TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
Court Procedure Matters
Subscribe to Court Procedure Matters's Posts

ABA Seeks Priority Guidance for Transfer Pricing Issues

by | Jun 7, 2016 | , ,

The ABA recently issued comments to the IRS and Treasury regarding the new temporary regulations issued in TD 9738 concerning the aggregation of controlled transactions, under Section 482, which broaden (“clarify”) the scope of intangible value, to include “all the value provided” from a controlled transaction, and such other transactions that may occur before, during or after, that are so interrelated, as to require aggregate consideration. See attached. While the IRS does not explicitly mention goodwill or going concern—except by reference in one example—the regulations are intended to sweep in the consideration of any goodwill, including synergy, value that may relate to such transactions.

Given the inherent difficulty, and the persistent controversy, as exhibited in the past (i.e., the Veritas and Amazon cases) and as certainly more is yet to come (BEPS) in attempting to determine the value of intangibles generally, let alone goodwill, for the sake of good tax administration, the IRS would do well to provide more concrete/ explicit definitions, or at least boundaries, as to what or when this “extra” value may, or may not, be likely to apply.

This broader scope of consideration is now likely to make it easier for the IRS to recast transactions on economic substance or realistic alternatives grounds, leading to more controversy and disputes, not just with taxpayers, but with foreign governments as well.



read more

“Snow Day” Case Highlights Importance of Timely Filing Requirements

by and | Jun 3, 2016 | , ,

On June 2, 2016, the  US Tax Court issued a unanimous court-reviewed opinion in Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 15 (available here), addressing several points related to the timely filing of court documents.  The opinion provides important reminders to taxpayers to ensure that they meeting filing deadlines. (more…)



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

Tracy Gomes Appointed to Chair of ABA Transfer Pricing Committee

by | May 5, 2016 | , ,

We are proud to congratulate our Dallas colleague, Tracy Gomes, McDermott’s chief economist in transfer pricing, upon his appointment as chair of the American Bar Association Transfer Pricing Committee.  This position provides the opportunity to propose issues and comments, and to have access to US tax officials in the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department as part of the ABA’s leadership committee.  It expands upon McDermott’s already substantial knowledge, reputation and experience in the transfer pricing arena—an increasingly important area of IRS attention and focus.

This appointment reflects recognition of McDermott’s professionals as thought leaders in transfer pricing, as well as our commitment to furthering the collective knowledge-base, understanding and application of reasoned and cogent tax administration, and role in the shaping of tax policies, particularly in light of the changing international tax rules brought about by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) action items.



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

Update on Deference to IRS Positions

by , and | Apr 20, 2016 | , , ,

As we discussed here, and in our recent article in The Federal Lawyer, deference to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pronouncement is an important issue for taxpayers and their advisors. Our prior writings dealt generally with the three levels of deference in tax cases and how they have been applied by the courts. A recent Tax Court case looks at the level of deference owed to statements in preambles to tax regulations.

In Estate of Morrissette v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. No. 11 (Apr. 13, 2016), the taxpayer cited to the preamble to regulations dealing with split-dollar life insurance arrangements. Those regulations dealt with two mutually exclusive regimes for taxing these types of arrangements entered into after September 17, 2013. The preamble to the regulations included an example that was structurally identical to the arrangements at issue in the Tax Court case. In reviewing the preamble, the court noted that while it had previously been unpersuaded by a preamble, it believed that the preamble was a statement of the IRS’s interpretation of the statute and therefore should be judged under the “power to persuade” standard in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 US 134, 140 (1944). The Tax Court found that the preamble was consistent with the taxpayer’s interpretation of the statute and contrary to the IRS’s position, and found the logic of the preamble to be sound.

The Tax Court’s statements regarding Skidmore deference are important for taxpayers, both in planning and defending transactions. In prior cases, the Tax Court has held that the IRS is “obligated to follow” its “published administrative position” and treated such positions as a concession as to the proper result, e.g., Dixon v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 173, 188 (2013). A preamble to a regulation could be viewed as a published administrative position, given that it is part of a Treasury Decision that is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and the IRS’s position is that the Internal Revenue Bulletin is the “authoritative instrument of the Commissioner.” Treas. Reg. § 601.601(d). It is unclear whether the taxpayer in Estate of Morrissette argued that the IRS was obligated to follow the preamble.

Taxpayers that wish to rely on preambles to regulations, or that are defending against an IRS position based on a preamble, need to be aware of these arguments in planning and defending their transactions. To the extent the preamble is supportive of a position and contains a persuasive and sound analysis, one could argue that Skidmore deference applies. Under this argument, the IRS should not be able to disavow its interpretation of a statute or regulation. Additionally, taxpayers may wish to argue that under the principle announced in Dixon and prior Tax Court cases, the statements in a preamble constitute a concession by the IRS to which it is bound. A similar analysis should be undertaken if the preamble is contrary to the taxpayer’s position.



read more

Senate Finance Committee Approves Tax Court Nominees Copeland and Stoll

by and | Apr 19, 2016 | , ,

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) issued an April 18, 2016 statement noting the committee’s approval of Tax Court nominees Elizabeth Copeland and Vik Stoll.  In 2015, President Obama nominated Copeland and Stoll to be judges at the US Tax Court.

Copeland is a partner at the law firm Strasburger & Price, LLP. If confirmed, she will be assuming the position left vacant by the 2014 retirement of Judge Diane L. Kroupa.

Stoll is Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Collections for Jackson County, Missouri. If confirmed, he will be assuming the position left vacant by Judge James S. Halpern, who took senior status in late 2015.



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

Ax v. Commissioner: The Tax Court Reaffirms that It Is Not Subject to the APA

by and | Apr 12, 2016 | , , ,

On April 11, 2016, the US Tax Court issued its T.C. opinion in Ax v. Commissioner.  The notice of deficiency in the case determined that certain premium payments made to a captive insurance company were not established by the taxpayer to be (1) insurance expenses and (2) paid.  But this is not a run of the mill captive insurance case—at least not yet.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) moved for leave to amend its answer in the case to assert additionally that (1) the taxpayers’ captive insurance arrangement lacked economic substance and (2) amounts paid as premiums were neither ordinary nor necessary (and to allege facts in support of both assertions).  The taxpayers opposed, citing Mayo Foundation for Med. & Educ. Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 55 (2011), and arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and SEC v. Chenery, 318 U.S. 80 (1943) barred the IRS from “raising new grounds to support [the IRS’s] final agency action beyond those grounds originally stated in the notice of final agency action.”  The taxpayers also argued that the IRS’s new assertions constituted “new matters” that did not meet required heightened pleading standards under the Tax Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.  Ultimately, the Tax Court sided with the IRS.

(more…)



read more

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Edward Froelich

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

US Tax Disputes Firm of the Year 2025
2026 Best Law Firms - Law Firm of the Year (Tax Law)
jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge