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
Trial Courts
Subscribe to Trial Courts's Posts

‘Medtronic v. Commissioner’: A Taxpayer Win on Transfer Pricing, Commensurate with Income, and Section 367 Issues

by | Nov 9, 2016 | , , , , ,

On June 9, 2016, the US Tax Court released its opinion in Medtronic, Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. Commissioner. The Internal Revenue Service had taken issue with the transfer pricing of transactions between Medtronic, Inc. and its Puerto Rican manufacturing arm under §482 of the Internal Revenue Code. Finding the IRS’s application of the comparable profits method (CPM) to the transactions arbitrary and capricious, and taking issue as well with the taxpayer’s comparable uncontrolled transaction (CUT) methodology, the court ultimately made its own decision as to arm’s-length pricing, arriving at new allocations by making adjustments to the taxpayer’s original CUT approach.

Read the full Tax Management International Journal article.

© 2016 Tax Management Inc., a subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.



read more

Court Awards $206 Million in Section 1603 Grant Wind Project Case

by and | Nov 3, 2016 | , , ,

The US Court of Federal Claims awarded damages of more than $206 million to the plaintiffs in a case involving the cash grant program pursuant to Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Section 1603 Grant).  In its opinion, published on October 31, 2016, the court held that the US Treasury Department (Treasury) had underpaid the Section 1603 Grants arising from projects in the Alta Wind Energy Center because it had incorrectly reduced the plaintiffs’ eligible basis in the projects.  The court rejected the Treasury’s argument that the applicants’ basis in the facilities was limited to only development and construction costs, and accepted the plaintiffs’ position that the arm’s length purchase price of the projects prior to their placed-in-service date was a reasonable starting point to determine the projects’ value.  The court determined that the facilities, having not yet been placed in service and having only one customer pursuant to a master power purchase agreement (PPA), could not have any value assigned to goodwill or going concern value which would reduce the amount of eligible costs for purposes of the Section 1603 Grant.  The court noted that the transactions surrounding the sales of the facilities were conducted at arm’s length by economically self-interested parties, and that the purchase prices and side agreements were not marked by “peculiar circumstances” that influenced the parties to agree to a price in excess of the assets’ value.  Importantly, the court also held that PPAs were more like land leases, and should not be viewed as separate intangible assets from the underlying facilities, and are thus eligible property for purposes of the Section 1603 Grant.  Finally, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ pro rata allocation of costs between eligible and ineligible property.

An interesting side note to the trial was the court’s refusal to allow the government’s economics expert to testify. According to the court’s procedural rules, experts are required to list “all publications authored in the previous ten years.”  During voir dire, the expert confirmed that he had provided a listing of all of his articles, not just the ones that he had published in the last 10 years.  The plaintiffs’ counsel also introduced a report that the government’s expert had authored in another case, and the expert also confirmed that the second report had a listing of all of his articles.  However, during trial, the plaintiffs’ counsel exposed that the government’s expert had “attempted to conceal articles he wrote for Marxist and East German publications.”  While the hidden articles had nothing to do with the testimony he was prepared to give to the court, nonetheless, the court refused to admit him as an expert and to testify explaining “[t]he Court simply could not rely on the substantive expert testimony of a witness who was untruthful in describing his background and qualifications.”  As a result, the government had no expert to rebut the plaintiffs’ case and to support its counterclaims against the plaintiffs.



read more

Former Tax Court Judge Pleads Guilty to Tax Crimes

by and | Oct 24, 2016 | ,

Following up on our prior coverage (see here), former US Tax Court Judge Diane L. Kroupa pleaded guilty on Friday to multiple tax criminal charges related to her tax returns and interactions with the Internal Revenue Service. The government stipulated during the hearing that all charges except defrauding the United States would be dropped if Kroupa agreed to be sentenced on the fraud charge. Based on sentencing guidelines, the recommended sentence is between 30-37 months, although the judge may ultimately sentence Kroupa to more or less time. A copy of the Change of Plea Hearing can be found here.



read more

Timing of a US Federal Tax Controversy

by | Oct 18, 2016 | , ,

Understanding the timing of a US Federal tax controversy is helpful in creating a sound and efficient strategy. This timeline shows the typical timing of a US Federal tax controversy, from the IRS’s examination of the return, through administrative appeals, litigation in Tax Court, Circuit Court appeal, and to ultimate assessment of tax.



read more

Types of Tax Court Opinions and Their Precedential Effect

by and | Oct 13, 2016 | , ,

Most tax cases are decided by the US Tax Court (Tax Court). The Tax Court issues two categories of opinions: (1) formally published dispositions; and (2) unpublished dispositions. The first category consists of opinions that are published in the Tax Court Reports and technically are called “division opinions” but are more commonly referred to as “T.C. opinions.” The second category consists of three sets of unpublished dispositions: (1) memorandum opinions (commonly referred to as “memo opinions” or “T.C. memos”); (2) summary opinions; and (3) orders. A common question asked by taxpayers relates to the difference between these forms of dispositions in terms of precedential effect. (more…)



read more

Tax Controversy Options

by | Oct 11, 2016 | , , , , , , ,

Knowing your options for a US Federal tax controversy is helpful in creating a sound and efficient strategy. The attached chart depicts the typical options involved in a US Federal tax controversy, from the IRS’s examination of the return, through administrative appeals, litigation in Tax Court, Circuit Court appeal, and to ultimate assessment of tax.



