transfer pricing
Subscribe to transfer pricing's Posts

Weekly IRS Roundup November 29 – December 3, 2021

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of November 29, 2021 – December 3, 2021. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

November 29, 2021: The IRS published a news release warning taxpayers and tax professionals to beware of a dangerous combination of events that can increase their exposure to tax scams and identity theft. The IRS stated that the holiday shopping season, the upcoming tax season and the pandemic all create additional opportunities for criminals to steal sensitive personal or finance information.

November 30, 2021: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2021-53, which provides temporary guidance regarding the treatment of certain stock distributions by publicly offered real estate investment trusts and publicly offered regulated investment companies in recognition of the need for liquidity as a result of COVID-19. The guidance reduces the minimum required aggregate amount of cash that distributee shareholders may receive to no less than 10% of the total distribution in order for Section 301 (by reason of Section 305(b)) to apply to such distribution.

November 30, 2021: The IRS published a news release warning taxpayers to be wary of fake charities used by scammers to trick unsuspecting donors into providing money and sensitive financial and personal information.

November 30, 2021: The IRS posted an issue snapshot concerning issue indicators and audit tips for public and tax-exempt employer contributions to eligible deferred compensation plans (as defined in Section 457(b)).

December 1, 2021: The US Competent Authority posted the arrangement between Competent Authorities of the United States and Turkey, setting forth parameters on the exchange of county-by-country reporting agreements to combat transfer pricing, base erosion and profit shifting-related risks.

December 1, 2021: The IRS published a news release reminding taxpayers they can get extra protection starting in January by joining its Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN) program. Anyone who can verify their identity can protect themselves against tax-related identity theft by opting into the program.

December 2, 2021: The IRS published a news release warning tax professionals that they face additional security risks from cybercriminals seeking to use the pandemic and phishing scams to steal sensitive client information.

December 2, 2021: The IRS recommended nonacquiescence in Mayo Clinic v. United States, 997 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. May 13, 2021), rev’g 412 F. Supp. 3d 1038 (D. Minn. 2019), where the appeals court invalidated Treasury Regulations Section 1.170A-9(c)(1)’s requirement that the primary function of an educational organization described in Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) be the presentation of formal instruction. For more background, see our recent post.

December 2, 2021: The IRS published a news release reminding tax professionals and taxpayers that they can use digital signatures on a variety of common IRS forms and access a [...]

Continue Reading




IRS Acknowledges Limitations on Use of Outside Contractors in Audits

Several years ago, it came to light that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had hired a law firm to assist with transfer pricing matters in an ongoing audit of a large corporate taxpayer. Contemporaneous with that hiring, the IRS issued temporary regulations providing that third-party contractors “may receive books, papers, records, or other data summoned by the IRS and take testimony of a person who the IRS has summoned as a witness to provide testimony under oath” and “clarifying that contractors are permitted to participate fully in a summons interview.” We previously discussed this highly controversial position here.

Congress seemingly disapproved of the IRS practice of outsourcing legal and audit services to private law firms. In 2019, it enacted Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7602(f) as part of the Taxpayer First Act. That provision prohibits the IRS from hiring outside contractors for purposes other than providing “expert evaluation and assistance” and specifically prohibits non-IRS employees from questioning witnesses under oath. However, no definition was provided as to the meaning “expert evaluation and assistance.”

The IRS recently finalized regulations (applicable to summonses served on after August 6, 2020) providing taxpayer-favorable guidance on the meaning of “expert evaluation and assistance.” Under the final regulations, the IRS may not engage outside legal counsel unless the attorney is hired by the IRS for expertise in (A) foreign, state or local law, (B) non-tax substantive law that is relevant to an issue in the examination, or (C) knowledge, skills or abilities other than providing legal services as an attorney (such as a translator). In addition, the final regulations prohibit IRS contractors from asking a witness (or his or her representative) to clarify an objection or assertion of privilege, as well as from asking questions to witnesses generally, when the witness is under oath.

