/07)

OFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 CIFRCP41(a\(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

cl) _| [Other docket entry]

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

(eee

VA United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
fAaencetrpéielviee | Suzanne B. Conlon | Sate Owe
cast, NUMBER 01 C 7861 DATE 2/13/2002
v CASE ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE vs. ENVIRODYNE INDUSTRIES, INC.
TITLE
[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented,]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) Q Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) o Ruling/Hearingon__setfor___at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____setfor._——sat_—
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to _____ at.
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

The bankruptcy court’s order of September 4, 2001 denying the Illinois
Department of Revenue’s claim to additional tax liabilities, interest, and penalties is affirmed. ENTER

Hesprme 8. Cole

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. Fi E

oS | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone, date dockfted

Docketing to mail notices.

oY | Mail AO 450 form

YS | Copy to bankruptcy judge.

LYNG) LOM
yuan

yu 7
courtroom Cosh 4 0 date Mngiled niptice
SB deputy’s ses ud fl die a
initials
Datel ived in
cated Cibal's Otte! | nailing deputy ial

Document
Number



utility subsidiaries, each operating in a different state. The court did not require each subsidiary to
be fully integrated to find a unitary business. Citizens Utilities, 111 I1l.2d at 48-49, 488 N.E.2d at
991-92; see also Container Corp., 463 U.S. at 166 (the unitary business principle can be applied to
series of similar enterprises operating separately but linked by common managerial or operational
resources); Borden, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 1003, 692 N.E.2d at 1337-38 (unitary business found between
Borden and Pepsi subsidiaries in the absence of evidence that Pepsi subsidiaries were interrelated
with other Borden subsidiaries).

The IDR concedes no Illinois court has found an interrelationship among all subsidiaries
necessary to find a unitary business group. Indeed, the IDR’s unsupported assertion defies the plain
language of § 1501(a)(27). The Tax Act provides that strong centralized management exists where
authority over various activities is not left to each member. 35 ILCS § 5/1501(a)(27). The key
requirement is that “the parent corporation enjoyed actual, centralized control” over the group.
Citizens Utilities, 111 Ill.2d at 51, 488 N.E.2d at 992. Thus, the critical link for establishment ofa
unitary business group is central control and management, not an interrelationship between every
entity in the business group. The Illinois Administrative Code’s example of a unitary business
further supports this conclusion:

Corporation K was involved in the manufacture and sale of canned goods.

Corporation K acquired corporations L, M, and N that sold different product lines.

The subsidiaries were relatively autonomous in their day-to-day operation, and

“(there was no significant flow of goods between any of the corporations.”

Corporation K provided centralized warehousing, accounting, financing, and

inventory functions for the subsidiaries. Corporation K and its subsidiaries are

engaged in a unitary business.
86 IIL. Adm. Code § 100.3010(c)(4)(D). This scenario emphasizes centralized control, and provides

for the formation of a unitary business without reference to unitizing factors between the

11


and Envirodyne provided utilities, office services, tax preparation, and insurance coverage at no
charge. Envirodyne assisted with the negotiation of the reorganization plan, and funded the plan in
the amount of $2.7 million. Envirodyne’s general counsel was primarily responsible for the
reorganization plan. Thus, Wisconsin Steel’s reliance on Envirodyne continued after 1980.
Moreover, in Central Utilities, the court found a unitary business group despite the exercise of day-
to-day control of operations by local managers of the subsidiaries. Central Utilities, 111 I11.2d at 48,
488 N.E.2d at 990; see also A.B. Dick, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 238, 678 N.E.2d at 1106 (“the day-to-day
management of the subsidiary need not be controlled by the parent”). Lyon’s authority to make final
decisions for Wisconsin Steel is insufficient to defeat the existence of a unitary business group. The
IDR does not advance other evidence to demonstrate the purported change in the Envirodyne-
Wisconsin Steel relationship. The bankruptcy court correctly concluded that Envirodyne’s
relationship with Wisconsin steel was not substantially altered in 1980 to preclude a unitary business
group under § 1501(a)(27) of the Tax Act.

Ill. Unitizing Factors Between Subsidiaries .

