TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Internal Revenue Service
Subscribe to Internal Revenue Service's Posts

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

by | Aug 3, 2016 | , , ,

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



read more

IRS Updates List of Items Requiring National Office Review

by and | Jul 7, 2016 | , , , , ,

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…)



read more

Do Partnerships Now Need to Reserve for Taxes?

by and | Jun 6, 2016 |

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74, added new partnership audit rules, which are generally effective for tax years beginning in 2018. These new rules will allow the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess and collect tax due on partnership adjustments at the entity level. Some partnerships will be able to elect out of these rules. For partnerships that cannot elect out, practitioners are pondering whether the new audit rules will cause partnerships, historically pass through entities for tax purposes, to now be required to make a tax provision/reserve on their financial statements. In a tiered partnership context, even if an upper-tier partnership has elected out of the regime, practitioners are wondering whether the upper-tier partnership may still need to make a tax provision/reserve if a lower-tier partnership elects to push out adjustments to its partners, resulting in an entity level tax for the upper-tier partnership.

See our prior discussion of the new partnership audit rules. Also see Tax Notes Today, “New Partnership Audit Rules Could Require Tax Provision Review,” June 3, 2016.



read more

Two Current Tax Controversies Utilize ‘Quick Peek’ Agreements to Resolve Privilege Disputes

by and | May 31, 2016 | , , , ,

Due to the enormous amount of electronic data stored by companies in the modern era, discovery requests can involve millions of documents which need to be reviewed prior to being turned over to the opposing party.  In conducting their analysis of this overwhelming quantity of information, litigants must, amongst other things, detect and exclude any privileged material.  Should a party inadvertently fail to do so before such records reach the hands of the opposing counsel, he/she will be deemed to waive privilege in many jurisdictions.  Given the massive quantity of data, however, such mistakes are practically unavoidable.

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502 was enacted in 2008 in an attempt to combat the issue of inevitable human error and the costs associated with parties’ efforts to avoid it.  FRE 502(d) allows parties to request the court to grant an order stipulating that a disclosure of privileged material does not waive any claims of privilege with respect to those documents.  If the court agrees to enter the order, it is controlling on third parties and in any other federal or state proceeding.

FRE 502(d) has led to the possibility of “quick peek” agreements where the parties give over all or a portion of their documents to opposing counsel without any privilege review whatsoever so that the recipient can identify which material he would like to retain.  The recipient, in turn, agrees not to assert a waiver claim on any document that the producing party intends to withhold from the requested documents as privileged.  These arrangements can dramatically ease the temporal and financial burdens of conducting a privilege review because they allow the producing party to focus only on those documents desired by the recipient while at the same time preserving their right to claim privilege on such documents. (more…)



read more

New Issue of ‘Focus on Tax Strategies and Developments’

by , , , , and | May 12, 2016 | , ,

We recently released the May 2016 issue of “Focus on Tax Strategies and Developments,” which can be viewed in its entirety here or through the links below. The issue includes four articles of interest to taxpayers:

Proposed Debt-Equity Regulations Have Dramatic Implications for Corporate Tax Planning and Compliance

By Thomas W. Giegerich and Michael J. Wilder

On April 4, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and US Department of the Treasury (Treasury)—without advance warning—released proposed regulations under Section 385 (the Proposed Regulations) that will, if finalized in their current form, have dramatic implications for US corporate tax planning and compliance.

The 2016 UK Budget – BEPS Measures and Tax Cuts

By James Ross

The 2016 UK Budget has generally been seen as good news for corporates, but it is not without potential concern, particularly for multinationals and private equity groups, who may need to re-evaluate longstanding financing structures.

Prescriptions of the Blue Book on the New Partnership Audit Rules

By Thomas W. Giegerich, Gary C. Karch, Kevin Spencer and Madeline Chiampou Tully

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, signed into law in November, instituted a new regime for federal tax audits of entities treated as partnerships for US federal income tax purposes (the New Audit Rules) effective 2018. In March 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation released its “General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in 2015” (the Blue Book), which provides some background and explanation with respect to the New Audit Rules—this article discusses certain of the highlights of the Blue Book explanation.

Changes to China’s High and New Technology Enterprise (HNTE) Regime Both Sharpen Its Focus and Make Its Advantages More Broadly Available

By Robbie Chen

With the promulgation of the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) law in 2008, many preferential tax regimes (e.g. lower tax rates for foreign invested companies) were revoked. Under the CIT, the HNTE treatment, which reduces a qualified taxpayer’s applicable CIT rate from the standard 25 percent to 15 percent, is one of the few remaining tax preferences. As a result, any change to the HNTE rule attracts a great deal of attention.



read more

IRS Commissioner Asks Congress to Overturn Loving

by and | Apr 22, 2016 | , ,

Following a report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) that criticized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for failing to protect taxpayer financial information from cybersecurity threats, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has requested that US Congress give the IRS the power to license tax preparers.  Prior efforts by the IRS to regulate paid tax preparers by forcing them to pass a competency exam and meet continuing education requirements had been struck down in a 2013 federal district court decision which was later affirmed unanimously by the US District Court for the District of Columbia in Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013 (DC Cir. 2014).

Having failed to achieve its goal in court, in 2014 the IRS turned to Capitol Hill to grant it the authority to enforce nationwide certification requirements on independent tax return preparers.  Imposing competency requirements on tax return preparers is an idea supported not only by the IRS but also by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olsen and other tax policy leaders.  Proponents have long argued that government regulations are needed to address ineptitude among “mom-and-pop” tax preparers and unscrupulousness among other preparers who take advantage of uninformed taxpayers.  Efforts to pass the legislation in Congress, however, had stalled.

Now, Commissioner Koskinen is using the recently issued GAO report to renew the push to established minimum standards for tax preparers.  It would seem unlikely, however, that these new efforts will bear any fruit.



read more

Update on APA Challenges to Notice of Deficiency

by and | Apr 21, 2016 | , ,

In an earlier blog post, we discussed the US Tax Court’s ruling in QinetiQ U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 14122-13 (Dec. 27, 2013). The taxpayer had argued that the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’) notice of deficiency containing a one-sentence reason for the deficiency determination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The Tax Court disagreed, emphasizing that it was well settled that the court is not subject to the APA. To refresh, the APA provides a general rule that a reviewing court that is subject to the APA must hold unlawful and set aside an agency action unwarranted by the facts to the extent the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. (more…)



read more

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

by | Apr 13, 2016 | , , ,

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…)



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

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge