Insights Vol. 2 No. 2: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

BUSINESSMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO CONCEALING $8.4 MILLION

A Connecticut business executive, George Landegger, pled guilty to willfully failing to report $8.4 million held in Swiss bank accounts to the I.R.S. During the early 2000’s until 2010, Landegger maintained undeclared accounts which reached a maximum value of over $8.4 million at an unidentified Swiss bank.

While Landegger’s defense attorney confirmed that Landegger has not been accepted to the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“O.V.D.P.”), Landegger, according to the prosecutors, repeatedly rejected the possibility of disclosing his undeclared accounts to the I.R.S. through the O.V.D.P. and instead proactively took steps to conceal his accounts. Landegger held his undeclared accounts in a sham entity formed by a Swiss lawyer under the laws of Liechtenstein. In August 2013, the Swiss lawyer pled guilty to tax fraud conspiracy charges and has been cooperating with prosecutors.

Landegger agreed to pay a civil penalty of over $4.2 million and more than $71,000 in back taxes as part of his plea, entered on January 15, 2015. Landegger’s sentencing will be held May 12. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. In his statement, I.R.S. Acting Special Agent-in-Charge Thomas E. Bishop stressed that uncovering hidden offshore accounts and income is the Service’s top priority and that it will continue working with the Department of Justice to do so. This case illustrustrates the importance of a timely O.V.D.P. submission.

OBAMA PROPOSES INCREASE IN CAPITAL GAINS TAX, ELIMINATION OF STEPPED-UP BASIS ON INHERITED ASSETS

President Obama has proposed a 28% tax rate on capital gains for couples with $500,000 in annual income and eliminating the stepped-up basis on inherited investments. Obama believes that these tax increases will help to pay for expanded benefits for middle- and low-income households. Congressional Republicans have indicated that they would not support Obama’s proposal.

Insights Vol. 2 No. 1: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

TAX EVASION INDIAN STYLE: CRIMINAL OR CIVIL OFFENSE?

Judicial authorities in India are recommending that the country adopt a similar position as the United States with respect to offshore bank accounts. While investigating the “black money” held in undeclared Swiss bank accounts by 628 wealthy Indians, two of the judges recommended that tax evasion should constitute a criminal offense and not simply a civil one.

The scandal has been at the forefront of both political discussion and legal debate since there is a fine line that is being straddled between disclosing and punishing these tax evaders versus violating the confidentiality clause from the Indian-Swiss tax treaty. According to the treaty, these account names can only be revealed once charges identifying the specific individual have been filed.

In India, “black money” has always been an obstacle to tax collection. Black money constitutes undeclared income that has been “hidden,” profits from the undervaluation of exports, and earnings from fake invoices or unaccounted-for goods. Black money not only affects the national treasury, but has fueled corruption, too. According to the judges, classifying tax evasion as a criminal offense, and dealing with these lawbreakers more strictly should serve as a deterrent.

HAND IT OVER, MICROSOFT?

In conjunction with its audit of Microsoft’s cost-sharing transfer pricing methods for the 2004-2006 tax years, the I.R.S. has filed a petition for enforcement of an issued summons for 50 types of documents, including those relating to marketing, R&D, financial projections, revenue targets, employees, studies, and surveys.

B.E.P.S. Action 10 - Part II: The Transfer Pricing Aspects of Cross-Border Commodity Transactions

Read Publication The discussion draft on Action 10 (the “Discussion Draft”) deals with transfer pricing issues in relation to commodities transactions and the potential for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”). The commodity sector constitutes major economic activity for developing countries and provides both employment and government revenue.

In seeking to create clear guidance on the application of transfer pricing rules to commodity transactions, the Discussion Draft identifies several problems and policy challenges and seeks to establish a transfer pricing outcome that is in line with value creation.

B.E.P.S. Actions 8, 9 & 10: Assuring that Transfer Pricing Outcomes are in Line with Value Creation

Read Publication

On December 19, 2014, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released a discussion draft on Actions 8, 9, and 10 of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) Action Plan (“Discussion Draft” or “Draft”). Actions 8, 9, and 10 reinforce the goal of assuring that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation.

In July 2013, the O.E.C.D. published the B.E.P.S. Action Plan for the purpose of establishing a comprehensive agenda to resolve B.E.P.S. issues. The B.E.P.S. Action Plan identifies 15 actions to combat B.E.P.S. and establishes deadlines for application of each action.

The Discussion Draft introduces revisions to Chapter I of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines and addresses the related topics in Actions 8, 9, and 10. Specifically, the Discussion Draft focuses on the development of the following:

(i) rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by transferring risks among, or allocating excessive capital to, group members. This will involve adopting transfer pricing rules or special measures to ensure that inappropriate returns will not accrue to an entity solely because it has contractually assumed risks or has provided capital. The rules to be developed will also require alignment of returns with value creation.

(ii) rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by engaging in transactions which would not, or would only very rarely, occur between third parties. This will involve adopting transfer pricing rules or special measures to: (i) clarify the circumstances in which transactions can be recharacterized.

(iii) transfer pricing rules or special measures for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles.

Foreign Correspondence: Notes from Abroad

Read Publication

HOLIDAY SHOPPING, CANADIAN RETAIL PRICES AND TRANSFER PRICING CONTROVERSY

By Michael Peggs

When people think of massive transfer pricing cases, the driver typically is the diversion of profits to a low-tax jurisdiction. But transfer pricing issues are now filtering down to the level of retail shoppers facing retail price disparity in adjacent jurisdictions. A typical case is the premium that Canadian purchasers generally pay over prices charged in the U.S. for comparable products.

Before the internet, it was customary for Canadians to receive flyers in the mail from U.S. grocery and department stores. The flyers offered bargains for the holidays. The internet now allows instant price comparisons and greater choice for Canadian consumers. Disregarding sub rosa impediments to competition that permeate many areas of the Canadian economy – think of cultural preferences – Canadians have complained loudly that retail prices are unfairly high when compared with exchange-adjusted U.S. prices. A typical example is print media where the premium for pricing the Canadian edition was not reduced over the period in which the Canadian dollar reached parity with its U.S. counterpart.

The Canadian government is now preparing to give the Competition Bureau new powers to persuade U.S. multinationals with Canadian retail operations to lower prices or to achieve retail price parity, as will be determined. One hopes that Industry Canada will intervene with the Canada Revenue Agency (“C.R.A.”) before drafting legislation, as an unintended consequence may be a new round of Canadian transfer pricing controversy.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 10: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

ISRAEL ANNOUNCES ADOPTION OF O.E.C.D.’S COMMON REPORTING STANDARD

Israel has announced that it will adopt the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information: Common Reporting Standard (“C.R.S.”) issued by the O.E.C.D. in February 2013.

The C.R.S. establishes a standardized form that banks and other financial institutions would be required to use in gathering account and transaction information for submission to domestic tax authorities. The information would be provided to domestic authorities on an annual basis for automatic exchange with other participating jurisdictions. The C.R.S. will focus on accounts and transactions of residents of a specific country, regardless of nationality. The C.R.S. also contains the due diligence and reporting procedures to be followed by financial institutions based on a Model 1 F.A.T.C.A. intergovernmental agreement (“I.G.A.”).

At the conclusion of the October 28-29 O.E.C.D. Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, about 50 jurisdictions had signed the document. The U.S. was notably absent as a signatory to the agreement. In addition to the C.R.S., the signed agreement contains a model competent authority agreement for jurisdictions that would like to participate at a later stage.

Action Item 13: Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

On July 19, 2013, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“O.E.C.D.”) released its full Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (the “B.E.P.S. Action Plan”), with expectations to roll out specific items over the subsequent two years. According to the O.E.C.D., the B.E.P.S. Action Plan will allow countries to draft coordinated, comprehensive, and transparent standards that governments need to prevent B.E.P.S., while at the same time updating the current rules to reflect modern business practices. Of the 15 action items listed in the B.E.P.S. Action Plan, four relate specifically to transfer pricing and several others indirectly address this area, as well. The four with direct impact on transfer pricing are Action Items 8, 9, 10, and 13:

• Action Items 8, 9, and 10 (Assure that Transfer Pricing Outcomes are in Line with Value Creation) develop rules to prevent B.E.P.S. by (i) adopting a broad and clearly delineated definition of intangibles; (ii) ensuring that profits associated with the transfer and use of intangibles, capital, or other high-risk transactions are appropriately allocated in accordance with value creation; (iii) developing transfer pricing rules for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles; and (iv) updating the guidance on cost contribution arrangements.
• Action Item 13 (Re-examine Transfer Pricing Documentation) develops rules regarding transfer pricing documentation to enhance transparency for tax administrations, taking into consideration the compliance costs for multinationals.

