TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Results for "practice unit"
Subscribe to Results for "practice unit"'s Posts

IRS Issues Practice Unit on Section 965 Transition Tax

by and | Mar 24, 2021 | , ,

One of the most pressing audit issues for large taxpayers today centers on the Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 965 transition tax. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has designated Code Section 965 as a campaign issue and is actively auditing taxpayers’ transition tax calculations and positions, along with other tax reform items. The stakes are high, particularly given the potential to pay this tax over a period of eight years.

On March 23, 2021, the IRS released a Practice Unit that provides an overview of the Code Section 965 transition tax with references to relevant resources. Unfortunately, unlike some other Practice Units, guidance is not provided as to the type of information revenue agents should be requesting from taxpayers.

Practice Point: Practice Units are presentation-type materials compiled by the IRS as a means for collaborating and sharing knowledge among IRS employees. They provide helpful guidance to revenue agents in the form of an overview of the law in a specific area, examination tips and guidance and references to relevant resources. Although the Code Section 965 transition tax Practice Unit does not provide insights into the types of questions and information that revenue agents may seek on audit, it is still useful for taxpayers to review to understand the IRS’s perspective in this area.



read more

IRS Releases Practice Units on Permanent Establishments

by and | Jan 31, 2019 | , ,

On January 29 and 30, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service’s Large Business and International (LB&I) division released new Practice Units on Permanent Establishments, which can be found here and here. Permanent Establishments create taxing nexus for foreign businesses doing business in the United States and for those who have “effectively connected income.” The Practice Units provide the IRS’s LB&I audit teams with a general guide on the tax concepts related to permanent establishments. The Practice Units provide examples of the analysis necessary to determine whether a foreign company has a permanent establishment, for example, as a result of its agent concluding contracts on its behalf in the United States. Additionally, the Practice Unit on treaty exemptions describes whether an activity has a preparatory or auxiliary character for purposes of determining whether a foreign enterprise has a US permanent establishment. LB&I auditors will use the Practice Units as tools to help analyze whether a US permanent establishment exists and an income tax adjustment is necessary.

Practice Point: If you have potential PE issues, it is a good idea to look at what your auditors are looking at. The Practice Units are helpful to understand the perspective of IRS auditors on these issues, the types of questions they are likely to ask and the information that they will request.



read more

IRS Releases Practice Unit on Examining Transaction Costs

by | Jul 24, 2018 | , ,

On July 18, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a Practice Unit advising IRS agents on the framework to follow in analyzing the tax treatment of transaction costs incurred by taxpayers in executing business practices. The latest Practice Unit provides guidance to IRS examiners in determining whether transaction costs must be capitalized or can be immediately deducted, and focuses on the so-called INDOPCO regulations contained in Treasury Regulation § 1.263-5. (For more information and background, see here.)

According to the Practice Unit, there is a three-step process applied to analyze a transaction costs issue:

  1. Determine whether the taxpayer is the proper legal entity to take the transaction costs into account for tax purposes;
  2. Determine whether the costs facilitate the transaction; and
  3. Determine how the taxpayer should treat facilitative costs it must capitalize.

The key considerations and outcomes for each step are illustrated in the Practice Unit as follows:

Practice Point: Determining whether transaction costs must be capitalized or can be deducted is sometimes a difficult process. The IRS has attempted to create bright-line rules in this area, but invariably there are factual situations not covered by the INDOPCO regulations and disputes that may arise. Understanding the IRS’s approach to examining transaction costs, as set forth in this Practice Unit, may assist taxpayers under examination in resolving these types of issues.



read more

IRS Releases Practice Unit on Statutes of Limitation

by and | Apr 13, 2018 | ,

The expiration of the time for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess tax can bring closure on prior tax and financial reporting positions for taxpayers. We have previously reported and written for the International Tax Journal about tax statutes of limitation both generally and in the international tax context. As a follow-up to those materials, we wanted to alert you that the IRS recently released a Practice Unit providing an overview of statutes of limitation on the assessment of tax. These materials are all good resources and starting points for taxpayers and practitioners with questions on statutes of limitation.