Practice Point: The final regulations provide helpful guidance to taxpayers regarding the role that outside contractors can play in IRS audits and provide a much-needed deterrent on the IRS’s outsourcing of audits to private law firms. However, taxpayer who believe that the IRS is using outside counsel may want to request in writing a list of all third parties that the IRS contacts during the course of the examination.




IRS Guidance Signals More Stringent Scrutiny on Transfer Pricing Documentation

On April 14, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued informal guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (the “FAQs”), urging taxpayers to strengthen their transfer pricing documentation required under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6662(e) and Treasury Regulations § 1.6662-6. IRC section 6662 provides several types of accuracy-related penalties on underpayments of taxes. Pursuant to IRC section 6662(e)(1)(B)(ii), a net adjustment penalty could apply to an intercompany transaction when the net IRC section 482 transfer pricing adjustment exceeds the applicable threshold amount. Taxpayers, however, may avoid a net adjustment penalty by maintaining transfer pricing documentation in accordance with IRC section 6662(e)(3)(B) and Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6. The IRS indicates that without robust documentation, intercompany transactions may be subject to extensive examination process.

The FAQs provide guidelines for preparing high-quality documentation that could increase the chance of early deselection of transfer pricing issues, thereby substantially facilitating the examination process. First, industry and company analysis sections of the report should be clear and provide context for related party transactions. For example, the report should explain economic downturns or other unforeseen special business circumstances that affect the transfer pricing results. The analysis should also address any differences in risks or functions between the tested party and the comparable companies. Second, functional analysis narratives should be robust and link facts to analysis, and risk analysis should be consistent with intercompany agreements. Finally, detailed analysis should be provided to support (i) the best method selection (as well as the rejection of specified methods, if applicable); (ii) the profit-level-indicator conclusion; (iii) the satisfaction of the comparability criteria enumerated in the regulations and (iv) proposed adjustments to the application of a specified method, if selected. Taxpayers are encouraged to conduct a “self-assessment” of the potential indicators of transfer pricing non-compliance to strengthen their transfer pricing documentation reports.

The FAQs also identify some of the most helpful features in a transfer pricing report.  These features include (i) a full explanation of the data used in the transfer pricing analysis; (ii) descriptions of the general business risks of the transaction and detailed descriptions of how these risks are allocated among the controlled participants to the transaction based on the intercompany policies/agreements and (iii) detailed explanations of how profits are allocated among all parties, especially where a party is allocated profits that are disproportionate to its relative contributions. High-quality transfer pricing documentation may also include useful features such as reports of a functional and risk analysis for each transaction, an analysis of special business circumstances that may have affected profitability, descriptions of challenges of the analysis and any user-friendly features such as a summary of information.

These guidelines are consistent with  recent IRS efforts to encourage taxpayers to improve the quality of transfer pricing documentation, and suggest that the IRS may apply a higher standard in future examination when reviewing the documentation.

Practice Point: The IRS is signaling that there are some persistent deficiencies in taxpayers’ contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation. It may be a good idea to [...]

Continue Reading




IRS Releases Second Quarter Update to 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan

On February 7, 2018, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released its second quarter update to the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan to identify tax issues it believes should be addressed through regulations, revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices and other published administrative guidance. The Priority Guidance Plan contains projects the Treasury hopes to complete during the 12-month period from July 2, 2017 through June 30, 2018. We previously posted on the first quarter 2017-2018 Priority Guidance plan here.

Most of the projects do not involve the issuance of new regulations, instead focus on guidance to taxpayers on a variety of tax issues important to individuals and businesses in the form of: (1) revocations of final, temporary, or proposed regulations (for our prior coverage, see here); (2) notices, revenue rulings and revenue procedures; (3) simplifying and burden reducing amendments to existing regulations; (4) proposed regulations; or (5) final regulations adopting proposed regulations. The initial 2017-2108 Priority Guidance Plan consisted of 198 guidance projects, 30 of which have already been completed. The second quarter update reflects 29 additional projects, including priority items as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) legislation enacted on December 22, 2017, and guidance published or released from October 13, 2017 through December 31, 2017.

