Transfer Pricing Resource Archives | Page 4 of 14

Transfer Pricing Resource

The View from Here: LB&I’s Cross-Border Activities Campaigns Webinar

by Jeffrey M. Glassman and McDermott Will & Emery | May 25, 2017 | IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Large Business and International Division (LB&I) hosted its sixth in a series of eight webinars regarding LB&I Campaigns. Our previous coverage of LB&I Campaigns can be found here. The webinar focused on two cross-border activities campaigns: (1) the Repatriation Campaign and (2) the Form 1120-F Non-Filer Campaign. Below, we summarize LB&I’s comments on the new campaigns.

Repatriation Campaign

In general, the active earnings of foreign subsidiaries are not subject to tax until repatriated to the United States. Typically, those repatriations would be treated as dividends and would be subject to tax. LB&I stated that, through examination experience, it has observed that some taxpayers have engaged in techniques to permit repatriation from such entities while inappropriately avoiding US taxation.

LB&I developed the Repatriation Campaign with three goals in mind. First, LB&I was concerned with developing better objective techniques to identify risks across the broad taxpayer population. Second, LB&I is trying to improve sightlines into a broader segment of the LB&I population beyond the largest taxpayers under continuous audit. Third, LB&I intends to address any compliance risks related to repatriation in a way that increases voluntary compliance.

Unlike other campaigns, LB&I is not focused on a specific structure or techniques. LB&I is instead trying to identify objective indicators of opportunities to implement questionable planning (in the IRS’s view). Per LB&I, returns with those indicators are more likely to present compliance risks and are more likely to be selected. LB&I stated that it does not believe publicly identifying those indicators will increase voluntary compliance. Historically, when LB&I selected a return for examination, it did not necessarily start with any particular issue; any issue could be examined. If a return is selected under this campaign, LB&I’s initial focus will be narrower, but other compliance issues, if discovered, can still be added to the audit. Repatriation issues can also be raised outside of the Repatriation Campaign—possibly in a continuous audit or in an audit relating to another LB&I campaign. (more…)

You Must Comply: IRS LB&I Reveals Details of Its Inbound Distributor and OVDP Decline-Withdrawal Campaigns

by Kristina Novak | May 15, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Large Business and International Division (LB&I) hosted a webinar with the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA) regarding LB&I’s recently-announced campaigns targeting inbound distributors and taxpayers who either were declined by, or withdrew from, the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP). Our previous coverage of LB&I’s campaign initiatives can be found here. The slides from the presentation are available here.

Inbound Distributors

As described by the IRS, this campaign is intended to address transfer pricing in the context of United States distributors of goods sourced from foreign-related parties that may have reported gains or losses that are not commensurate with the functions performed and the risk assumed.

As discussed in Wednesday’s webinar, this campaign is somewhat unique in that the IRS is still evaluating whether this issue presents an actual—rather than a mere potential—threat of noncompliance. The IRS has identified a series of returns to be sent into the field for examination, but is currently holding them to evaluate whether a genuine threat of noncompliance exists. The IRS also stated that the campaign is being designed to allow for flexibility to release returns quickly, if compliance can be readily ascertained. (more…)

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

by K. Christy Vouri-Misso and Steven Hannes | May 9, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

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.

Taxpayer Rights Around the World (Follow-Up)

by McDermott Will & Emery | May 4, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

We previously wrote two blog posts about the 2nd International Conference on Taxpayer Rights held in Vienna, Austria in March 2017 here and here. Videos of each panel discussion are now available for viewing here. Planning is currently underway for the 3rd International Conference on Taxpayer Rights, which will be held in The Netherlands on May 3-4.

Taxpayer Rights Around the World (Part 2)

by McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 24, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

We previously posted on Day One of the 2nd International Conference on Taxpayer Rights in Vienna, Austria. Below, we summarize the panels and issues discussed on Day Two.

Four panels were held on March 14: (1) Penalties and General Anti-Avoidance Rules; (2) The Role of Intergovernmental Actors in Furthering and Protecting Taxpayer Rights: A Conversation; (3) Building Trust I: Transforming Cultures of Tax Agencies; and (4) Building Trust II: Safeguards on Tax Agency Power.