read more

IRS Releases Two International Practice Units on APAs for Inbound and Outbound Tangible Goods Transactions

by | Nov 7, 2017 | , , ,

On November 6, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released two new International Practice Units (IPUs) relating to Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) for inbound and outbound tangible goods transactions. The IPUs provide a summary of the APA process, the types of APAs, and the interpretation and impact of an APA. The IPUs focus on the APA analysis for inbound distributors and outbound distributors. As we have previously noted, this high-level guidance to field examiners signals the IRS’s continued focus on international tax issues.



read more

International Practice Units – Competent Authority

by | Oct 10, 2017 | ,

In recent months, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has issued a variety of international tax practice “units” as part of its process to improve tax compliance from identified groups of business taxpayers. The overall process also includes short descriptions of respective “campaigns” and briefly describes the agency’s designated, tailored treatment or treatments for each campaign.

Most recently, it issued a unit on the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), commonly referred to as the Competent Authority Process under bilateral tax treaties (Doc Control No. ISO/P/01_07_03-01). The purpose of the unit is to provide IRS examiners (for the most part, the unit does not address foreign-initiated adjustments) with clear guidance on their responsibility in situations where proposed adjustments will be made in a context in which the taxpayer could potentially face double taxation, consistent with the most recent revenue procedure (Rev. Proc.) 2015-40. The unit also provides a helpful checklist for taxpayers in such situations.

The unit amplifies the guidance in Rev. Proc. 2015-40 with respect to both issues arising in Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (APMA) and Treaty Assistance and Interpretation Team (TAIT) (for non-transfer pricing issues). The discussion is consistent with current practice. Critical issues addressed include the following. (more…)



read more

IRS Practice Unit Advises Examiners to Use Aggregate Approach in Valuing Outbound Transfers

by and | Jan 12, 2017 | ,

On January 4, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a new “International Practice Unit” (IPU) on the value of intangibles in IRC Section 367(d) transactions in conjunction with cost sharing arrangements (CSA). See IPU here. The IPU notes that transferring highly valuable intangibles offshore has become a routine tax strategy for reducing a company’s effective tax rate for financial statement and tax purposes.

Typically, questions concerning the value of intangibles arise where a US taxpayer enters into a CSA with a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) in a low or no tax jurisdiction, and contributes resources, rights and capabilities (which may include IRC Section 936(h)(3)(B) intangibles) to the CSA. An arm’s length payment to the US taxpayer is then required for the contribution. Simultaneously with, or shortly before entering into a CSA, the US taxpayer transfers certain intangible property to the CFC in an IRC Section 351 or 361 transaction, which is taxable under IRC Section 367(d). Again, there is an arm’s length charge for the use of that intangible property.

Oftentimes in these transactions, the US taxpayer values the intangibles transferred in the IRC Section 367(d) transfer separately from the platform contributions, even though, the IRS says, the intangibles conveyed in both transactions will be exploited on a combined basis. Based on the aggregation principles in the IRC Section 482 regulations, the IPU warns that a non-aggregate approach may not provide an arm’s length result. Moreover, despite taxpayer arguments to the contrary, the IPU maintains that the scope of intangible property for purposes of IRC Section 367(d) is just as broad as the scope of platform contributions.

Practice Point: The IPU is a good source of information of what the IRS’s examination division will consider when auditing an outbound transfer of intangible rights for use in a CSA. If you have or intend to engage in such a transaction, you should study the IPU to ensure that you have adequately documented the arm’s length payments for the transfer.



read more

IRS Releases Practice Unit on Residual Profit Split Method

by and | May 6, 2016 | , ,

On March 7, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a new International Practice Unit (IPU) on a specific transfer pricing method—the residual profit split method (RPSM).  The IPU explains to IRS examiners how to determine if the RPSM is the “best method” under Section 482, and if so, how to apply such method between a US parent and its controlled foreign corporation in a transaction where intangible property is employed.  As stated in a previous post, IPUs generally identify strategic areas of importance to the IRS but they are not official pronouncements of law or directives and cannot be used, cited or relied upon as such.  However, taxpayers should benefit from reviewing IPUs, as they reflect the current thinking of the IRS on pertinent issues, and therefore allow taxpayers to structure and document their transfer pricing arrangements in a manner that is consistent with such thinking, as noted in a prior post available here.