(more…)




A 360-Degree View: January and February 2018

Wrapping Up January – and Looking Forward to February

We invite you to view all of the topics we discussed over the last month and take a look at the upcoming tax controversy events where our lawyers will be speaking in February.

Upcoming Tax Controversy Activities in February:

February 15, 2018: David Noren will be presenting “Tax disruption: Adjusting to the shifting transfer pricing landscape” at the 2018 Tax Council Policy Institute Symposium in Washington, DC.




Multilateral-APA-Like Program to Create International Tax Certainty for Pilot Participants

On January 23, 2018, the International Compliance Assurance Programme (ICAP) was launched at an orientation event in Washington, DC. The ICAP pilot is a voluntary program in which the participants will use country-by-country reporting and other information to establish multilateral agreements in order to establish early tax certainty and assurance. The ICAP handbook can be found here.

The pilot program includes eight Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) Forum on Tax Administration (FTA) member tax administrations and eight multinational entities (one headquartered in each of the eight countries including: Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States). Under the program, the participant will engage with several jurisdictions at once in order to efficiently establish and address the specific international tax risks posed by its transfer pricing and permanent establishments. The tax administrations will jointly review the information supplied by the participant and will coordinate any follow-up questions. The participant can then engage with the tax administrations simultaneously, preventing the need for multiple APAs and resulting in fewer disputes. (more…)




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

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…)




Globalism vs. Populism in the International Tax World

Adoption of the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) action items in specific countries can be expected to alter traditional multi-national enterprises (MNE) tax strategy processes. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that tax authorities and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) often seem to overlook, or conveniently ignore, that MNE strategies are often a function of the rules established by countries to develop their own tax base (at the expense of other countries). In other words, countries, in their respective self-interests, grant incentives of various sorts to encourage economic investment. MNEs take advantage of these incentives to minimize their tax liabilities, which the BEPS process views as, somehow, inappropriate behavior of MNEs denuding the tax base of other countries.

Like water going downhill, MNE planning strategies will utilize the most efficient path to achieve desired objectives. This is a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Effective tax rates are a major expense of all MNEs, which need to be managed as effectively as possible in a competitive world. For example, if Country A offers an incentive such that MNE #1 makes an investment in Country A, as opposed to Country B which offers no such incentive, the net result is that jobs and economic activity are created in Country A not B. Country B may perceive that its tax has been eroded. But who has done this? Country A via its incentive or MNE #1?

International tax disputes arise when Country B challenges the activity of MNE #1 asserting that it should have been paying tax in Country B. If there is a treaty between Countries A and B, there could be a mutual agreement procedure (MAP) proceeding. If that proceeding stalls for whatever reason, then all parties would benefit from processes that would lead to resolution.

The transparency demanded by the Country-by-Country (CbC) package and related matters evolving on a unilateral country basis (seeking, once again, to attract tax base away from other countries) will create new opportunities and paradigms for MNE effective tax rate strategies. It may be that these evolutions will drive planning and acquisition strategies toward treaty or non-treaty protected corporate structures designed to: (i) take advantage of new opportunities created by the new  regimes; and (ii) minimize transfer pricing exposures, imposition of exit or other taxes on the movement of intangibles or other assets, and so on. As these strategies evolve, the net result may not be an outcome that was anticipated by organizers of the BEPS project. This was certainly the case with respect to design of our current international tax system just after World War I.

These evolutions in the international tax world reflect, not surprisingly, what is evolving in the global political world. The popular press regularly addresses what is often described as globalism vs. populism, which reflects an apparent trend of voters and governments to focus less on the global good and more on local needs. The same phenomenon appears to be evolving in the world of cross-border [...]

Continue Reading




Court Opinions – A Year In Review

Several notable court opinions were issued 2016 dealing with a variety of substantive and procedural matters. In our previous post – Tax Controversy 360 Year in Review: Court Procedure and Privilege – we discussed some of these matters. This post addresses some additional cases decided by the court during the year and highlights some other cases still in the pipeline.

(more…)




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES