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
IRS Guidance
Subscribe to IRS Guidance's Posts

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

Death of the CAP Program?

by and | Apr 13, 2016 | , ,

According to participants in a recent webcast, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Large Business & International Division (LB&I) is no longer accepting applicants for its Compliance Assurance Process (CAP) program.  CAP is a real-time audit program that seeks to resolve the tax treatment of all or most return issues before the tax return is filed.  The CAP program began in 2005 on an invitation-only basis with 17 taxpayers, and was subsequently expanded to include pre-CAP, CAP and CAP Maintenance components.  Taxpayers and IRS leadership generally praised the CAP program as one of the most successful corporate tax enforcement programs, with surveys showing that over 90 percent of CAP taxpayers reported overall satisfaction with the program.

When the IRS announced its recent shift in the examination process to identifying and focusing on specific areas of risk, as opposed to general return review, the future of CAP became uncertain.  High-ranking IRS officials questioned whether it made sense to continue spending time and resources on CAP taxpayers, who are viewed as the most compliant and transparent taxpayers.  It remains to be seen whether the IRS will phase out the CAP program entirely for currently participating taxpayers.  CAP taxpayers may want to discuss the matter with their Examination Teams to see if they can gain any insight into future developments in this area and to plan ahead if the CAP program is ultimately eliminated.

The end of the CAP program, as well as the end of the continuous audit program, marks a shift in the way that the IRS intends to audit large taxpayers in the wake of very limited resources.  The IRS’s shift to auditing issues may be more efficient, but will likely miss more garden-variety adjustments, like depreciation and expense deductions.



read more

IRS Release IPU Materials on Transfer Pricing

by | Apr 11, 2016 | , , ,

As we noted in our initial post, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began publishing job aids and training materials developed by its International Practice Units (IPUs).  On April 6, 2016, the IRS released another IPU on section 482, available here.  The most recent IPU covers the three requirements under section 482: (1) two or more organizations, trades or business; (2) common ownership or control (direct or indirect) of the entities; and (3) the determination that an allocation is necessary either to prevent evasion of taxes, or to clearly reflect the income of any of the entities.

The most recent IPU takes a broad view of the application of section 482 and looks at the substance of transactions.  Regarding the first requirement, the IPU instructs examiners that organizations can include almost any type of entity and that a trade or business means a trade or business activity of any kind, regardless of place of organization, formal organization, type of ownership (individual or otherwise) and place of operation.  On the common control requirement, the IPU emphasizes that the form of control is not decisive and that the reality of control governs.  It also notes the presumption of control if income or deductions are arbitrarily shifted.  Finally, the reallocation to clearly reflect income requirement notes that an IRS allocation will be upheld unless the taxpayer can provide that the IRS determination was arbitrary and capricious.  Moreover, the IPU provides examples of circumstances that indicate the presence of arbitrary shifting of income, including when the net income of the foreign affiliate is high compared to the net income reported by the US company.  Of course, it may be appropriate for the foreign affiliate to have higher net income.

The IPU contains instructions on initial factual development of the requirements and provides references to resources that an agent should consult, including internal IRS resources, IRS guidance and case law.  It also identifies the types of documents that should be requested and reviewed during the examination.

As demonstrated by the large number of high-profile transfer pricing disputes currently pending in the courts, the IRS is taking a strong stance on the application of section 482.  Moreover, as demonstrated by this IPU, the IRS wants examining agents to be aggressive in identifying circumstances where there may be noncompliance with section 482.  Taxpayers with transfer pricing issues may benefit from reviewing all IPUs on section 482, both in documenting their transfer pricing activities and upon commencement of an examination to ensure that they have the documentation that the IRS will request.



read more

IRS Requires “Whole Story” from Taxpayers Seeking to Qualify under Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures

by and | Apr 7, 2016 | , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently modified the non-willfulness certification form that individual taxpayers must submit to enroll in the streamlined filing compliance procedures (SFCP).  One requirement under the SFCP is that that the taxpayer certify that his or her failure to disclose foreign assets was not due to willful conduct.  Before the recent change, the IRS only provided minimal direction, which caused it to receive non-willfulness narratives that did not provide adequate information.  This resulted in certifications that were either questioned or rejected.

On February 16, 2016, the IRS revised the certification forms to include more robust direction and instructed the taxpayer to draft his or her non-willfulness narrative to include the whole story including favorable and unfavorable facts.  A more detailed analysis of the recent changes can be found here.



read more

Preparing for Country-by-Country Reporting in 2016

by | Mar 30, 2016 | , ,

Country-by Country (CbC) reporting is on the horizon for large US multi-national enterprises (MNE).  As part of the broader Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) project undertaken by the Group of 20 (G20) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States will soon require the parent entity of large US MNE groups to file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a new annual report that requires information regarding income earned and taxes paid by the group on a country-by-country basis.  The new reporting requirements would generally apply to US MNE groups with annual revenues of $850 million or more.

Late last December, Treasury published proposed regulations detailing the future reporting process.  Recently, Robert Stack, Treasury deputy assistant secretary (international tax affairs) indicated that Treasury anticipates issuing final regulations by June 30, 2016, which would be effective for US MNEs with tax years beginning after that date. (Stack’s comments are available at Tax Notes, here and here.)  Because the US reporting requirements will go into effect in the middle of 2016, some US MNE groups have expressed concern that other tax jurisdictions may require subsidiaries to file CbC reports.

