Document: 128 S. Ct. 2326 (2008) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PICCADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC. No. 07-312. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 26, 2008. Decided June 16, *2329 Christopher J. Meade, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for petitioner. Edwin Kneedler, Office the Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., respondent. Frederick F. Rudzik, Assistant General Counsel, Department Revenue, Tallahassee, FL, Bill McCollum, Attorney Scott D. Makar, Counsel Record, Craig Feiser, Deputy State Florida, Paul Steven Singerman, Leslie Gem Cloyd, Berger Boca Raton, G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., Robert A. Brundage, Rheba Rutkowski, Collin O'Connor Udell, Raquel Webster, Alison E. Hickey, Philip B. Janis, Bingham McCutchen Hartford, Connecticut, Justice THOMAS delivered opinion Court. The Bankruptcy Code provides a stamp-tax exemption any asset transfer "under plan confirmed under [Chapter 11]" Code. 11 U.S.C. § 1146(a) (2000 ed., Supp. V). Respondent Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., was granted an assets transferred after it had filed bankruptcy but before its Chapter *2330 submitted to, by, Florida seeks reversal decision Appeals upholding Piccadilly's transfer. Because we hold that 1146(a)'s does not apply to transfers made is 11, reverse judgment below. I founded in 1944 one Nation's most successful cafeteria chains until began experiencing financial difficulties last decade. On October 29, 2003, declared Code, 1101 et seq. ed. V), requested court authorization sell substantially all outside ordinary course business pursuant 363(b)(1) prepared as going concern sought from stamp taxes on eventual Code.[1] conducted auction which winning bidder agreed purchase $80 million. January 2004, precondition sale, entered into global settlement agreement with committees senior secured noteholders unsecured creditors. dictated priority distribution sale proceeds among February 13, approved proposed agreement. also ruled exempt 1146(a). closed 2004. initial amended July 31, 2004.[2] provided manner consistent Before plan, objection, seeking declaration $39,200 assessed certain fell because been confirmed" 11. 21, plan. cross-motions summary issue, favor *2331 Piccadilly, reasoning "`under'" necessary consummate App. D Pet. Cert. 40a-41a. District upheld ground 1146(a), circumstances, affords even when occurs prior confirmation. In re 379 B.R. 215, 226 (S.D.Fla.2006). Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding "§ 1146[(a)]'s tax may those pre-confirmation are consummation reorganization, which, at very least, requires there be some nexus between plan." 484 F.3d 1299, 1304 (2007) (per curiam). Finding statutory text ambiguous, concluded should interpreted "the principle remedial statute such liberally construed." Ibid. further noted interpretation better accounted practical realities reorganization cases" debtor need induce relevant parties endorse confirmation acknowledged conflicted approach taken by Courts Third Fourth Circuits, id., 1302, have held "does ... transactions occur Code." Hechinger Inv. Co. Del., 335 243, 246 (C.A.3 2003); see NVR, LP, 189 442, 458 (C.A.4 1999) (holding "appl[ies] only Plan occurring date confirmation"). We certiorari, 552 U.S. ___, 741, 169 L. Ed. 2d 579 (2007), resolve conflict whether applies preconfirmation transfers. II Section entitled "Special provisions," provides: "The issuance, transfer, or exchange security, making delivery instrument section 1129 this title, taxed law imposing similar tax." (Emphasis added.) asserts postconfirmation sales; contends extends long they accordance eventually confirmed. base their competing readings provision's text, inferences drawn other provisions, substantive canons construction. consider each arguments turn. A unambiguously limits exemptions authority It observes word "confirmed" modifies "plan" past participle, i.e., "[a] verb form indicating completed action time used verbal adjective phrases baked beans finished work." American Heritage Dictionary 1287 (4th ed.2000). maintains participle indicates placed noun modifies, "beans oven," "work midnight." *2332 Thus, argues, phrase "plan denotes "confirmed plan" meaning has past. "under" read mean "with of" "inferior subordinate" referent, here See Ardestani INS, 502 129, 135, 112 515, 116 496 (1991) (noting thing naturally being "`subject to'" "`governed by'" statute). points out that, two appearances clearly means "subject to." Invoking textual canon "`identical words different parts same act intended meaning,'" Commissioner Keystone Consol. Industries, 508 152, 159, 113 2006, 124 71 (1993), term must core to" confirmed." thus reasons eligible exemption, subject Echoing Circuit's supra, 457, concludes cannot of, something did exist transfera counters language impose temporal requirement. necessarily equivalent plan," Congress latter, would language, related provision. 1142(b) (referring "any required effect property dealt plan"). argues just easily "in with." variability well-documented, noting 1395 (1976) 15 definitions, including "[i]n view of," "because "by virtue well "[s]ubject restraint of." Ardestani, 515 (recognizing "[t]he `under' many dictionary definitions draw context"). Although appears several times no reason why common usage variable used, sentence. As illustration, 302(a) states, commencement joint case chapter title constitutes order relief chapter." provision best as: provisions textstanding aloneis susceptible more than interpretation. Hechinger, 253 ("[W]e say [§ 1146(a)] rules possibility `under confirmed' `in confirmed'"). While both sides present credible interpretations one. To sure, could precise language confirmed"and removed ambiguity. But chose equally plausible: Of two, Florida's natural. advanced *2333 adopted Circuitthat "some plan" apply, F.3d, 1304places greater strain simpler construction Circuits. Furthermore, emphasis distinction unavailing specifies tax-exempt question §1129. Congress' placement 1129" avoids ambiguity arisen rather itself 1129. agree natural reading transfers, ultimately decide unambiguous face. Even assuming, arguendo, facially resolved favor. reach conclusion considering parties' arguments, now B insists whatever degree face, becomes ambiguous context provisions. if exclusively confirmation, intent plain express limitation appearing elsewhere For example, 1127 governs modifications providing proponent modify "at confirmation," or, restrictions, §§ 1127(a)-(b). Similar examples abound. See, e.g., 1104(a) ("[a]t ..."); 1104(c) ..."). emphasizes "where includes particular omits another Act, generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion." Russello States, 464 23, 104 296, 78 17 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). clear commonly intend exist. buttresses pointing 1146(b)the subsection immediately following 1146(a)includes limitation. 1146(b) V) (providing declare consequences government unit responds proponent's request "270 days request," whichever earlier). included (a). relies bolster argument preceding "a broadlyto with" narrower "authorized by." Apart 302, discussed above, adverts 111, states agency credit counseling debtors meet standards set forth section." 111(b)(4)(A) *2334 section," quoted authorized section" render "set forth" nonsensical. additionally refers 303(a), "[a]n involuntary commenced 7 title." Again, "an 303(a) by" authorizes cases, Chapters do not. makes respect 343, shall appear submit examination oath meeting creditors." Reading make little sense here. basis these examples, ambiguous. Finally, construed broadly light 365(g)(1) rejection executory contract unexpired lease prebankruptcy breach "if assumed 11." substituting use parallel 365(g)(1). 254. attempts refute Hechinger's 365(g)(1), asserting assumption described 1123(b)(2), "circles back 365," Brief 39 (emphasis deleted); 1123(b)(2) 365 provide assumption, rejection, assignment previously rejected section"). notunlike 365be ultimate assumption. result, identical meaning. supports point assertion unlike sales, assumptions rejections permitted NLRB Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 513, 529, 1188, 79 482 (1984) (stating debtor-in-possession accept reject contract"). Because, contends, 11" refer anomalous cover part, position subchapter entitled, "POSTCONFIRMATION MATTERS." while dispositive, suggests terms *2335 subchapter. Davis Michigan Dept. Treasury, 489 803, 809, 109 1500, 103 891 (1989) ("It fundamental place overall scheme"). addition, dismisses references limitations superfluous add already element. persuaded contextual arguments. element beyond question. Unlike however, indispensable operative appear. reliance 1127, misplaced explicitly differentiates modifications, 1127(a), permissible "only circumstances warrant" them, 1127(b). unnecessary include require were adopt broad definition "under," faces obstacles. can hardly said consummated because, closing date, Rather, procedures 3specifically, 363(b)(1). proposes turn debtor-in-possession's actions legal existand indeed conceived ofat sale. find nothing justifying curious what straightforward exemption. Nor anything recommend 365(g) allows trustee debtor," unfavorable estate, approval. clear, approval either "this 365(g)i.e., 365(d)(2)or 9, 12, 13," heavily permits collective-bargaining like contract, doing so unfair labor practice National Labor Relations Act. reaching conclusion, observed contract." U.S., 1188 added). Bildisco's commonsense observation way undermines fact takes upon *2336 (or 365(d)(2)). given submitting court, confirms Only become exemption.