Tax Court Hands Eaton a Complete Victory on the Cancellation of its Advance Pricing Agreements

On July 26, 2017, the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) handed a complete victory to Eaton Corporation (Eaton) relating to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) cancellation of two Advance Pricing Agreements (APA). Eaton Corporation v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2017-147. The Tax Court held that the IRS had abused its discretion in cancelling the two successive unilateral APAs entered into by Eaton and its subsidiaries with respect to the manufacturing of circuit breaker products in Puerto Rico, and it found no transfer of any intangibles subject to Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 367(d). In 2011, the IRS cancelled Eaton’s first APA effective January 1, 2005, and the renewal APA effective January 1, 2006, on the ground that Eaton had made numerous material misrepresentations during the negotiations of the APAs and during the implementation of the APAs. As a result of the APA cancellations, the IRS issued notice of deficiencies for 2005 and 2006 determining that a transfer pricing adjustment under Code Section 482 was necessary to reflect the arm’s-length result for the related party transactions. Eaton disputed the deficiency determinations, contending that the IRS abused its discretion in cancelling the two APAs.

The Tax Court considered whether Eaton made misrepresentations during the negotiations or the implementation. With respect to the APA negotiations, the court established the standard for misrepresentation as “false or misleading, usually with an intent to deceive, and relate to the terms of the APA.” Based on the evidence of the negotiations presented at trial, the court concluded that there were no grounds for cancellation of the APAs; “Eaton’s evidence that it answered all questions asked and turned over all requested material is uncontradicted.” Additionally, the court rejected the IRS’s contention that more information was needed; “The negotiation process for these APAs was long and thorough.” Thus, the IRS “had enough material to decide not to agree to the APAs or to reject petitioner’s proposed TPM and suggest another APA. Cancelling the APAs on the grounds related to the APA negotiations was arbitrary.” Continue Reading

IRS Rules (Again) That Taxpayers Are Not Entitled to Claimed Refined Coal Credits

In a highly-anticipated Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) dated March 23, 2017 and released on July 21, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruled that two taxpayers who had invested in a Limited Liability Company that owned and operated a refined coal facility (the LLC) were not entitled to refined coal production credits they had claimed because their investment in the LLC was structured “solely to facilitate the prohibited purchase of refined coal tax credits.” This analysis marks a departure from the position staked out by the IRS in a number of recent refined coal credit cases, which focused on whether taxpayers claiming refined coal credits were partners in a partnership that owned and operated a refined coal facility.

Continue Reading

Virtual IRS Appeals – A New Frontier?

The Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals) recently announced that it will offer a new virtual “face-to-face” option in the form of web-based communication to taxpayers and representatives to resolve tax disputes. IRS Office of Appeals Pilots Virtual Service, IRS (July 24, 2017. This announcement comes on the heels of other changes at IRS Appeals that curtail the ability of taxpayers to have face-to-face hearings with IRS Appeals. The IRS cites the need for the new service because of IRS Appeals’ large (and growing) case load—more than 100,000 cases each year! For some our prior coverage on recent changes at IRS Appeals, see here, here, here and here.

Practice Point: In the wake of an ever-shrinking budget, resources and staff, the IRS really has no choice but to try new and arguably more efficient methods to move cases along. The backlog of cases at IRS Appeals is staggering, and our clients are experiencing long wait times until a case is even assigned to an IRS Appeals officer. Then when the case is assigned, it typically sits for months until real progress can be made. This is not the fault of the IRS or the individual Appeals’ officers, but really the reality of a resource-starved governmental agency. The virtual appeals conference is seemingly a good method to conduct an Appeals conference for simple cases. If a case is complex, however, a virtual conference may be no different (or no more effective) than a telephonic conference. In cases that require extensive explanation, it is hard to see how the IRS Appeals conference will be effectively conducted virtually. But “hope springs eternal.”

BEWARE: Whistleblowers Can “Out” You to the IRS!

Not only should companies worry about the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) auditing their returns, but they also have to be aware of a potential assault from within. Indeed, current and former employees have an incentive to air all of your tax issues with the hope of being rewarded for the information.

Section 7623(b) was added to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in 2005, and pays potentially large monetary rewards for so-called tax whistleblowers. To qualify for remuneration, a whistleblower must meet several conditions to qualify for the Section 7623(b) award program: (1) submit the confidential information under penalties of perjury to the IRS’s Whistleblower Office; (2) the information must relate to a tax issue for which the taxpayer (if the IRS found out) would be liable for tax, penalties and/or interest of more than $2 million; and (3) involve a taxpayer whose gross income exceeds $200,000 the tax year at issue. If the information substantially contributes to an administrative or judicial action that results in the collection, the IRS will pay an award of at least 15 percent, but not more than 30 percent of the collected proceeds resulting from the administrative or judicial action (including related actions).

Section 7623(b) has spawned a collection of law firms around the country dedicated to signing up scores of whistleblowers who are hoping to cash in big! Our clients routinely ask us how to best protect themselves. We typically tell our clients that the best defense is a good offense. Consider the following:

  1. Use of non-disclosure agreements with employees who work on sensitive projects like mergers and acquisitions;
  2. Limit employee access to the companies tax accrual workpapers and other documents that indicate the tax savings involved in a transaction or a position claimed on a return;
  3. Review your procedures to ensure that privilege and confidentiality is maintained (this would include training employees and managers);
  4. Review company’s internal procedures for employee complaints to ensure that you have robust procedures in place that offer an independent review and allow for anonymous submissions; and
  5. Be vigilant, and look for signs that an employee is “disgruntled.”

Practice Point: If you are under examination by the IRS, you may be able to discern a whistleblower issue based on the questions being asked by the IRS and whether those questions could only be formed based on information provided by a whistleblower. If this situation exists, it is important to determine whether you should raise the issue with the IRS, particularly if you believe that any confidential and/or privileged information has been provided to the IRS without your consent. To make sure you are protected and adequately prepared, consult with your tax controversy lawyer.

John Doe Intervenes in Virtual Currency Summons Enforcement Case

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has broad authority under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7602 to issue administrative summonses to taxpayers and third parties to gather information to ascertain the correctness of any return. If the IRS does not know the identity of the parties whose records are covered by the summons, the IRS may issue a “John Doe” summons only upon receipt of a court order. The court will issue the order if the IRS has satisfied the three criteria provided in IRC Section 7609(f):

  • The summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,
  • There is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue law, and
  • The information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records (and the identity of the person or persons with respect to whose liability the summons is issued) is not readily available from other sources.

Continue Reading

Tax Court Rejects IRS Reliance on “Cursory” Analysis in Revenue Ruling

We have previously discussed, in March and October of 2016, the various levels of deference given to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance, whether it is in published or private form. For revenue rulings, courts traditionally apply Skidmore deference, which essentially looks at the persuasiveness of the ruling. Under this standard, and the IRS’s position in its procedural regulations, if a ruling contains the same material facts and its analysis is persuasive, courts will generally defer to it.

The Tax Court’s recent opinion in Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA, v. Commissioner, 149 TC No. 3 (July 13, 2017), is a friendly reminder that just because a revenue ruling addresses the same material facts present in a taxpayer’s case does not automatically mean that courts will side with the IRS. In Grecian, a revenue ruling contained three fact patterns which were essentially the same as the taxpayer’s facts. The ruling held that gain realized by a foreign partner upon disposing of its interest in a United States partnership should be analyzed on an asset-by-asset basis, and that to the extent the partnership’s assets would give rise to effectively connected income (ECI) if sold by the partnership, the departing partner’s pro rata share of such gain should be treated as ECI. Despite this conclusion, the Tax Court rejected the IRS’s argument that the ruling was entitled to deference and required upholding the IRS’s deficiency determination. Rather, the court noted that the ruling’s discussions of the relevant partnership provisions was “cursory in the extreme” and it criticized the ruling’s treatment of the United States taxation of international transactions. As a result, the court declined to accord any deference to the ruling and ultimately found that the taxpayer’s position was correct as to the issue addressed in the ruling.

Practice Point: Although many revenue rulings contained detailed discussions and analysis of the tax laws, some are based on blanket statements of law that are not supported by relevant authorities. In these situations, taxpayers and their advisors should carefully consider whether a court would afford any deference to such a blanket statement.

Courts Rejects Challenge to OVDP Transition Rules

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently offers non-compliant US taxpayers several different relief programs to report foreign assets and/or income to become compliant with US rules related to the disclosure of offshore income. See here for a link to the different options. The two main programs are the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) and the Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures (SFCP). The IRS launched the OVDP in 2012 to enable a taxpayer with undisclosed foreign income or assets to settle most potential penalties he may be liable for through a lump sum payment of 27.5 percent of the highest aggregate value of the taxpayer’s undisclosed foreign assets for the voluntary disclosure period, which is the previous eight years. The OVDP replaced prior offshore voluntary disclosure programs and initiatives from 2009 and 2011. OVDP has a number of filing and payment requirements, including paying eight years’ worth of accuracy-based penalties. The IRS updated and revised the OVDP in 2014.

Continue Reading

New IRS CbC Resource

We have reported several times about the new Country-by-Country (CBC) reporting regime. Taxpayers and the tax bar have been desperate for clarity about the requirements for CbC reporting.  In response, today the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the launch of its CbC resource on its www.IRS.gov website. The new information is designed to provide background on CbC, frequently asked questions and other information. One of the best features is a list of jurisdictions that have concluded Competent Authority Arrangements with the United States.

Tracking Tax Guidance and Court Cases

Oftentimes, taxpayers rely on various authorities in planning transactions and reporting them for tax purposes, as well as defending them during an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit, appeals or in litigation. These sources include authorities like the Internal Revenue Code, legislative history and other legislative materials, Treasury regulations and other IRS published guidance (e.g., revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices, announcements), IRS private guidance (e.g., chief counsel advice, technical advice memoranda, private letter rulings, etc.), and case law. As we have discussed previously, these authorities are afforded different weight by courts and the IRS, and can serve different purposes in your matter.

Continue Reading

Third Circuit Upholds One Deduction Tax Court Ruling

In Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, 3d Cir., No. 14-01743 (June 29, 2017), the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a Tax Court decision that disallowed a second deduction for the same economic loss claimed by a consolidated group with respect to stock of a member. The court concluded that the “loss duplication” regulations for member stock in effect at the time of the transaction were sufficiently clear to disallow the second deduction. Although the result is not surprising, the case is noteworthy because it extensively discusses the Ilfeld doctrine (double deductions cannot be claimed for the same economic loss in the absence of clear authorization under the language of the Code or regulations), and implies that the doctrine may be limited to consolidated return issues.

LexBlog