Transfer Pricing Resource Archives - Page 6 of 14

Transfer Pricing Resource

World Taxing Authorities Prepare to Attack

by McDermott Will & Emery and Kevin Spencer | Aug 17, 2016 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Global tax policy has evolved dramatically, with multinational corporations coming under attack from all directions. To respond to budget deficits and economic austerity, worldwide taxing authorities are deploying a new weapon: information exchange. As multinational corporations struggle to remain compliant and competitive in a world where effective tax rate management can be a critical element of cost control, what does this evolution mean for your business?

To find out, read the full article here.

Inversions and Debt/Equity Regulations Top Treasury’s 2016–2017 Priority Guidance Plan

by Kevin Spencer | Aug 16, 2016 | Appellate Courts, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Yesterday, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released the 2016–2017 Priority Guidance Plan (Plan) containing 281 projects that are priorities for Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the period July 2016 through June 2017. The Plan contains several categories of topics, starting with consolidated returns and ending with tax-exempt bonds. The Plan also contains an appendix that lists more routine guidance that is generally published each year. Treasury and the IRS will update and republish the plan during the next 12 months to reflect additional items that have become priorities and guidance that has been published during the year. The public is invited to continue to provide comments and suggestions as guidance is written throughout the year. (more…)

Facebook Battles IRS In Summons Enforcement Case

by Jean A. Pawlow and Kevin Spencer | Aug 12, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Audits, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Facebook is in a protracted battle with the IRS related to its off-shoring of IP to an Irish affiliate. Read more here. The IRS issued an administrative summons for the documents, and Facebook has refused to comply with the summons. The IRS is asking the court to enforce the summons and force Facebook to turn over the requested documents. The court agreed that on its face, the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. Facebook will now have to tell the court why it refuses to turn over the documents. Review the court order here. Assumedly, Facebook is asserting that it is not required to disclose the requested materials based upon a claim of privilege. The case demonstrates that the IRS is aggressively seeking documents and information from taxpayers and their representatives in cases involving international tax issues.

Treasury to Publish Proposed Regulations Regarding Valuing Interests in Corporations and Partnerships for Gift and Estate Tax Purposes

by Elise J. McGee | Aug 4, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

The IRS has just proposed regulations regarding the valuation of interests in corporations and partnerships for federal transfer tax purposes. The regulations address lapsing rights and restrictions on liquidation in an effort to prevent individuals from undervaluing transferred interests. A pdf of the proposed regulations is available here.

We will be commenting on the broader impact of the regulations over the next few weeks.

Law School Professors File Amicus Briefs in Support of Commissioner’s Position in Altera

by Roger J. Jones | Aug 3, 2016 | Appellate Courts, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Two groups of law school professors have filed amicus briefs with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of the government’s position in Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, Dkt Nos. 16-70496, 16-70497. Read more on the appeal of Altera here and the US Supreme Court’s opinion addressing interplay between the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedural compliance and Chevron deference here. Each group argues that Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7 represents a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s authority to issue regulations under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 482 and that the US Tax Court (Tax Court) erred in finding the regulation to be invalid under section 706 of the APA.

One group of six professors (Harvey Group) first notes its agreement with the arguments advanced by the government in its opening brief. In particular, the Harvey Group concurs with the argument that “coordinating amendments promulgated with Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(d)(2) vitiate the Tax Court’s analysis in Xilinx that the cost-sharing regulation conflicts with the arm’s-length standard.” It then goes on to note its agreement with the government’s argument that “the ‘commensurate with the income’ standard … contemplates a purely internal approach to allocating income from intangibles to related parties.”

Having thus supported the government’s commensurate-with income-based arguments, the Harvey Group argues that the regulation in question is, in any event, consistent with the general arm’s-length standard of Code Section 482. It does so based principally on the proposition that “[s]tock-based compensation costs are real costs, and no profit-maximizing economic actor would ignore them.” However, that said, “there are material differences between controlled and uncontrolled parties’ attitudes, motivations and behaviors regarding stock-based compensation.” Thus, according to the Harvey Group, the Tax Court erred when it concluded that “Treasury necessarily decided an empirical question when it concluded that the final rule was consistent with the arm’s-length standard,” because “[n]o empirical finding that uncontrolled parties do, or might, share stock-based compensation costs is required to support Treasury’s regulation.” Accordingly, the Tax Court’s reliance on State Farm and the cases following it was a “key misstep” by the Tax Court.

The Harvey Group also proposes that, should the Ninth Circuit find that the term “arm’s length standard” or the meaning of the “coordinating regulations” is ambiguous, the government’s interpretation embodied in Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7 should be afforded Auer deference. Read more on deference principles in tax cases and the unique challenges of Auer deference. Auer deference is a special level of deference that can apply when an agency interprets its own regulations, although there are several limitations on its use. Finally, if the Ninth Circuit decides that the regulations “have an infirmity,” the Harvey Group argues that “[t]he best remedy is to remand to Treasury for further consideration.”

A second group of nineteen professors (Alstott Group) similarly agrees with the government’s arguments to the Ninth Circuit. The Alstott Group argues that the 1986 addition of the “commensurate with income” standard [...]

Continue Reading

Protecting Confidential Taxpayer Information in Tax Court

by McDermott Will & Emery, Jeffrey M. Glassman and Kevin Spencer | Jul 21, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Privilege and Non-Disclosure, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

Taxpayers value confidentiality, particularly if there is a dispute with the IRS that involves highly-sensitive trade secrets or other confidential information. Not surprisingly, complex tax litigation often raises the question of what confidential information has to be “made public”—through discovery responses or the introduction of exhibits or testimony in a deposition or at trial—so that a taxpayer can dispute IRS adjustments in court if administrative efforts to resolve the case are not successful. Fortunately, the Tax Court tends to protect highly-sensitive trade secrets or other confidential information from public disclosure even when the judge must review the information to decide the case.

In the Tax Court, the general rule is that all evidence received by the Tax Court, including transcripts of hearings, are public records and available for public inspection. See Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7461(a). Code Section 7458 also provides that “[h]earings before the Tax Court . . . shall be open to the public.” Code Section 7461(b), however, provides several important exceptions. First, the court is afforded the flexibility to take any action “which is necessary to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information, including [placing items] under seal to be opened only as directed by the court.” Second, after a decision of the court becomes final, the court may, upon a party’s motion, allow a party to withdraw the original records and other materials introduced into evidence. In our experience, the trend appears to be erring on the side of protecting information from disclosure.

(more…)

Tax Court Issues Five Discovery Orders Addressing Admissibility of Expert Reports

by Jeffrey M. Glassman and McDermott Will & Emery | Jul 20, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On July 13, 14, and 15, 2016, Judge Laro of the US Tax Court (Tax Court) ruled on five taxpayer-filed motions in limine to exclude expert reports in Guidant LLC f.k.a. Guidant Corporation, and Subsidiaries, et al. v. Commissioner. At issue in the case are a number of IRS transfer pricing adjustments to the taxpayer-corporation’s income under Section 482.

In support of its adjustments, the IRS offered numerous expert reports to the Tax Court, and the taxpayer sought to exclude these reports. The taxpayer raised the following major arguments:

Argument: The IRS expert reports failed to contain opinions.

The taxpayer argued that three of the reports should be excluded because they did not comply with Tax Court Rule 143(g)(1), which requires that expert witnesses generally prepare written reports, and requires that expert reports include “a complete statement of all opinions the witness expresses and the basis and reasons for them.” In federal district court practice (under somewhat different rules), this requirement generally means that an expert must separately state, and clearly delineate, his or her expert opinions in a written report—usually in a “conclusions” or “opinions” section. In Tax Court, the requirement for a clear and concise written expert report is even more significant than in federal district court practice because, under Rule 143(g)(1), expert reports are treated as direct testimony of the expert (although, in many cases, additional expert testimony and cross-examination may be helpful or necessary).

(more…)

IRS Finalizes Controversial Regulations Allowing Contractor Participation in Examinations

by Kevin Spencer and McDermott Will & Emery | Jul 14, 2016 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On July 12, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finalized regulations allowing third-party contractors (i.e., outside economists, engineers, consultants and attorneys) to participate in audits of taxpayers. The regulations are not limited to allowing outside parties to review taxpayers’ books and records, but extend to the full participation in summons interviews. The final regulations replace proposed and temporary regulations issued in 2014.

The IRS’s position is highly controversial and several organizations submitted comments arguing against finalization of the regulations. Additionally, the IRS’s position was the subject of a dispute between Microsoft and the IRS relating to the IRS’s use of the law firm of Quinn Emmanuel in an audit of Microsoft’s transfer pricing. It appears highly likely that taxpayers will challenge the validity of the final regulations in court, and at some point a court will be required to decide the issue. In the wake of the final regulations, taxpayers that are currently under audit should consider requesting that the IRS provide a list of all third-parties, including outside contractors that are being consulted with during an examination. It is a good practice to request in writing a list of the third-parties that the IRS contacts during the course of an examination.

IRS Updates List of Items Requiring National Office Review

by McDermott Will & Emery and Jeffrey M. Glassman | Jul 7, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On June 30, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Chief Counsel Notice 2016-009, which can be found here. In the notice, the IRS updated the list of issues that require IRS National Office review (the List). The List indicates those issues or matters raised by IRS field examiners that must be coordinated with the appropriate IRS Associate office.

There are several new items on the List. Notably, corporate formations with repatriation transactions, certain spin-off transactions and transactions that may implicate Treasury Regulation § 1.701-2 partnership anti-abuse rules are now also included. Debt-equity issues pursuant to Section 385 continue to be on the List.

In addition, now included are issues designated for litigation and issues that for technical tax reasons will not be referred to the IRS Office of Appeals under Revenue Procedure 2016-22, Section 3.03 (also relating to issues designated for litigation). We discussed Revenue Procedure 2016-22 in a recent posting. (more…)

IRS Issues IPU on Corporate Inversions

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jul 7, 2016 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On June 7, 2016 , the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released an LB&I International Practice Unit (IPU), providing high-level guidance to IRS field examiners on the application of the anti-inversion rules of Internal Revenue Code section 7874 and certain of the regulations and notices issued thereunder (see here). The IPU notes that it is meant to provide only high-level conceptual guidance, and that many aspects of the highly complex notices and regulations recently issued in this area are beyond the scope of the IPU. Some of these issues will be addressed in future IPUs.

This high-level guidance to field examiners signals the IRS’s continued focus on international tax issues.