Section 482 was designed to prevent the improper shifting or distorting of the true taxable income of related enterprises.  Section 482 accomplishes this by requiring that all transactions between related enterprises must satisfy the arm’s length standard.  That is, the terms of intercompany transactions generally must reflect the same pricing that would have occurred if the parties had been uncontrolled taxpayers engaged in the same transaction under the same circumstances.  One of several possible transfer pricing methods for determining whether a transaction meets the arm’s length standard is the profit split method.  One specific application of the profit split method is the RPSM.  This IPU focuses on the application of the RPSM as it applies to outbound transactions involving intangible property.

The IPU outlines four steps for IRS examiners to follow in determining whether the RPSM is the best method to evaluate a controlled transaction and if so, how to apply the RPSM to that particular transaction.

  1. Identify the routine and nonroutine contributions made by the parties. The IPU cautions that if there are no nonroutine contributions, or if only one controlled taxpayer is making nonroutine contributions (most commonly of intangibles), then the RPSM should not be used.  The IPU provides three examples of when the RPSM may be used:  (a) a tangible goods sale if the seller uses nonroutine manufacturing intangibles to make the goods, and another controlled party purchases and resells the goods using its nonroutine marketing intangibles; (b) a licensing transaction where one controlled party licenses nonroutine manufacturing intangibles to a second controlled party, who then manufactures goods using those manufacturing intangibles and sells the goods using its own nonroutine marketing intangibles; and (c) a commercial sale of software product, if two controlled parties each contribute nonroutine software intangibles to manufacture the product, and the controlled parties share the revenue from the sales.
  1. Determine if the RPSM is the best method. The RPSM is the best method only if it provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result.  The IPU cautions that the RPSM should [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

IRS Releases Practice Unit on Allocation of Interest Expense

by and | Mar 21, 2016 | , ,

On February 19, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a 30-plus-page practice unit regarding interest expense of a foreign corporation engaged in a U.S. trade or business. As is the case with all practice units, the IRS cautions that practice units are not official pronouncements of law or directives and cannot be used, cited or relied upon as such.  Even so, the IRS generally acknowledges that practice units provide a general discussion of a concept, process or transaction. This can be helpful from a taxpayer’s perspective. This is especially true for interest expense allocation calculations under Treasury Regulation § 1.882-5, one of the more complicated calculations for taxpayers to make.

The practice unit begins with a graph that illustrates possible circumstances where the interest expense allocation process described in the practice unit can apply. The practice unit then breaks down the four steps for determining interest expense allocations.  The four steps are:

  1. Determine the amount of U.S. assets.
  2. Determine the amount of U.S. booked liabilities.
  3. Determine what elections the taxpayer has made to compute the interest expense deduction.
  4. Calculate the allocable interest expense to the U.S. trade or business.

(more…)



read more

Introducing McDermott’s Blog Series on LB&I’s International Practice Units

by | Mar 9, 2016 | , ,

As part of an overall strategy and reorganization to utilize resources more efficiently, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s) Large Business and International (LB&I) Division has developed a series of International Practice Units.  These Practice Units typically consist of a set of slides explaining how agents in the field should approach a particular issue of interest in international tax or transfer pricing. A complete list of these Practice Units can be found here.

The IRS intends the Practice Units to serve as “job aids and training materials” and as “a means for collaborating and sharing knowledge among IRS employees.” The first group was published at the end of 2014, and the IRS has steadily released new Practice Units ever since.  Presently, the IRS has published over 100 practice units on a wide range of international topics.

Practice Units provide general explanations of international tax concepts, as well as information about specific types of transactions.  Practice Units are not official pronouncements of law, and cannot be used, cited or relied upon for support.  Nonetheless, they provide taxpayers with a window into the IRS’s current thinking about these issues.  Moreover, Practice Units may be helpful to anticipate the IRS’s approach relating to specific international issues.  Over the next few months, Tax Controversy 360 will unveil a series of posts highlighting individual Practice Units of special interest—please stay tuned!



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge