US Outbound: US Supreme Court holds UK windfall tax creditable

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement


US Outbound: US Supreme Court holds UK windfall tax creditable

foley.jpg

mcgrew.jpg

Sean Foley


Landon McGrew

The US Supreme Court recently held that a one-time UK windfall tax that was imposed on 32 privatised UK companies was a creditable income tax for purposes of the US foreign tax credit rules (PPL Corporation v. Commissioner, 133 S. Ct. 1897). The Court's unanimous decision resolved a split between the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which had held the windfall tax not creditable) and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which had held that the tax was a creditable tax). Though the Court's ruling applies to only a very limited number of taxpayers, its analysis could prove helpful in determining whether other types of foreign taxes are creditable.

The UK windfall tax was enacted by the newly elected Labour government in 1997. It was imposed on 32 UK companies that had been privatised by the Conservative government between 1984 and 1996. As part of the privatisation, some of the companies were required to continue providing services to customers at a fixed rate for an initial period of four to five years. During this period, many of the companies became more efficient and earned substantial profits (as rates charged to customers were prohibited from being reduced). The windfall tax was designed as a 23% tax on the difference between what the Labour Government believed the privatisation value should have been (given what it viewed as excess profits) and the lower value at which the shares were actually issued.

PPL Corporation, a US corporation, indirectly owned 25% of the stock of Southwestern Electricity plc, a UK company that was privatised in 1990. Southwestern Electricity paid the UK windfall tax in 1997, and PPL claimed a foreign tax credit for its share of the tax on its 1997 US tax return. PPL's foreign tax credit claim was rejected by the Internal Revenue Service of the US federal government on the basis that the windfall tax was a tax on the excess value of the privatised stock, and not a tax on excess profits.

Under the US foreign tax credit rules, a foreign tax is only creditable against US income tax if its predominant character is that of an income tax in the US sense. The foreign tax credit regulations clarify that a foreign tax's predominant character is considered to be that of a US income tax if the foreign tax is likely to reach net gain in the normal circumstances in which it applies. The regulations further provide that the net gain standard is satisfied only if it satisfies each of a realisation, gross receipts, and net income requirement.

In its opinion, the US Supreme Court noted that the way a foreign government characterises its tax is not dispositive. Rather, the Court must look to whether the economic effect of the tax is that of an income tax. Accordingly, the fact the UK government characterised the windfall tax as a tax on value did not prevent the Court from determining that it was actually a tax on profits.

The Court went on to algebraically rearrange the windfall tax calculation to show that it actually imposed a 51.71% tax rate on excess profits. Based on this algebraic rearrangement, the Court concluded that the predominant character of windfall tax was that of an income tax within the meaning of the foreign tax credit rules and therefore creditable.

While the Court's opinion is limited to the handful of US taxpayers holding stock of UK subsidiaries subject to the windfall tax, other US taxpayers would be well-advised to consider the Court's ruling when determining whether other types of foreign taxes (especially those that may not on their face appear to be an income tax) are eligible for a foreign tax credit.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.

This article represents the views of the authors only, and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Sean Foley (sffoley@kpmg.com) and Landon McGrew (lmcgrew@kpmg.com)

KPMG, Washington, DC

Tel: +1 202 533 5588

Fax: +1 202 315 3087

Website: www.us.kpmg.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Originators, loan purchasers and securitisation vehicles may need to revisit servicing agreements and pricing after a key judgment narrowed the VAT credit management exemption
Opening doors for existing talent within Baker McKenzie and a desire for enhanced legal capabilities informed Ricardo Perera’s switch from KPMG
Boaz Goren’s move to the upstart PE-backed firm takes the number of senior UK tax professionals who have left EY this year to 13
The allegations against Deloitte Cyprus raise uncomfortable questions about how far the big four can distance themselves from misconduct at member firms
Gift this article