Transfer Pricing Resource Archives - Page 8 of 14

Transfer Pricing Resource

3M Company, IRS File Opening Briefs in “Blocked Income” Case

by Roger J. Jones | Apr 18, 2016 | Appellate Courts, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

As noted in an earlier post, 3M Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5816-13, involves 3M’s challenge to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s) determination that Brazilian legal restrictions on the payment of royalties from a subsidiary in that country to its US parent should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s-length royalty between 3M and its subsidiary under Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2). The case has been submitted fully stipulated under Tax Court Rule 122, and the parties’ simultaneous opening briefs were filed on March 21, 2016.

Citing First Sec. Bank of Utah and cases following it, 3M first argues that “[c]ase law consistently holds that the Commissioner cannot employ section 482 to allocate income that the taxpayer has not received and cannot receive because a law prevents its payment or receipt.” Under this line of authority the IRS’s proposed allocation of royalty income to 3M is precluded by Brazilian law. This result is not changed by Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2) because that regulation is invalid.

The regulation is “procedurally invalid,” 3M argues, because Treasury and the IRS failed to satisfy the requirements of § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when they promulgated the regulation. They did not respond to significant comments criticizing the proposed regulation; nor did they articulate a satisfactory justification or explanation for the regulation. They thus did not engage in the “reasoned decisionmaking” required by the APA and case law such as State Farm and Altera when an agency issues regulations. (more…)

Subpart F: When Does a CFC Receive Substantial Assistance in Performing Services?

by Lowell D. Yoder | Apr 14, 2016 | Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Income derived by a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) from performing services for an unrelated customer generally is not Subpart F income. However, if U.S. related persons furnish substantial assistance contributing to the performance of the services, under regulations, the CFC will be deemed to perform the services for a related person. In such case, the services income would be Subpart F income to the extent attributable to services performed outside the CFC’s country of organization.

Read the full article.

Tax Court Rules Whether IRS’s Transfer Pricing Adjustments Are Arbitrary, Capricious Depends on Facts and Circumstances

by Roger J. Jones | Apr 13, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

In Guidant LLC f.k.a. Guidant Corporation, and Subsidiaries, et al. v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 5 (Feb. 29, 2016), the taxpayer filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment on the ground that the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s) transfer pricing adjustments were “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” as a matter of law. Judge David Laro denied the motion, ruling that “whether the Commissioner abused his discretion … depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” The taxpayer’s motion thus presented “a question of fact that should be resolved on the basis of the trial record.”

The case involves transfer pricing adjustments under Section 482 that increased the income of Guidant Corporation and its U.S. subsidiaries by nearly $3.5 billion. Section 482 grants the IRS broad discretion to “distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances” between or among controlled enterprises if it determines that such a re-allocation is “necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income” of any of the enterprises. A taxpayer that challenges a Section 482 adjustment has a “dual burden.” First, it must show that the IRS’s adjustments are “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.” The taxpayer must then show that its intercompany transactions reflect arm’s-length dealing. (more…)

IRS Release IPU Materials on Transfer Pricing

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 11, 2016 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

As we noted in our initial post, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began publishing job aids and training materials developed by its International Practice Units (IPUs). On April 6, 2016, the IRS released another IPU on section 482, available here. The most recent IPU covers the three requirements under section 482: (1) two or more organizations, trades or business; (2) common ownership or control (direct or indirect) of the entities; and (3) the determination that an allocation is necessary either to prevent evasion of taxes, or to clearly reflect the income of any of the entities.

The most recent IPU takes a broad view of the application of section 482 and looks at the substance of transactions. Regarding the first requirement, the IPU instructs examiners that organizations can include almost any type of entity and that a trade or business means a trade or business activity of any kind, regardless of place of organization, formal organization, type of ownership (individual or otherwise) and place of operation. On the common control requirement, the IPU emphasizes that the form of control is not decisive and that the reality of control governs. It also notes the presumption of control if income or deductions are arbitrarily shifted. Finally, the reallocation to clearly reflect income requirement notes that an IRS allocation will be upheld unless the taxpayer can provide that the IRS determination was arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, the IPU provides examples of circumstances that indicate the presence of arbitrary shifting of income, including when the net income of the foreign affiliate is high compared to the net income reported by the US company. Of course, it may be appropriate for the foreign affiliate to have higher net income.

The IPU contains instructions on initial factual development of the requirements and provides references to resources that an agent should consult, including internal IRS resources, IRS guidance and case law. It also identifies the types of documents that should be requested and reviewed during the examination.

As demonstrated by the large number of high-profile transfer pricing disputes currently pending in the courts, the IRS is taking a strong stance on the application of section 482. Moreover, as demonstrated by this IPU, the IRS wants examining agents to be aggressive in identifying circumstances where there may be noncompliance with section 482. Taxpayers with transfer pricing issues may benefit from reviewing all IPUs on section 482, both in documenting their transfer pricing activities and upon commencement of an examination to ensure that they have the documentation that the IRS will request.

Preparing for Country-by-Country Reporting in 2016

by Kevin Spencer | Mar 30, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Country-by Country (CbC) reporting is on the horizon for large US multi-national enterprises (MNE). As part of the broader Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) project undertaken by the Group of 20 (G20) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States will soon require the parent entity of large US MNE groups to file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a new annual report that requires information regarding income earned and taxes paid by the group on a country-by-country basis. The new reporting requirements would generally apply to US MNE groups with annual revenues of $850 million or more.

Late last December, Treasury published proposed regulations detailing the future reporting process. Recently, Robert Stack, Treasury deputy assistant secretary (international tax affairs) indicated that Treasury anticipates issuing final regulations by June 30, 2016, which would be effective for US MNEs with tax years beginning after that date. (Stack’s comments are available at Tax Notes, here and here.) Because the US reporting requirements will go into effect in the middle of 2016, some US MNE groups have expressed concern that other tax jurisdictions may require subsidiaries to file CbC reports.

Both Treasury and the IRS believe that CbC reporting will assist in better enforcement of the US tax laws, though there is some concern that information collected may be too readily shared with other tax jurisdictions that may not safeguard such information as carefully as the United States. Indeed, the Preamble to the new CbC reporting regulations states that CbC reports filed with the IRS may be exchanged with other reciprocating tax jurisdictions in which the US MNE group has operations, and Treasury expects that the competent authority will enter into competent authority agreements for the automatic exchange of CbC reports under the authority of information agreements to which the US is a party. The Preamble also provides that information exchanged may not be disclosed or used for non-tax purposes.

Mr. Stack recently affirmed the priority of the confidentiality of information gathered through CbC reporting, stating that the United States would have the right to stop sharing information if the other tax jurisdiction were to disclose it. The issue of confidentiality of CbC reporting was recently highlighted by efforts in the European Union to provide for the public disclosure of CbC reporting.

IRS and Taxpayers Continue Fight over Regulations Intended to Overrule Judicial Precedent

by McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 15, 2016 | Appellate Courts, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

In March 2013, 3M filed a petition with the US Tax Court challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) determination that additional royalty income should be allocated to 3M’s US headquarters from its Brazilian subsidiary. See 3M Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5186-13. Specifically, the IRS determined that Brazilian legal restrictions on the payment of royalties to the US parent should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s-length price between 3M and the subsidiary under Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2). 3M’s position will require the Tax Court to revisit its earlier, pre-regulations holdings on the subject and to decide whether the Supreme Court of the United States has already resolved the issue.

The parties recently submitted the case fully stipulated under Tax Court Rule 122, with simultaneous opening briefs due on March 21, 2016. The parties will then have the opportunity to submit reply briefs responding to each other’s arguments.

More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, 405 U.S. 394 (1972), rejected the IRS’s attempt to apply section 482 where federal law prohibited the taxpayer from receiving the income the IRS was seeking to allocate to it. Subsequent Tax Court and appellate court decisions applied the Supreme Court’s holding to restrictions under foreign and state law. In 1994, the IRS promulgated current Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2), which provides, in part, that “a foreign legal restriction will be taken into account only to the extent that it is shown that the restriction affected an uncontrolled taxpayer under comparable circumstances for a comparable period of time.” Although the regulation also contains a deferred income election that permits the deferred recognition of restricted income, subject to a matching deferral of deductions, it may be difficult in most situations to meet these requirements.

Whether 3M succeeds may depend on how the Tax Court applies the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply LLC, 132 S.Ct. 1836 (2012). There, the Supreme Court held that its prior interpretation of a statute meant that “there is no longer any different construction that is consistent with [the prior opinion] and available for adoption by the agency.” This is an important case for all taxpayers, not just those dealing with the blocked income issue, and the Tax Court’s determination may have a broad impact on future challenges to tax regulations.

Preparing for a Tsunami of International Tax Disputes

by McDermott Will & Emery and McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 14, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, IRS Audits, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

Recently, we published a Special Report in Tax Notes International, “Preparing for a Tsunami of International Tax Disputes.” The article can be accessed here. While there is near-universal agreement that the number of tax disputes is going to increase, existing international tax dispute resolution processes remain in serious need of improvement. A global consensus must be reached on a process for resolving worldwide tax disputes that appeals to all stakeholders. This article focuses on recent attempts by the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD), United Nations (UN) and international tax community to achieve such a consensus.

In short, the predictability of tax base results is a serious concern for countries and multi-national enterprises alike. The only realistic solution is to design a dependable and independent treaty-based dispute resolution process that accommodates the needs of all stakeholders. A foundation for this process has been provided by the inclusion of arbitration in both the OECD and UN model income tax treaties and its successful implementation in a few countries. Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) have already evolved successfully in nontax government and commercial contexts. As with any such evolution, there have been both positive and negative experiences for countries and private parties. In the realm of international taxation, the development of these processes is in the early stages. It is important for all stakeholders in the tax arena to explore ways of using experiences from non-tax contexts to develop processes that can relieve emerging pressures relating to international taxation. To distinguish the international tax context from others, the new dispute resolution process could be referred to as the International Taxation Dispute Resolution Process (ITDRP), as suggested in the UN Secretariat Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Taxation released on October 8, 2015.

While the development of a successful ITDRP will inevitably take time and will no doubt be contentious, significant advancements have been made in the past few months that suggest it could soon be on the horizon. These include the initial Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) paper on dispute resolution, the January 2015 Dispute Resolution Conference in Vienna, the OECD Action 14 Final Report (released in October 2015) and the UN Secretariat ADR Paper.

Almost all stakeholders in the international taxation community agree that: (i) the number of disputes will increase; (ii) existing dispute resolution processes are in serious need of improvement; and (iii) a global consensus must be achieved so that global tax disputes can be resolved in a way that serves the interests of all stakeholders. In this regard, it may be fortunate for the tax community that it is arriving late to the ADR processes that have evolved in other areas over the past century. As the OECD and UN processes continue to evolve, it is hoped that lessons from these other areas can be drawn upon to develop an ITDRP that serves the interests of all parties.

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

by Kevin Spencer | Mar 9, 2016 | IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

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!

LB&I Practice Units: Know Your EOI Programs

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 10, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On January 20, 2016, the Large Business and International (LB&I) Division released a Practice Unit entitled Overview of Exchange Information Programs and Types of EOI Exchanges, defining and describing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Exchange of Information (EOI) programs. These EOI Practice Units specify what types of exchanges are covered by EOI programs and what types of information the IRS can seek through each type of EOI exchange.

The IRS breaks down the avenues for international information exchange into several categories:

Specific Requests involve requests for information pertaining to a specific taxpayer under examination or investigation for a specific period.
Spontaneous Exchanges involve the transmission of taxpayer information by one member of an EOI agreement that is deemed potentially of interest to a foreign partner even though no specific requests have been initiated by the foreign partner.
Automatic Exchanges involve the transmission of taxpayer information that foreign partners have agreed to exchange on a regular and systematic basis without individualized specific requests. The most common example includes information relating to dividends, interest, rents, royalties, salaries and annuities earned in one partner country by residents of the other partner country.
Industry-Wide Exchanges involve the sharing of trends, policies and operating practices in a particular industry or economic sector and do not implicate specific taxpayer information.
The Simultaneous Examination Program coordinates strategies and the development of technical issues between the United States and a foreign partner if it is determined a common interest exists between the respective taxing authorities. These discussions are intended to facilitate the exchange of relevant taxpayer information with the foreign partner in furtherance of the separate independent examinations of a taxpayer by each jurisdiction.
Joint Audits take place when the United States and one or more of its foreign partners collaborate to conduct a single examination of a taxpayer or a related taxpayer within their jurisdictions.
The Simultaneous Criminal Investigation Program operates through the EOI provisions of bilateral tax agreements and fosters the coordination of separate criminal investigations conducted concurrently by the United States and the foreign partner.
The Mutual Legal Assistance Program relates to an agreement that authorizes a partner country to secure evidence for use by the requesting country in criminal judicial proceedings of the taxpayer.
The Mutual Collection Assistance Request Program is intended to utilize the collection assistance provisions of tax treaties, enabling one partner state to collect taxes covered by the treaty on behalf of the other contracting state. These collection provisions appear in a limited number of current United States treaties.

The Practice Units provide a short general overview of each method and—of particular usefulness—describe what government office or department is responsible for executing requests in each category. Thus, the Practice Units may be a good “first line of defense” for information-gathering when you believe the IRS is pursuing or has received an international EOI request related to your client.

In future posts, we will discuss how these tools are utilized in practice, [...]

Continue Reading