U.S. Government Continues to Increase Focus on Transfer Pricing with Increased Controversy Expected

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Bob Ackerman, David J. Canale, Karen Kirwan, Carlos Mallo, Mike Patton, Leigh Anne Pasak and Peyton Robinson (Ernst & Young LLP)


Transfer pricing will undoubtedly become a more significant focus of attention for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in their examinations of multinational corporations (MNCs). In a statement regarding international tax reform on May 4, 2009, President Obama announced that the IRS will “hire nearly 800 more IRS agents” to increase international tax enforcement efforts.

Concurrent with his remarks, the White House issued a press release commenting on the President’s proposal, indicating that the budget would provide the IRS with funds “to hire new agents, economists, lawyers, and specialists, increasing the IRS’s ability to crack down on offshore tax avoidance, often done through transfer pricing and financial products.” Despite the Administration’s recent announcements reflecting greater scrutiny of international tax issues, nevertheless, there may still be a public perception that the President’s plan will not cover transfer pricing. On May 5, 2009, the New York Times published an article citing different sources indicating that transfer pricing was the “one tax loophole open” in the plan. This perception—wholly without merit—may incite Congress to demand that the Treasury Department and the IRS enforce compliance with transfer pricing even more aggressively.

Read More on IRS Focus on Transfer Pricing (free) >

Addressing Risks of Intermediaries Filing for Bankruptcy in Section 1031 Exchanges

Excerpt from Practical US/Domestic Tax Strategies by J. Gregg Miller, Timothy B. Anderson, Laura Warren and Michelle M. Parten (Pepper Hamilton LLP)

What happens when you engage in a tax-free section 1031 exchange and your qualified intermediary (QI) declares bankruptcy while holding the proceeds from the sale of your property? According to a Virginia bankruptcy court, unless the exchange agreement is drafted properly, the transaction proceeds held by the QI may become part of its bankruptcy estate, resulting in you becoming a general unsecured creditor.

This was the case for an exchanger with proceeds held in segregated bank accounts of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, Inc. (LandAmerica), acting as its QI, at the time LandAmerica filed for bankruptcy. The court concluded that the language of the exchange agreement disclaimed any interest of the exchanger in the proceeds and held that the use of segregated bank accounts did not give rise to a trust. Thus, the proceeds were treated as part of LandAmerica’s bankruptcy estate.

Under Section 1031 of the Code, no gain or loss is recognized when property is exchanged solely for like-kind property. While this exchange of property may take place simultaneously, the Code allows taxpayers to defer the acquisition of the replacement property for 180 days from the transfer of the relinquished property, which is known as a forward exchange. In forward exchanges, taxpayers typically assign the contract for the sale of their relinquished property to an entity known as a QI, which receives the proceeds and uses them to purchase the replacement property on behalf of the exchanger.

Read More about Alternatives to Using a QI to Avoid Risks Related to Section 1031 (free)

Stricter Reporting Requirements for U.S. Transferors of Property to Foreign Corporations

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Andy Sikora and Joel Mitchell (BDO Seidman, LLP)


The Internal Revenue Service has issued revised Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation, to report exchanges of property with or transfers of property to a foreign corporation. The updated form requires greater detail regarding the property transferred and the tax consequences associated with the transfer. Form 926 is required for any United States person, corporation, estate, or trust that has exchanged property with, or transferred property to, a foreign corporation during the transferor’s taxable year in a transaction described in section 6038B(a), 367(d), or 367(e). Among others, affected transfers include transfers of cash (special rules may apply), stock, accounts receivable, intangible property, inventory, and depreciable assets. Revised Form 926 was released by the Service in February 2009 and contains a revision date of December 2008.

Read More on Form 926 Revisions >

Excerpt from WorldTrade Executive's Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Jonathan A. Sambur, Kenneth Klein, Patricia Anne Rexford, John T. Hildy and Rafic H. Barrage (Mayer Brown)


On December 24, 2008, the US Treasury and the IRS released final, temporary and proposed regulations relating to the application of the subpart F foreign base company sales income (FBCSI) rules to contract manufacturing arrangements.

These regulations finalized certain of the proposed regulations relating to this subject that were originally released on February 27, 2008. Also issued were temporary and proposed regulations that modify other of the February 27 proposed regulations. The text of the newly proposed regulations is the same as the corresponding temporary regulations.

Read More on These Regulations (free)

IRS Issues Revised Cost Sharing Regulations

Excerpt from WorldTrade Executive's Practical US/International Tax Strategies by David G. Noren, Paul Dau, Roderick K. Donnelly and John G. Ryan (McDermott Will & Emery)

Taxpayers that have relied on cost sharing arrangements under the 1996 regulations must consider whether and how such reliance will be viable in the future under the new regulations.

On December 31, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued temporary regulations making fundamental changes to the 1996 rules governing qualified cost sharing arrangements (CSAs). These changes are relevant not only to taxpayers that rely on CSAs, but also to taxpayers that have never implemented a CSA, as Treasury and the IRS have provided for application of the principles of the new regulations to intangible development arrangements in general.

The new regulations are based on regulations proposed in 2005, which have been the subject of considerable discussion and controversy. The new regulations are generally effective as of January 5, 2009, subject to limited transition relief for certain preexisting CSAs. The new regulations also were issued in proposed form and will be the subject of a public hearing scheduled for April 21, 2009.

Read More on How Buy-in Payments Will Be Affected

IRS Provides Temporary Relief under Subpart F in Response to the Liquidity Crisis

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Edward Tanenbaum and Diana Wessells (Alston & Bird LLP)

Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 2008-91, which provides temporary and limited relief to a particular aspect of Section 956, in connection with the current liquidity crisis. Under Sections 951 and 956, a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) is subject to tax on the amount equal to the lesser of (1) the U.S. shareholder’s pro rata share of the average of the amounts of U.S. property held (directly or indirectly) by the CFC as of the close of each quarter of the taxable year, less the amount of earnings and profits previously included in the U.S. shareholder’s gross income, or (2) the U.S. shareholder’s pro rata share of the applicable earnings of the CFC. The effect of these provisions is to treat the U.S. shareholders of the CFC as receiving the amount invested in U.S. property as a constructive dividend. Section 956 is consistent with the other provisions of subpart F insofar as it is intended to prevent the tax-free repatriation of earnings.

Read More on Relief Provided by Notice 2008-91 (free)

Financial Bailout Package Contains International Tax Provisions

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Lilo Hester, Ken Wood, Karen Jacobs, Eric Oman, Staci A. Scott and Carlos Probus (Ernst & Young LLP)

Earlier this month, President Bush signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A), the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Division B), and the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 (Division C) (H.R.1424), herein collectively referred to as the Act. The Act was passed by the Senate on October 1, 2008, and by the House of Representatives on October 3, 2008. The Act has been widely publicized as the “bailout bill” because it provides the U.S. government with authority to purchase up to $700 billion in “troubled,” illiquid assets owned by various financial institutions.

International tax provisions of the Act include:

• Elimination of the distinction between foreign oil and gas extraction income (FOGEI) and foreign oil related income (FORI) and the combination of FOGEI and FORI into one foreign oil basket, applying the existing FOGEI limitation.

• Extension for an additional tax year (through December 31, 2009) of the controlled foreign corporation (CFC) look-through provision of Section 954(c)(6).

• Extension for an additional tax year (through December 31, 2009) of the exception to treatment as foreign personal holding company income for income derived in the active conduct of a banking, finance, or similar business.

• Extension for an additional tax year (through December 31, 2009) of the exception to treatment of certain insurance income as subpart F income.

Read more on international tax provisions with respect to individuals

IRS Enhances Opportunity for U.S. Multinationals to Access Cash from Controlled Foreign Corporations

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Douglas S. Stransky, Lewis J. Greenwald, Ameek Ashok Ponda and Eric J. Fuselier (Sullivan & Worcester)

On October 3, 2008, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2008-91, which expands the ability of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) to make short-term loans to its U.S. parent to fund operations without creating an income inclusion for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This Notice applies for a CFC’s first two taxable years ending after October 3, 2008. Thus, for a CFC with a calendar taxable year, the Notice applies for calendar years 2008 and 2009. On October 16, 2008, the IRS issued a correction to provide that Notice 2008-91 will not apply to the taxable year of a CFC beginning after December 31, 2009.

Current Law
Generally, under Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 956, a loan made from a CFC to its U.S. parent is considered to be an investment in U.S. property because the CFC holds an “obligation” of the U.S. parent. Under this Code section, the average amount of the CFC’s investment in U.S. property held at the end of each quarter of the taxable year is potentially treated as a “deemed dividend” to the U.S. parent and, thus, taxable on the U.S. parent’s federal income tax return.
In some circumstances, however, the U.S. parent can have a loan outstanding from its CFC without triggering any income inclusion. Under Notice 88-108, for example, even if a CFC makes a loan to its U.S. parent that extends over a quarter end, there should be no income inclusion provided that this loan is outstanding less than 30 days.