In the alternative, the IDR asserts a lack of unitizing factors between Wisconsin Steel and
Envirodyne’s newly acquired subsidiaries after 1983 prevents the formation of one unitary business
group. Instead, the IDR contends Envirodyne engaged in two unitary business groups — one group
involving Wisconsin Steel and the other involving newly acquired post- 1983 subsidiaries in the food
packaging and service business. The bankruptcy court rejected the IDR’s argument that Illinois law
required unitizing factors between subsidiaries to establish a unitary business group under §
1501(a)(27).

In Citizens Utilities, the court found a unitary business group where the parent owned 24

10


Similarly, Envirodyne provided insurance, tax, personnel, and accounting assistance to Wisconsin
Steel. See also Borden, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 1007, 692 N.E.2d at 1339-40 (“Borden retained control
over financing, tax compliance, and at least some aspects of purchasing, personnel and marketing”).
Further, in Borden, the court relied upon Borden’s appointment of officers to its subsidiaries, and
the provision of centralized services at cost or without charge. Jd. Envirodyne appointed Wisconsin
Steel’s directors and provided identical consulting services at no cost.

On appeal, the IDR asserts Envirodyne and Wisconsin Steel are not unitary because the
companies are not financially integrated, and strong centralized management ceased to exist after
Wisconsin Steel filed for bankruptcy in 1980. First, the IDR contends the lack of financial
integration and commingling of funds between Envirodyne and Wisconsin Steel precludes a finding
of a unitary business group under § 1501(a)(27). However, financial integration is only one method
of demonstrating a flow of value between two companies in a unitary business group. A flow of
value may exist in the form of transfer of information or staff because it provides economies of scale.
Citizens Utilities Co., 111 IlL.2d at 49, 488 N.E.2d at 991; A.B. Dick, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 238, 678
N.E.2d at 1106 (flow of value can consist of “many subtle and largely unquantifiable transfers of
value”). Steven Schuster, Envirodyne’s general counsel, was responsible for negotiation and
implementation of Wisconsin Steel’s reorganization plan. Envirodyne’s officers provided legal and
consulting advice on litigation against International Harvesters. Maxine Linde at Envirodyne
selected Wisconsin Steel’s bankruptcy counsel and assisted with the bankruptcy proceedings.
Consequently, these factors establish a flow of value from Envirodyne to Wisconsin Steel through
the transfer of information and staff.

Moreover, in PPG Indus. Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, No. 99-2487, 2002 WL 113011 (Ill. App.


Envirodyne and Wisconsin Steel did not have a common cash management system and its
funds were not commingled. Envirodyne and Wisconsin Steel did not engage in joint marketing or
advertising. Nor did they have a coordinated purchasing program because each subsidiary had its
own purchasing department. However, Envirodyne reviewed and approved all major Wisconsin
Steel purchases. George Sealy, Envirodyne’s president, provided marketing services for Wisconsin
Steel. Finally, Wisconsin Steel had interactions with other Envirodyne subsidiaries. Envirodyne
Planning provided consulting and technology services related to charting project schedules for
manufacturing processes. Envirosonics developed technology to assist Wisconsin Steel, which
Wisconsin Steel funded in the amount of $3.9 million. Envirodyne’s engineers reviewed waste-
water management programs for Wisconsin Steel.

In March 1980, Maxine Linde, an Envirodyne director and officer, made the final decision
to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition for Wisconsin Steel. She selected Wisconsin Steel’s
bankruptcy counsel and provided consulting services. During bankruptcy proceedings, Wisconsin
Steel and debtors shared Envirodyne’s office space and stored their books and records at no cost.
Envirodyne covered Wisconsin Steel under its insurance policies. Envirodyne provided legal and
consulting services on Wisconsin Steel’s litigation against International Harvesters. Stephen
Schuster, Envirodyne’s general counsel and Wisconsin Steel’s director, was primarily responsible
for the negotiation and implementation of Wisconsin Steel’s reorganization plan. Envirodyne funded
that plan in the amount of $ 2.7 million to enable the reorganization. Envirodyne filed consolidated
tax returns, and Envirodyne’s tax department provided accounting and tax services to Wisconsin
Steel. In 1993, the IDR contested Envirodyne’s 1988 and 1989 tax returns, claiming Envirodyne

improperly included net carry-forward losses for Wisconsin Steel because Envirodyne and


BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are undisputed.” In August 1977, Envirodyne, through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Envirodyne Stock Company, established EDC Holding Co. to acquire Wisconsin Steel’s
assets. Envirodyne pledged assets and stock as security for notes issued to International Harvester,
Wisconsin Steel’s former owner. After completing the acquisition, Envirodyne organized its
operating subsidiaries into two divisions — the Steel Mining division (consisting of Wisconsin Steel
companies) and the Engineering and Development division (consisting of non-Wisconsin Steel
companies).

George Sealy and Ronald Linde served as Wisconsin Steel and Envirodyne’s directors.
Envirodyne recruited a new management team for Wisconsin Steel. Further, Envirodyne oversaw
all major personnel decisions, and appointed officers and directors to serve on Wisconsin Steel’s
board. Envirodyne participated in interviews for new hires. Envirodyne recruited James Morrill to
serve as Wisconsin Steel’s president and Michael Lyon to serve as vice-president and general
counsel. Lyon regularly reported to Ronald Linde at Envirodyne. Envirodyne’s officers determined
compensation packages for Wisconsin Steel’s new management team. Envirodyne’s chief financial
officer oversaw Wisconsin Steel’s accounts and conducted internal audits. Envirodyne and
Wisconsin Steel used the same legal and accounting firms. Maxine Linde, an Envirodyne officer,
recorded minutes at Wisconsin Steel board meetings from 1977 to 1989. Envirodyne oversaw and

approved Wisconsin Steel’s budget and all significant purchasing decisions.

? The parties do not contest the bankruptcy court’s recitation of the undisputed facts.
Indeed, the parties stipulated to all relevant facts in this action. See Stipulation of Facts, Tr., Vol.
1, Doc. No. 1698. Consequently, all relevant facts are taken from the bankruptcy court’s
statement of facts and the parties’ stipulations.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF )
REVENUE )
) No. 01 C7861
Plaintiff, )
) Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge
v. )
)
ENVIRODYNE INDUSTRIES, INC. )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Illinois Department of Revenue (“the IDR”) appeals the denial of a proof of claim
against Envirodyne Industries (“Envirodyne”) and its subsidiaries (collectively “debtors”)'. The IDR
refused to recognize carry-forward losses attributed to debtors as part of a unitary business group
under Illinois law that would offset the IDR’s asserted claims. The IDR contended a subset of
Envirodyne subsidiaries - EDC, Inc., WSC Shipping, Inc., Wisconsin Steel Co., WSC Corp., and
WSC Sales, Inc. (collectively “Wisconsin Steel”)—could not be considered a unitary business group
with Envirodyne under 35 ILCS § 5/1501(a)(27). The bankruptcy court had subject matter
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(b)(2)(B). The bankruptcy
court rejected the IDR’s claim and determined debtors were not liable for 1988 and 1989 tax
liabilities, interest, and penalties totaling $1.5 million. The IDR appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

158(a).

' The debtors consist of Envirodyne, Sandusky Plastics, Inc., Sandusky Plastics of
Delaware, Inc., Viskase Corp., Viskase Holding Corp., Viskase Sales Corp., and Clear Shield
National, Inc.


subsidiaries. Moreover, the IDR’s regulations define a unitary business as follows : “when the trade
or business activities of each of the other persons are integrated with, dependent upon, or contribute
to the activities of one or more of the other persons.” 86 If]. Adm. Code. § 100.3010(c)(1) (emphasis
added). The plain language of that section allows for a unitary business group where one corporation
is dependent upon another. There is no support in Iilinois law for the IDR’s assertion that Wisconsin
Steel must have unitizing factors with all Envirodyne subsidiaries to constitute a unitary business
group.
CONCLUSION
The bankruptcy court’s memorandum opinion and order denying the IDR’s claim to

additional tax liabilities, interest, and penalties against debtors is affirmed.

February 13, 2002

United States District Judge

12