Both Treasury and the IRS believe that CbC reporting will assist in better enforcement of the US tax laws, though there is some concern that information collected may be too readily shared with other tax jurisdictions that may not safeguard such information as carefully as the United States.  Indeed, the Preamble to the new CbC reporting regulations states that CbC reports filed with the IRS may be exchanged with other reciprocating tax jurisdictions in which the US MNE group has operations, and Treasury expects that the competent authority will enter into competent authority agreements for the automatic exchange of CbC reports under the authority of information agreements to which the US is a party.  The Preamble also provides that information exchanged may not be disclosed or used for non-tax purposes.

Mr. Stack recently affirmed the priority of the confidentiality of information gathered through CbC reporting, stating that the United States would have the right to stop sharing information if the other tax jurisdiction were to disclose it.  The issue of confidentiality of CbC reporting was recently highlighted by efforts in the European Union to provide for the public disclosure of CbC reporting.



read more

IRS Updates Appeals Procedures for Tax Court Cases

by and | Mar 25, 2016 | , , , , , ,

On March 23, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Rev. Proc. 2016-22, 2016-15 IRB 1, which clarifies and describes the practices for the administrative appeals process in cases docketed in the Tax Court.  The stated purpose of the revenue procedure is to facilitate effective utilization of appeals and to achieve earlier development and resolution of Tax Court cases.

Previously, the procedures for the appeals process of Tax Court cases was contained in Rev. Proc. 87-24, 1987-1 C.B. 720.  In October 2015, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure updating the rules and requesting public comments.  Three substantive comments were received and considered by the IRS, resulting in changes to the proposed revenue procedure.  Rev. Proc. 2016-22 states that some of the suggestions that were not adopted may be addressed in other IRS guidance materials.

The general rule followed by the IRS is that all cases docketed in the Tax Court that have not previously been considered by IRS Appeals will be transferred to Appeals unless the taxpayer notifies IRS counsel that it wants to forego settlement consideration by Appeals.  This rule is subject to certain exceptions, most notably if the case has been designated for litigation by the IRS.  The revenue procedure also provides that “[i]n limited circumstances, a docketed case or issue will not be referred if Division Counsel or a higher level Counsel official determines that referral is not in the interest of sound tax administration.”  Although no definition is provided, examples are provided of: (1) a case involving a significant issue common to other cases in litigation for which the IRS maintains a consistent position; or (2) cases related to a case over which the Department of Justice has jurisdiction.  Referral to IRS Appeals will generally occur within 30 days of the case becoming at issue in the Tax Court, which can be either the date the Answer is filed by the IRS or a Reply (if required) is filed by the taxpayer.

The revenue procedure clarifies, and limits, the role of IRS counsel when a case is referred to Appeals.  Unlike Rev. Proc. 87-24, the new revenue procedure provides that Appeals has sole discretion to determine whether IRS counsel may participate in any settlement conference and will consider input from the taxpayer on this point.  It also clarifies that when a case is forwarded to Appeals for consideration, “Appeals has the sole authority to resolve the case through settlement until the case is returned to Counsel.”  In the past, taxpayers were concerned about the ability of IRS counsel to disrupt a settlement reached with Appeals.  If a settlement is reached with Appeals, IRS counsel’s involvement is ministerial in that counsel should only review any decision document signed by the taxpayer for accuracy and completeness before signing the decision document on behalf of the IRS and filing it with the Tax Court.

The new revenue procedure should also be a welcome development for estate tax cases given that there is no statutory provision to extend the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

IRS Determines Refined Coal Transaction Doesn’t Have Economic Substance

by , and | Mar 24, 2016 | ,

On March 17, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a Field Attorney Advice Memorandum, 20161101F (Dec. 3, 2015) (the FAA).  In the FAA, the IRS concluded that an investment in a partnership designed to deliver a tax credit allocation did not have a potential for profit or risk of loss, was not a meaningful interest in the venture and, as such, was not a bona fide partnership interest. In analyzing whether the arrangement was in substance a prohibited sale of tax benefits, the IRS determined that promotional materials and the partnership agreement indicated the investors were only interested in creating tax credits, not in operating a profitable refined coal business. The IRS relied heavily on Commissioner v. Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949), and Historic Boardwalk Hall LLC v. Commissioner, 694 F.3d 425 (3rd Cir. 2012), to determine that the investor did not have the requisite risk of loss or profit potential irrespective of creating tax credits, and that the partnership agreement indicated that the purported partner was to be indemnified for disallowed tax credits and deductions. An important fact for the IRS’analysis was that the payments to be made by the investor were nonrecourse, meaning the investor could walk away at any time. The IRS ruled that because “purported capital contributions are largely to be made in the future and only in relation to the amount of refined coal, and by extension tax credits generated, we believe that the payments are in exchange for tax benefits and do not constitute capital contributions in substance.”

Although a FAA is merely the opinion of one attorney at the IRS, it may be indicative of how the IRS evaluates these issues.



read more

The IRS Releases CCA 201606027

by and | Mar 23, 2016 | ,

On February 5, 2016, the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice 201606027 (the 2016 CCA) in which the IRS concluded, among other things, that guarantees by a partner of a partnership’s liabilities that could only be called by the partnership’s lenders in certain narrow circumstances (commonly referred to as “nonrecourse carve-outs” or “bad boy” guarantees), caused the guaranteed liabilities to be treated as “recourse liabilities” allocable solely to the guarantor partner under Treasury Regulation § 1.752-2

Read the full article.



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

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Edward Froelich

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

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