[3] If anything, inapplicable informative heading substitute statute. Pennsylvania Corrections Yeskey, 524 206, 212, 118 1952, 141 215 (1998) ("`[T]he limit text'"). Nonetheless, titles headings "`are tools available resolution doubt about statute.'" Porter Nussle, 534 516, 528, 122 983, 152 12 (2002). within expressly limited matters covers fully establish They notand largely todemonstrate purported various nontextual us own. dueling C deemed applicable compel first invokes "Congress aware administrative judicial reenacts without change." Lorillard Pons, 434 575, 580-581, 98 866, 55 40 (1978). relating remained unchanged since 1978 despite revisions recent revision 2005 occurred NVR ratified longstanding when, amendments "readopted" verbatim Petitioner 26. canonon relied Hechingerthat courts "`proceed *2337 carefully asked recognize state taxation expressed.'" 254 (quoting California Bd. Equalization Sierra Summit, 490 844, 851-852, 2228, 910 (1989)). directive, strictly States prevent unwarranted displacement laws. Private Truck Council, Inc. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 582, 590, 115 2351, 132 509 (1995) (discussing principles comity "federal reluctance interfere taxation" "strong background presumption against interference"). notes discourages federal interference administration State's scheme. 586, 2351. Appeals' extension directly interferes tax, imposed "prior recordation" Fla. Stat. 201.01, 201.02(1) (2006). Extending months years confirmable existed, explains, "`unravel'" collected. 31. Alternatively, grant saddled task monitoring ever response, federalism articulated 852, where "clear expression overriding tax. view, precisely regard proscribes imposition demonstrates category taxation. postpetition claim, specifically expense, paid claim ahead prepetition claims Equating receipt revenue preference claimant, diminish claimants' recoveries. Howard Delivery Service, Zurich Ins. Co., 547 651, 667, 126 2105, 165 110 (2006) (emphasizing "provisions allowing preferences tightly construed"). too narrowly, maintains, "`is inconsistent policy equality distribution'" "`dilutes value creditors prefer'"those claims. 54 Serv., 2105). Above all, urges maxim 1304; cf. Isbrandtsen Johnson, 343 779, 782, 72 1011, 96 1294 (1952). overshadowed obvious purpose: facilitate process "through giving relief." Jacoby-Bender, 758 F.2d 840, 841 (C.A.2 1985). characterizes issue tantamount levy itself. debtor's expensive *2338 reduces total satisfy creditors' claims, contrary enacting What unclear, anomaly essential minutes taxed, seconds not." 43. After interpreting lead result. And asserts, "absurd" aim evidenced legislative historyof reducing cost vein, solely undermine 11's twin objectives "preserving concerns maximizing Bank America Nat. Trust Sav. Assn. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 434, 453, 119 1411, 143 607 (1999). obtain maximum assetsespecially rapidly declining valuePiccadilly often close formal Summit obliges construe narrowly. effort evade falls short mark exactly counsels against. recognized "`recogniz[ing] expressed'"namely, 2228 added); Swarts Hammer, 194 441, 444, 24 695, 48 1060 (1904) (reasoning endeavored local taxation, intention expressed, left collected inferred disputable considerations convenience administering estate bankrupt"). Indeed, proves resting entire premise expressed language. Therefore, far inapposite, decisive case. inapposite. construed," preference-granting mention preferences. "liberally" serve ostensibly "remedial" purpose. Based "remedial statute," stretch disallowance bear. below, offers 1952 Shipping Commissioners Act 1872. (citing Isbrandtsen, 1011). scheme "`designed secure comfort health seamen aboard ship, hospitalization home care abroad,'" 784, 1011 Aguilar Standard Oil N. J., 318 724, 728, 63 930, 87 1107 (1943)), Codeand particularis *2339 sense. contrary, notion single purpose Toibb Radloff, 501 157, 163, 111 2197, 145 (1991). strikes balance interest reorganizing restructuring debts estate. accommodates interests regulating "`generally [leaving] determination rights bankrupt's law.'" Travelers Casualty Surety Pacific Gas Elec. 549 127 1199, 1205, 167 178 (2007). Such coincide, case, therefore decline detriment State. allow exempting others moments later amount policy, reiterate "`it our legislation passed Congress.'" 256. That said, absurdity setting simple, bright-line rule instead complex, after-the-fact inquiry envisions. At bottom, summation 1146(a): struck reasonable balance. able develop then afforded implementation reaches point, systems subjected interference." 458. Lastly, extent "practical realities" reorganizations increasingly rendering past, 1304, incumbent Legislature, Judiciary, determine revision. Ali Federal Bureau Prisons, 831, 841, 680 ("We liberty rewrite reflect deem desirable"). III conclusion: Court, rely avoid taxes. Accordingly, below remand proceedings opinion. ordered. BREYER, whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, dissenting. "transfer" Supp (previously 1146(c)) assets. title" (i.e., Judge formally approve plan) *2340 took place. (detailing requirements plan). Hence ask matters. Do title"? Or, subsequently my "confirmed." word, majority believes (pre- post-transfer) judge believe (And construing simply "is" fewer Court's construction, reads "that been" confirmed, ante, 2339.) perfectly point. Linguistically speaking, difficult instances restrict application (C.A.11 2007) curiam) ("[T]he plausibly describing regardless restriction occur" original)). Cf. 252-253 2003) (majority Alito, J.) "plausible interpretation"); (Wilkinson, concurring part judgment) ("equally possible `under'i.e., inferior subordinate to`a plan' `confirmed'"). 2332-2333 "clearly natural"). text-based direction other. majority, methodically combing textualist beaches, finds comparison somewhat sheds light. hand, thought mattered, done Code? 1127(b) (plan confirmation" added)); ("at 1114(e)(2) ("before effective" added)). matter, MATTERS"? U.S.C., ch. subch. III. yet argue "postconfirmation matters" trigger *2341 matter," occurs.) offer help. seems agree. rests interpretive statement "must proceed expressed." 2338. here, interpret how prove determinative? ("The tax" Neither protesting seem plausible. 32-33 "additional complexities will proliferate" lower court's decision). transferees file pre-existing payment transferee not-yet-confirmed pay refund? (If other, less curable, problem, explained is.) Given difficulties, suspect majority's Summit's "canon," 2336-2337, reflects proverbial port" storm. absence answer canons, despair. Consistent precedent, question: Why insisted limits? might serve? Dolan Postal 546 481, 486, 1252, 163 1079 ("Interpretation depends whole statute, consulting precedents authorities inform analysis" Robinson Shell 519 337, 346, 117 843, 136 808 (1997) (the statute's based consideration "primary purpose" fact, serves congressional all. apparent basic objectives: (1) concerns" (2) "maximizing (Chapter "embodies general [Bankruptcy] estate"). important treatise notes, addition relief, encourage sales." 8 Collier ¶ 1146.02, p. 1146-3 (15th rev.2005). furthers where, turning over (for *2342 reorganization) funds otherwise go plan-related requirement take judge's assurance meets creditor laid How objectives? way. From perspective purposes, difference puts hands money assures legitimacy (from law's perspective) Moreover, major time. Administrative recently reported, continue years." Basics (Apr. 2006), online http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/bankruptcybasics/chapter11.html (as visited 2008, Clerk file). Accord, 306, 320 (Bkrtcy.D.Del.2000) run year two"). firm assets) (say, concern) quickly. acknowledged, "there advantageous begin quickly insure lose value." 224 (S.D.Fla.2006) quotations alteration Webster Classic Auctions, 216, 219 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla.2004) inestimable benefit piece opportune timewhether pre- postconfirmationas opposed requiring concerned wait receive obviously intended"); Medical Software Solutions, 286 431, 441 (Bkrtcy.D.Utah 2002) (approving recognizing assets' "value rapidly" narrow window viable assets). immediate remaining Stamp reduce legitimate purposes. insofar available, inhibits efforts achieve objectives. Worse potential loss threatens delay implementing sell, reorganized enterprise) suffer serious harm. extra revenues speedy produce. Met-L-Wood Corp., 861 1012, 1017 (C.A.7 1988) suppliers customers "shy away," owners "can continue" operate "free stigma uncertainty bankruptcy"). selling strategic negotiation, realized million, considerably $54 million originally offered *2343 bankruptcy. along finding "sound reasons" prompt expeditious [Piccadilly] interest," 32a, suggest waited plan's execute conceivable silently writing consequences? none. says result "`absurd'" advantages "bright-line rule." Ante, 2339. absurd dispute rule. think supplies enough ruletransfers preferred (that exempt), conflicts course, "`"our policy"'" enacted. 2339 certainly created, inheres "Statutory game blind man's bluff. Judges free purposes." Dole Food Patrickson, 538 468, 484, 123 1655, 155 643 (2003) (BREYER, dissenting part). failure work tool led runs hoped expected. reasons, respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] When litigation courts, contained 1146(c) ed.). 2005, repealed subsections (a) (b), recodified Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection 719(b)(3), 133. simplicity, cite currently codified. [2] ordinarily culminate sells receiving scenario, typically submits liquidation (rather traditional resulting Here, concern. central liquidations (covered 7), contemplates liquidations. 1129(a)(11) ed.) ("Confirmation likely followed liquidation, successor unless [3] Also meritless words, 365." 39. lease, throughout 365. By contrast, reference 365(d)(2), (and not,

Category: 7