But if the CFC were to hold any number of obligations that would (without regard to the 30-day exception) constitute U.S. property for aggregate periods totaling 60 or more days during a taxable year, this 30-day exception would not apply.

Notice 2008-91
In Notice 2008-91, the IRS has supplemented Notice 88- 108 so that a loan from a CFC to its U.S. parent would only constitute an obligation that results in an income inclusion if the loan is held for more than 60 days from the time it is incurred. Notice 2008-91 further provides that if a CFC holds obligations that would (without regard to the 60-day exception) constitute U.S. property for aggregate periods totaling 180 or more days during a taxable year, then this 60-day exception would not apply. Thus, Notice 2008-91 effectively extends the periods within which a taxpayer can hold an obligation without triggering the application of Code section 956. A CFC can apply Notice 2008-91 or Notice 88-108, but not both.

Read Related Articles

The Internal Revenue Service Provides Limited Relief from the AHYDO Rules for Pre-2009 Financing Commitments

Excerpt from Practical US/Domestic Tax Strategies by Yoram Keinan and Mark H. Leeds (Greenberg Traurig, LLP)

The Internal Revenue Service has responded again to the troubled credit markets by easing the potential tax burden on corporations that issue debt pursuant to previously established financing commitments (Commitments).

On August 8, 2008, the Service issued a Revenue Procedure that describes circumstances under which it will not treat a debt instrument issued pursuant to a Commitment as an applicable high yield discount obligation (AHYDO) for federal income tax purposes. The AHYDO rules can result in both deferral of interest and original issue discount (OID) deductions, as well as a disallowance of such deductions. As a result, corporate borrowers who were lucky enough to lock Commitments prior to the current credit crunch will not face possible deferral and/or disallowance of interest and OID deductions on their debt as a result of actions taken by their lenders.

Read More on the Background of the AHYDO Rules (free)

IRS Disallows Foreign Tax Credits Claimed for Cross-Border Trust

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Lawrence Hill and Alexander Roberts (Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

Recently, the IRS issued a Chief Counsel Advice memorandum (CCA) advising the disallowance of foreign tax credits claimed by a U.S. corporation (U.S. Corporation) in connection with income and assets transferred to a cross-border trust (Trust) on the grounds that the Trust arrangement lacked economic substance. The IRS determined that the cross-border trust “served no legitimate non-tax purpose and was not reasonably expected to generate an economic profit for the taxpayer.” In the alternative, the IRS concluded that the series of transactions involved in the arrangement lacked economic substance as an integrated transaction. In addition, the IRS determined that the foreign tax credits should be denied under Section 269(a)(1) and (2) because the taxpayer formed and transferred funds to a subsidiary with the principal purpose of avoiding U.S. federal income tax.

Read More on IRS Challenges of Cross Border Trusts (free)

The IRS Fixes Subpart F -- Sort Of

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Joseph B. Darby III (Greenberg Traurig LLP) and Brainard Patton (Counselor at Law)

Ronald Reagan famously commented that the most scary phrase in the English language is, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

An even more celebrated saying is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Now comes the Internal Revenue Service—unquestionably, these people are from the government—and they have decided to “help” us by delving into Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code and “fixing” some esoteric but very important rules, including rules that address the consequences of contract manufacturing under the so-called “branch rule.” The branch rule is a significant limitation on the so-called “manufacturing exception,” which in turn is arguably the most important exception to the often tangled and always confusing “Subpart F rules” governing controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

Let’s be frank about this: The branch rule is unquestionably broken, and has been broken for a long time. Now, let’s be even more frank: The branch rule is “broken” primarily because the Internal Revenue Service tried to fix it in the first place. Needless to say, some people—OK, a lot of people—have concerns about sending the IRS to fix a rule that the IRS has made far worse on several previous occasions.

Read More on the Proposed Regulations (free)

IRS Proposes New Regulations on Contract Manufacturing and Subpart F Income

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies by Peter J. Connors, Stephen Lessard and Matthew A. Clausen (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)

In response to the growing importance of contract manufacturing and other manufacturing arrangements, on February 28, 2008, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have proposed to modernize the foreign base company sales income (FBCSI) regulations. Under section 951(a)(1)(A)(i), a U.S. shareholder of a controlled foreign company (CFC) includes in gross income its pro rata share of the CFC’s subpart F income for the CFC’s taxable year that ends with or within the taxable year of the shareholder. Section 952(a)(2) defines subpart F income to include “foreign base company income.” Section 954(a)(2) defines foreign base company income to include FBCSI for the taxable year. While the proposed regulations are prospective in application, taxpayers may choose to apply these regulations “in their entirety to all open tax years” as if they were final regulations. This flexibility will be an important consideration in resolving disputes with the IRS.

Read More on New FBCSI Regulations (free)

The Pot Calling the Pot Black: Congress Points a Finger at the Internal Revenue Code (and Itself)

Excerpt from Practical US/Domestic Tax Strategies by Joseph B. Darby III (Greenberg Traurig LLP)

On April 10, 2008, the Small Business Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives released a Report stating that small businesses, which could otherwise help the U.S. economy get “back on track,” are burdened by a variety of barriers under the “remarkably outdated tax code.”

In the legendarily famous words of Homer Simpson himself, “Duh!”

What makes this Report newsworthy is not the content but rather the author. We are familiar in politics with the “pot calling the kettle black,” since, after all, finger-pointing and blame-shifting is pretty much what Congress does. However, since the primary party to blame for the tax code being “remarkably outdated” is Congress itself, Congress has, in effect, decided to point a finger at itself: This is the pot calling the pot black. Now that is news, indeed.

The funny thing is that the Report is absolutely dead-on accurate in its criticisms of the Code—so much so that it gives the reader a small hope that some of the changes might actually be enacted. Experience shows that when members of Congress are bickering and blaming each other, very little gets done. However, when Congress decides to look in a mirror and blame itself—well, almost anything seems possible.

Although the Report is concerned primarily with “small business” issues, the recommendations (if adopted) would benefit all tax-paying businesses, by simplifying the law and eliminating burdensome recordkeeping. Best of all, the Report might actually initiate a movement in Congress to consider the extraordinary burdens it places on U.S. taxpayers as part of the “voluntary” U.S. income tax system. In short, the Report is a surprisingly candid document that should be read by taxpayers of all sizes and stripes.

More>

Accounting—In Practice—for Back Office and Headquarters Services After Changes to Intercompany Service Transactions

Excerpt from Practical US/International Tax Strategies' interview with Transfer Pricing Specialist Eric Ryan, DLA Piper

In 2006 the Treasury Department and the IRS issued temporary regulations under Code Section 482 that phased out the simplified cost based method for reporting intercompany service transactions, and replaced it with the Services Cost Method (SCM). In order to find out how companies are adapting to the changes, Tax Strategies talked with Eric Ryan, a Partner with DLA Piper, resident in the Palo Alto office. Mr. Ryan has been working closely with many companies, primarily in high tech sectors, to implement the new rules.

Strategies: What kinds of companies are most affected by the changes to the new transfer pricing methods provided under the temporary service regulations?

Ryan: The key companies that are affected by this are U.S. multinationals that, on a regular basis, are charging out to their foreign affiliates some portion of what they consider U.S. headquarters costs. These companies in particular have basically had to do a complete relook at what they were doing previously.

Strategies: What has been the general taxpayer reaction to the SCM or Services Cost Method and the temporary regulations that allow expenses to be charged to affiliates without a markup?

Ryan: With the exception of one or two items, I think it has actually been favorable. Of course the SCM—the no-markup approach—is an exception to the arm’s length standard because the tax authorities would otherwise assume that there’s a profit motivation in arm’s length dealings. So what the IRS tried to do here was to keep the categories of expenses that could be allocated out without a markup to non high value-added activities. There was an earlier version of these proposed regulations issued in 2003 that had a formula which was just not workable, and it took a lot of effort to figure out if you could qualify for the new markup. Now the IRS has issued this list of 101 things that companies can allocate without a markup and that list, which is in Rev. Proc. 2007-13, we are coming to find out, is fairly extensive for General and Administrative activities.

More from this Interview (free)>

What to Expect During Upcoming IRS Examinations

by Ellen McElroy and Christian Wood (Pepper Hamilton LLP)

In upcoming examinations the IRS is giving priority to non-shareholder contributions, Section 936 exit strategies, Section 41 credit claims, Section 199 domestic production deductions, as well as claims of foreign tax credits and use of hybrid instruments.

As a brief review, for examination purposes, the IRS has designated certain tax issues into one of three tiers, based on a combination of factors, including the likelihood of taxpayer non-compliance, the presence of established legal authority, and the implication of substantial revenue. Examiners must raise Tier I issues, and once a Tier I issue has been raised, any resolution of the issue must be approved by LMSB (Large and Mid-Size Business division) executives. Unlike traditional IRS examinations that have been fully resolved by the exam team, LMSB specialists must approve Tier I issue settlements. IRS examining agents are directed to examine all Tier II issues, but are not required to do so. The examinations of Tier III issues follow traditional examination procedures.

More>