Treaty Archives - TAX CONTROVERSY 360

Weekly IRS Roundup June 17 – June 21, 2024

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of June 17, 2024 – June 21, 2024.

June 17, 2024: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2024-25, which includes the following:

Revenue Ruling 2024-12, which provides the June 2024 applicable federal rates.
Treasury Decision 9993, which provides final regulations on the election under Internal Revenue Code (Code) 6418 to transfer eligible energy credits, effective July 1, 2024.
Treasury Decision 9997, which reduces the cost of applying for or renewing a preparer tax identification number from $21 to $11.
Proposed Regulations, which would remove the “associated property rule” and related rules from the regulations on interest capitalization requirements for improvements to “designated property” under Code 263A(f) and clarify the definition of “improvement” in the existing regulations.

June 17, 2024: The IRS announced the establishment of a new dedicated group within the Office of Chief Counsel that will focus on developing guidance for partnerships, specifically with respect to the use of “basis shifting” transactions by related-party partnerships.

June 17, 2024: The IRS released guidance intended to target certain transactions that use the basis adjustment provisions in Code §§ 734, 743, 754 and 755 to shift basis to depreciable property through partnership transactions. This guidance includes:

Revenue Ruling 2024-14, which identifies three types of basis shifting transactions involving related parties that, according to the IRS, should be disallowed for lack of economic substance.
Notice 2024-54, which announces the IRS’s intent to propose regulations under Code §§ 732, 734, 743 and 755 that, if finalized, are intended to take effect on or after June 17, 2024. The regulations would identify several types of “covered transactions” in which basis step-ups resulting from partnership transactions would be disallowed. Unlike Revenue Ruling 2024-14, these regulations would not depend on a covered transaction lacking economic substance.
Proposed Regulation § 1.6011-18, which would identify certain partnership basis shifting transactions as “transactions of interest,” which generally must be disclosed to the IRS.

June 17, 2024: The IRS provided general tips for taxpayers benefiting from educational assistance programs under Code § 127 with respect to the treatment of certain educational expenses, qualified education loans and working condition fringe benefits.

June 17, 2024: The IRS released Notice 2024-53, which provides the 24-month average corporate bond segment rates for June 2024, yield curve and segment rates for single-employer plans and 30-year Treasury securities interest rates.

June 18, 2024: The IRS announced the release of final regulations for taxpayers who satisfy certain prevailing wage and apprenticeship (PWA) requirements regarding the construction, alteration or repair of certain clean energy facilities or properties, projects or equipment. Taxpayers who satisfy these PWA requirements are eligible for increased credit or deduction amounts for certain clean energy [...]

Continue Reading

Canadian Tax Court Holds that Agreements Reached Under the Mutual Agreement Procedure are Binding on the Canada Revenue Agency

On March 10, 2017, the Tax Court of Canada held that agreements reached under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) precluded the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from redetermining the transfer prices of rock salt sold by Sifto Canada Corp. (Sifto Canada) to a related party in the United States.

In 2006, Sifto Canada reevaluated the transfer pricing of its rock salt sales to its US affiliate for 2002 through 2006. Siftco Canada discovered that the sales prices had been for less than an arm’s length price and in 2007 made an application to the CRA’s voluntary disclosure program reporting additional income from the sale of rock salt for 2002-2006 of over C$13 million. In 2008, the CRA accepted the application and assessed additional tax on that income.

After the assessment, Sifto Canada applied to the Canadian Competent Authority (CCA) and its US affiliate applied to the United States Competent Authority (USCA) for relief from double taxation under Articles IX and XXVI of the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, as amended (the Treaty). The CRA did not audit Sifto Canada during this time and based its position paper on Sifto Canada’s voluntary disclosure application. Under the MAP process, the USCA and CCA then agreed to the transfer prices.

During the negotiation process for the MAP, the CRA began auditing the transfer prices of the rock salt for those years and then, subsequent to the signing of the MAP agreements, the CRA determined that the transfer prices should have been even higher than the amounts reported by Sifto Canada in the voluntary disclosure and issued further reassessments of its tax.

The CRA argued that: (1) the MAP agreements only provided relief from double taxation and did not set transfer prices; (2) the CCA only entered into agreements with the USCA and did not enter into a binding agreement with Sifto Canada regarding the transfer prices; and (3) that the government had a duty to reassess the tax once it determined that the transfer prices were not at arm’s length.

The Tax Court of Canada did not agree with the CRA and held the government to its MAP agreements. The Court found that by reaching an agreement under the MAP process, the CCA necessarily had to find that the transfer prices were at arm’s length under the Treaty. Further, the Court found that under the factual matrix of this case, the CCA’s letters exchanged with Siftco Canada clearly described the terms of the MAP agreements, asked Siftco Canada to accept those terms, and Sifto Canada then accepted the terms establishing a binding agreement. Finally, the Court found the agreements were not “indefensible on the facts and the law” and thus were binding on the Canadian government.

Practice Point: This case is helpful to taxpayers with cross-border transactions between the US and Canada and demonstrates that MAP agreements are binding on the CRA.