Penalties and General Anti-Avoidance Rules

This panel looked at current research on the use of penalties and general anti-avoidance rules in tax administration from the perspectives of legal and economic theory and taxpayer behavior. Studies were discussed that found that delayed feedback on tax audit often results in increased tax compliance but reduces the perception of procedural fairness and diminishes trust in the taxing authorities. Participants in the studies viewed receiving delayed feedback and increasing the probability of audits and the potential for more fines. One conclusion presented was that the delay resulted in longer periods of uncertainty and may yield higher levels of honesty in the short term, but might undermine tax compliance in the long term. (more…)

Taxpayer Rights Around the World (Part 1)

by McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 22, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On March 13 and 14, the 2nd International Conference on Taxpayer Rights was held in Vienna, Austria. More than 150 individuals from more than 40 countries attended the conference, which connects government official, scholars and practitioners from around the world to explore how taxpayer rights globally serve as the foundation for effective tax administration. This is the first of two posts recapping the issues discussed at the conference.

Four panels were held on March 13: (1) The Framework and Justification for Taxpayer Rights; (2) Privacy and Transparency; (3) Protection of Taxpayer Rights in Multi-Jurisdictional Disputes; and (4) Access to Rights: the Right to Quality Service in an Era of Reduced Agency Budgets.

(more…)

Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Role of the Collection Due Process Hearing

by Joshua M. Ellenberg | Mar 10, 2017 | Appellate Courts, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

In Iames v. Commissioner, No. 16-1154, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the US Tax Court’s ruling that once a taxpayer has unsuccessfully challenged his tax liability in a preassessment hearing before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals, he is precluded from challenging his tax liability in a collection due process (CDP) hearing under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6330.

IRC Section 6330, enacted by Congress to protect taxpayers from abusive or arbitrary collection practices, provides a set of procedural safeguards for taxpayers facing a potential levy action by the IRS: notice, an administrative hearing and judicial review. More specifically, before collecting a delinquent tax through a levy on a taxpayer’s property, the IRS must notify the taxpayer at least thirty days in advance of his right to an administrative hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals. IRC Section 6330(a) and (b). After the Office of Appeals makes its determination, the taxpayer may then petition the Tax Court for judicial review. IRC Section 6330(d)(1).

In general, the taxpayer may raise “any relevant issue relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy” at the CDP hearing. IRC Section 6330(c)(2)(A). There are, however, certain restrictions as to the circumstances under which a taxpayer may bring a CDP challenge. Under IRC Section 6330(c)(2)(B), a taxpayer can dispute the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability but only so long as he “did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability.”

(more…)

Revenue Procedure 2017-23: IRS Releases Guidance on Form 8975 and Country by Country Reporting

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 6, 2017 | IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

As a follow-up to regulations issued last June, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued Revenue Procedure 2017-23, which sets forth the process for filing Form 8975, Country-by-Country (CbC) Report, and accompanying Schedules A, Tax Jurisdiction and Constituent Entity Information (collectively, Form 8975), by ultimate parent entities of US multinational enterprise (MNE) groups for reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2016, but before the applicability date of §1.6038-4 (early reporting periods).

The Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations on June 30, 2016 –Treas. Reg. 1.6038-4– that require ultimate parent entities of US MNE groups to report CbC information about the group’s income, taxes paid and location of economic activity. The impacted taxpayers must report this information annually via Form 8975. The CbC reporting regulations apply to reporting periods of ultimate parent entities of US MNE groups that begin on or after the first day of the first taxable year of the ultimate parent entity that begins on or after June 30, 2016.

For annual accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2016, some jurisdictions have adopted CbC reporting that would require an entity in that jurisdiction to report CbC information if it is part of an MNE group in which the ultimate parent resides in a jurisdiction without CbC reporting requirements for the same annual accounting period. This can result in constituent entities of a US MNE group being subject to various local CbC filing requirements for early reporting periods unless the ultimate parent entity files a Form 8975 in the US, or reports CbC information through surrogate filing in another jurisdiction.

