Disputes

Subscribe to Disputes via RSS
The Big Catch

In January, the IRS issued a generic legal advice memo on periodic adjustments and the arm’s length standard. Although the “GLAM” states that it merely “clarifies” and “updates” a prior memo, it contains insights into the IRS’s aggressive thinking on this topic. And the very fact that the IRS issued the memo now suggests that disputes over periodic adjustments are heating up in audits and litigation.

Background. The new memo “addresses the relationship” between “the general arm’s length standard” and “the specific periodic adjustments rules” in the section 482 regulations. Since 1986, the second sentence of section 482 has required the income from the transfer of intangible property to “be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.” The agency takes the position that this statutory language authorizes the IRS (and only the IRS) to adjust the income of a transferor of IP based on the actual income earned by the transferee. The agency views these “periodic adjustments” as a necessary palliative when considering IP with a high—but uncertain—profit potential.Continue Reading A “Capacious” Arm’s Length Standard?

When planets collide

Last week, the US Treasury released long-awaited proposed regulations on the corporate alternative minimum tax or “CAMT.” In a press release, Treasury estimated “that around 100 of the largest and most profitable companies will pay the CAMT annually.” According to Janet Yellen, the new rules will help combat “egregious U.S. corporate tax avoidance” that has led, in her view, to artificially low tax liabilities. Transfer pricing practitioners take note: one tool that Treasury plans to use in this effort to combat “abuse” is Section 482.Continue Reading When Worlds Collide: Transfer Pricing and the CAMT

Businessman propose to sign paper, give silver pen to make deal on document

Multinational groups constantly evolve, grow, and consolidate, and operational facts and circumstances always change. Say a growing company decides to expand internationally. It may choose to incorporate new foreign subsidiaries that will operate a manufacturing facility in one country and a limited-risk distributor in another.

The tax department will probably pay a lot of attention to the proper transfer pricing for transactions between these related parties of the growing multinational group. When it does so, it should ensure that the intercompany transactions, including the arm’s-length pricing, are memorialized in written intercompany agreements. We’ll address the most common questions you might have about these agreements.Continue Reading How Intercompany Agreements Can Mitigate Transfer Pricing Risk

In most transfer pricing disputes, the taxpayer squares off with the IRS or some other taxing authority, and the issue is the amount of tax due. But, in some cases, a company’s transfer pricing policies can lead to disputes between private parties. It is important for tax-department personnel to be aware of the risks from these private disputes so that they can take them into account when setting up intercompany documentation and transfer pricing policies. Examples include:Continue Reading Private Transfer Pricing Disputes

On March 22, 2024 the IRS’s Advance Pricing Mutual Agreement Program (“APMA” or the “Program”) released Announcement 2024-16 which provides their annual Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) report (the “Report”), and the statistics show a record-breaking result for 2023 – 156 APAs resolved.  APMA resolves actual and potential transfer pricing disputes and other competent authority matters through United States’ bilateral income tax conventions.  This Report focuses on APAs (a solution to prevent future transfer pricing disputes) during calendar year 2023 and provides statistical information about the APA applications received and resolved, including countries involved, types of transactions, and transfer pricing methods.  Key takeaways and our observations are noted here.Continue Reading APA Statutory Report Reveals Successful 2023 for APMA

The IRS has made it clear once again that transfer pricing remains a key focus in its ongoing enforcement efforts.[1]  And with significant additional resources to do so over the next decade, the IRS is likely to focus some of these resources on taxpayers who have not undergone a transfer pricing audit in recent years or, perhaps, ever.  For example, while the IRS is onboarding the many new transfer pricing experts it hired in 2023, it has sent compliance alerts to certain U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations that distribute goods in the U.S. where the IRS thinks that these subsidiaries are not paying their fair share of tax on the profit they earn on their U.S. activity.[2] Taxpayers would be wise to take this time to prepare for an audit by reviewing their material intercompany transactions and undertaking a transfer pricing risk assessment.Continue Reading Transfer Pricing Audits: What Taxpayers Can Do to Prepare

In a recent case, Villa-Arce v. Commissioner,[1] a whistleblower sent information to the IRS that he believed showed that the company was using improper transfer pricing practices and taking unjustified deductions. The IRS opened an examination that resulted in other adjustments, but none based on the information from the whistleblower. For that key reason, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Tax Court decision that the whistleblower was not entitled to an award for the collection of proceeds from the unrelated adjustments. Yet while the whistleblower walked away empty-handed, the case illustrates a unique type of transfer pricing and audit risk that comes from whistleblowers that companies should recognize. And given the indefinite nature of transfer pricing and the potential amount of dollars at stake, we will likely see more whistleblower actions involving transfer pricing.Continue Reading Blowing the Whistle on Transfer Pricing

Last week, the IRS released a mysterious new audit “campaign” that may implicate – inadvertently or otherwise – transfer pricing practices. The campaign, which was announced on August 8, is simply entitled “Inflated Cost of Goods Sold.”   

The only glimmer of explanation the IRS gives as to what exactly this is all about is the brief statement that the campaign “focuses on LB&I taxpayers that have indications of inflated Cost of Goods Sold to reduce taxable income.”

But this tells us very little. Absent book-tax differences (e.g., FIFO/LIFO materials inventory conventions), an increase in COGS will always decrease taxable income. This is hardly revelatory. Two old IRS practice units from 2014 (“Purchase of Tangible Goods from Foreign Parent – CUP Method” and “Sale of Tangible Goods from a CFC to USP – CUP Method”) recognize the truism that increasing COGS reduces taxable income. So what? What facets of COGS gives the IRS concern? Direct Labor? Overhead? Standard Material Costs? Variances?Continue Reading Compliance Campaign: COGS Cops Coming

wesley-tingey-9z9fxr_7Z-k-unsplash

In a recent case, the IRS sued a corporate taxpayer in district court for supposedly unpaid taxes—without issuing a notice of deficiency first. The taxpayer claimed that this move was improper, but the district court sided with the IRS. In an opinion issued in June, the court held that the deficiency process is essentially optional for the IRS.Continue Reading Liberty Global and the Burden of Proof

christine-roy-ir5MHI6rPg0-unsplash

In Moore v. U.S., Mr. and Mrs. Moore challenge the constitutionality of the transition tax under § 965. The Moores ask the Supreme Court to reaffirm a realization requirement for income taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment. The Moores argue that this realization requirement applies to § 965 and that §965, as a tax on unrealized gain, is unconstitutional. In contrast, the government argues that the transition tax is a permissible extension of tax regimes like Subpart F that already tax undistributed corporate earnings. (See our recent client alert on the case generally.)

A ruling on the realization requirement bears on whether Pillar Two might be constitutional in the United States. Specifically, a ruling that § 965 does not comply with a realization requirement, if not suitably cabined, could imperil the ability of the U.S. to implement Pillar Two legally, because Pillar Two might be viewed as similarly not complying with the realization requirement.  Continue Reading Moore and Pillar Two: Possible Interactions