read more

Deference Denied to IRS Notice Issued Post-Litigation

by | Oct 10, 2016 | , ,

Sometimes a loss in a discovery battle is really a win. That is certainly the outcome in Sunoco, Inc. v. United States, 2016 WL 334578 (Fed. Cl., No. 1:15-cv-00587, 10/6/16). In Sunoco, Judge Wheeler of the Court of Federal Claims denied Sunoco’s motion to compel production of the background file documents for Notice 2015-56 (Aug. 15, 2015). The court, however, denied the motion on the grounds that the requested documents are unnecessary because the Notice is not entitled to Skidmore deference.

Under Skidmore v. Swift, courts may give deference to an agency’s interpretation of its governing laws even when the agency does not use its rulemaking powers. In deciding whether to give deference to the agency’s interpretation, courts consider the interpretation’s “thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”  323 U.S. 134, 139-140 (1944).

In June 2015, Sunoco filed a complaint seeking refunds for federal income taxes relating to the tax treatment of the alcohol fuel mixture credit. Sixty-five days after the complaint was filed, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-56 taking a position contrary to Sunoco’s. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment. In its filings, the government claimed, among other things, that Notice 2015-56 was entitled to Skidmore deference. In response, Sunoco sought internal IRS documents relating to the issuance of Notice 2015-56 that it contended would assist the court in determining whether Skidmore deference was appropriate.

In denying Skidmore deference to Notice 2015-56, the court identified three factors – the timing of the Notice, the lack of authority and the inconsistency with prior IRS advice. The court found the Notice to be self-serving because it was issued when “it was actually litigating.” Additionally, the Notice provided no authority for its position, which the court would have expected considering its finding that the position conflicted with the Internal Revenue Service’s position in a Chief Counsel Advice issued two years earlier. Thus, the court denied Sunoco’s motion to compel on the ground that it was moot because Notice 2015-56 is not entitled to deference.

In situations where the government is claiming deference to agency pronouncements, taxpayers should consider requesting the background files. These files might shed light on the matters considered by the government and provide a defense to the deference argument.



read more

3M Company, IRS File Reply Briefs in “Blocked Income” Case; Tax Court Orders Oral Argument

by | Sep 2, 2016 | , , ,

As discussed in an earlier post, 3M Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5816-13, involves 3M Company’s (3M) challenge to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) determination that Brazilian legal restrictions on the payment of royalties from a subsidiary in that country to its US parent should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s-length royalty between 3M and its subsidiary under Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2). The case has been submitted fully stipulated under Tax Court Rule 122. We discussed the parties’ opening briefs, filed on March 21, 2016, here. Reply briefs were filed on June 29, with the IRS filing an amended reply brief on August 18.

3M returns to its argument that Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2) is “procedurally invalid” because Treasury and the IRS failed to satisfy the requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA) when they promulgated the regulations. 3M notes that the IRS completely ignored this argument in its opening brief. Citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Encino Motorcars, discussed in more detail here, 3M points out that Treasury and the IRS made significant changes to the regulation, but offered no explanation for the changes. This, 3M argues, renders the regulation invalid. 3M observes that compliance with the two-step Chevron test would not save a regulation that is procedurally invalid, noting that such compliance is “a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a regulation to be upheld.”

(more…)



read more

Facebook Battles IRS In Summons Enforcement Case

by and | Aug 12, 2016 | , , , , ,

Facebook is in a protracted battle with the IRS related to its off-shoring of IP to an Irish affiliate. Read more here. The IRS issued an administrative summons for the documents, and Facebook has refused to comply with the summons. The IRS is asking the court to enforce the summons and force Facebook to turn over the requested documents. The court agreed that on its face, the summons was issued for a legitimate purpose. Facebook will now have to tell the court why it refuses to turn over the documents. Review the court order here. Assumedly, Facebook is asserting that it is not required to disclose the requested materials based upon a claim of privilege. The case demonstrates that the IRS is aggressively seeking documents and information from taxpayers and their representatives in cases involving international tax issues.



read more

Tax Court Trial Sessions – How a Case is Set for Trial

by | Aug 11, 2016 | , ,

The US Tax Court is physically located in Washington, DC, but its judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in 70 designated cities. At the time the petition is filed with the Tax Court, the taxpayer will request a specific location for trial. The Tax Court will issue a notice setting the case for trial approximately five months before the trial date.

However, before the notice for trial is sent out, the Tax Court will have announced the dates and locations of the trial sessions. The most recent sessions for Fall 2016 and Winter 2017, which were just released by the Tax Court, can be found here and here. Taxpayers who have not yet received a notice setting the case for trial may review the trial session schedules in advance and want to find out which judge will be presiding over those sessions. Although the name of the judge presiding over a trial session is not listed on the Tax Court’s website, a taxpayer can call the Clerk’s Office and ask whether a particular judge has been assigned to the calendar.



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)