The preamble to the US CbC reporting regulations addressed this issue by indicating that the Treasury Department and the IRS would provide a procedure for ultimate parent entities of US MNE groups to file Form 8975 for early reporting periods; Revenue Procedure 2017-23 is the resulting procedure.

The Revenue Procedure provides that, beginning on September 1, 2017, taxpayers may file Form 8975 for an early reporting period with their income tax return or other return as provided in the Instructions to Form 8975 for the taxable year of the ultimate parent entity of the US MNE group with or within which the early reporting period ends. Taxpayers can amend an income tax return for a taxable year that includes an early reporting period without a Form 8975 attached if they follow the normal procedures for filing an amended return, and attach the Form 8975 to the amended return within twelve months of the close of the taxable year that includes the early reporting period. Filing an amended return for the sole purpose of attaching Form 8975 will have no effect on the statute of limitations. Ultimate parent entities are encouraged to file their returns and Forms 8975 electronically through the IRS Modernized e-File system in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format. The IRS plans to provide information on the Form 8975 to the software industry to [...]

Continue Reading

IRS Issues IPU on Summons of Foreign Owned US Businesses

by Bradford E. LaBonte and Kevin Spencer | Feb 2, 2017 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, IRS Audits, Transfer Pricing Resource, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On January 30, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released an International Practice Unit (IPU) on the use of a summons under IRC Section 6038A (IRC Section 6038A Summons) when a US corporation is 25-percent owned by a foreign shareholder. See IPU here. The IPU describes the steps that the IRS should take when issuing an IRC Section 6038A Summons, and what to do when the US corporation does not substantially comply with the summons.

In general, IRC Section 6038A imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements (together with certain procedural compliance requirements) on domestic corporations that are 25-percent foreign-owned, which the regulations refer to as a domestic reporting corporation (DRC). Among other requirements, a DRC is required to keep permanent books of account or records per IRC Section 6001 that are sufficient to establish the correctness of the federal income tax return of the DRC, including information, documents, or records to the extent they may be relevant to determine the correct US tax treatment of transactions with related parties. See Treas. Reg. Section 1.6038A-3.

The IRS may issue an IRC 6038A Summons when: (i) the taxpayer under exam is a DRC; (ii) there was a transaction between the DRC and the 25 percent foreign shareholder or any foreign person related to the DRC or to such 25 percent foreign shareholder; and (iii) the DRC is appointed to act as a limited agent with respect to any request by the IRS to examine its records or produce testimony that may be relevant to the tax treatment of any transaction between the DRC and a foreign related party. If the DRC does not substantially comply in a timely manner with the IRC 6038A Summons, the IRS has sole discretion to determine the amount of the DRC’s deductions related to transactions with, and the cost of property purchased from (or transferred to), the foreign related party.

The IPU is particularly relevant in light of final regulations published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2016 (TD 9796) which treat a domestic disregarded entity wholly owned by a foreign person as a domestic corporation for purposes of the reporting, record maintenance and associated compliance requirements under IRC Section 6038A. The regulations are effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2016, and ending on or after December 13, 2017. The IPU refers to these regulations in describing the criteria which must be met before the IRS issues an IRC Section 6038A Summons.

Practice Point: For US entities that are owned by foreign entities and file US tax returns, it is crucial to have all of the relevant information for the entity in the US. US taxpayers are required to support all of the positions claimed on a return. For example, if there are expenditures of the US entity that are paid for by the foreign affiliate, there should be adequate documentation in the US to support those payments.

The Evolving World of Global Tax Planning

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 18, 2017 | Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

In October 2015, final recommendations on Base Erosion and Profits Shifting (BEPS) were released, setting in motion epochal changes that will impact the global effective tax rate (ETR) of multinational enterprises (MNE) in the coming years.

Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) is the first, almost globally adopted output of the BEPS process currently facing MNEs. It raises some potentially far-reaching questions with respect to traditional operating models and supply chain structures, and also affects the future of cross-border dispute resolution. Harnessing the potential upsides and downsides of these and the other evolutions will be a driver of the future ETR of MNEs.

View the five-minute video below, in which McDermott lawyers discuss the implications of Country-by-Country Reporting for MNEs.