With these and the 11 other Action Items, the O.E.C.D. aims to foster (i) coherence of corporate income taxation at the national level; (ii) enhanced substance, through bilateral tax treaties an in transfer pricing; and (iii) transparency and consistency of requirements.

Action Item 8: Changes to the Transfer Pricing Rules in Relation to Intangibles - Phase I

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

Unlike some of the other B.E.P.S Action Items, Action Item 8 has a basis in existing O.E.C.D. rules. In this regard, the O.E.C.D. Transfer Pricing Guidelines41 have established the operating rules for transfer pricing. It is understandable that Action Item 8 merely presents a series of amendments to Chapters I, II, and VI of the O.E.C.D. Guidelines.

Action Item 8 states that it seeks to:

• Clarify the definition of I.P.,
• Provide guidance on identifying transactions involving I.P., and
• Provide supplemental guidance for determining arm’s length conditions for transactions involving I.P.

Action Item 8 also considers the treatment of local market features and corporate synergies.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 8: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

U.K. WINDFALL WINDING DOWN

After an arduous path through the courts regarding the creditability of the U.K. windfall tax, the Third Circuit followed the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court and found the tax to be creditable in a case involve PPL Corp.

The U.S. and foreign countries can tax foreign-sourced income of U.S. taxpayers. To lessen the economic cost of double taxation, U.S. taxpayers are allowed to deduct or credit foreign taxes in computing income or net tax due. The amount of the U.S. income tax that can be offset by a credit cannot exceed the proportion attributable to net foreign source income. Code §901(b) specifies that a foreign credit is allowed only if the nature of the foreign tax is similar to the U.S. income tax and is imposed on net gain.

The U.S. entity PPL is a global energy company producing, selling, and delivering electricity through its subsidiaries. South Western Electricity PLC (“SWEB”), a U.K. private limited company, was an indirect subsidiary that was liable for windfall tax in the U.K. Windfall tax is a 23% tax on the gain from a company’s public offering value when the company was previously owned by the U.K. government. When SWEB paid its windfall liability, PPL claimed a Code §901 foreign tax credit. This was denied by the I.R.S. and the long and winding litigation commenced.

Initially, the Tax Court found the windfall tax to be of the same character as the U.S. income tax. The decision was reversed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the tax was neither an income tax, nor a war profits tax, nor an excess profits tax. It took into consideration in determining the tax base an amount greater than gross receipts. Then, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the predominant character of the windfall tax is an excess profits tax based on net income. Therefore, it was creditable. In August, the Third Circuit followed the Supreme Court’s decision and ordered that the original decision in the Tax Court should be affirmed.

Current Tax Court Litigation Illustrates Intangible Property Transfer Pricing and Valuation Issues

Read Publication

MOVING INTANGIBLE PPROPERTY ASSETS OVERSEAS PRESENTS BOTH BUSINESS AND TAX ISSUES

The movement of intangible property (“I.P.”) offshore by U.S. multinational corporations has always been subject to high levels of I.R.S. scrutiny. This remains true in the current tax environment. It is a given that U.S. multinational companies are subject to a high level of U.S. corporate income tax at federal and state levels and their non-U.S. business operations are typically subject to lower tax rates abroad. As a result, U.S. multinationals can lower their global tax expense by transferring I.P. to an offshore subsidiary company (“I.P. Company”), when it is appropriate and consistent with the conduct of their international business operations.

In a typical arrangement within a group, the I.P. Company licenses the use of the I.P. to other members. Royalties paid by the other group members (including the U.S. parent, if total ownership of the I.P. is assumed by the I.P. Company) is claimed as a deduction in the tax jurisdictions of each member that is a licensee. If an I.P. Box Company arrangement is in place or a special ruling obtained, the royalties received by the I.P. Company will be subject to a low tax rate. Assuming that arrangements are in place to remove the royalty income from the category of Foreign Personal Holding Company Income for purposes of Subpart F, the net result is reduced tax for book and tax purposes. This yields greater profits for the multinational group and increased value for its shareholders.

Two cases that are currently in litigation illustrate the I.R.S. scrutiny given to transfers of I.P. to an I.P. Company and the resulting U.S. tax issues that are encountered. The cases involve Zimmer Holdings and Medtronic.

Insights Vol. 1 No. 7: Updates & Other Tidbits

Read Publication

KENNETH WOOD NAMED ACTING DIRECTOR OF I.R.S. TRANSFER PRICING OPERATIONS

On July 24, the I.R.S. selected Kenneth Wood, senior manager in the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program, to replace Samuel Maruca as acting director of Transfer Pricing Operations. The appointment took effect on August 3, 2014. We previously discussed I.R.S. departures, including those in the Transfer Pricing Operations, here.

To re-iterate, it is unclear what the previous departures signify—whether the Large Business & International Division is being re-organized, or whether there are more fundamental disagreements on how the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) initiative affects basic tenets of international tax law as defined by the I.R.S. and Treasury. Although there is still uncertainty about the latter issue, Ken Wood’s appointment seems to signify that the Transfer Pricing Operations’ function will remain intact in some way.

CORPORATE INVERSIONS CONTINUE TO TRIGGER CONTROVERSY: PART I

President Obama echoed many of the comments coming from the U.S. Congress when he recently denounced corporate inversion transactions in remarks made during an address at a Los Angeles technical college. As we know, inversions are attractive for U.S. multinationals because as a result of inverting, non-U.S. profits are not subject to U.S. Subpart F taxation. Rather, they are subject only to the foreign jurisdiction’s tax, which, these days, is usually lower than the U.S. tax. In addition, inversions position the multinational group to loan into the U.S. from the (now) foreign parent. Subject to some U.S. tax law restrictions, interest paid by the (now) U.S. subsidiary group is deductible for U.S. tax purposes with the (now) foreign parent booking interest at its home country’s lower tax rate.

“Inverted companies” have been severely criticized by the media and politicians as tax cheats that use cross-border mergers to escape U.S. taxes while still benefiting economically from their U.S. business presence. This has been seen as nothing more than an unfair increase of the tax burden of middle-income families.

Tax 101: Tax Planning and Compliance for Foreign Businesses with U.S. Activity

Read Publication

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. tax laws affecting foreign businesses with activity in the U.S. contain some of the more complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Examples include:

• Effectively connected income,
• Allocation of expenses to that income,
• Income tax treaties,
• Arm’s length transfer pricing rules,
• Permanent establishments under income tax treaties,
• Limitation on benefits provisions in income tax treaties that are designed to prevent “treaty shopping,”
• State tax apportionment,
• F.I.R.P.T.A. withholding tax for transactions categorized as real property transfers,
• Fixed and determinable annual and periodical income, and
• Interest on items of portfolio debt.

One can imagine that it is no easy task to identify income that is subject to tax, to identify the tax regime applicable to the income, and to quantify gross income, net income, and income subject to withholding tax. Nonetheless, the I.R.S. has identified withholding tax obligations of U.S. payers as a Tier I audit issue.

U.S.-Based Pushback on B.E.P.S.

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the aggressive actions by some foreign countries to levy more taxes on U.S. taxpayers before a consensus has been reached, the process established by the O.E.C.D. raises serious questions about the ability of the United States to fully participate in the negotiations.

Ultimately, we believe that the best way for the United States to address the potential problem of B.E.P.S. is to enact comprehensive tax reforms that lower the corporate rate to a more internationally competitive level and modernize the badly outdated and uncompetitive U.S. international tax structure.

So say Representative Dave Camp (R) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R), two leading Republican voices in Congress, on the O.E.C.D.’s B.E.P.S. project.

Does this somewhat direct expression of skepticism represent nothing more than U.S. political party politicking or a unified U.S. government position that in fact might be one supported by U.S. multinational corporations? The thought of the two political parties, the Administration and U.S. industry agreeing on a major political/economic issue presents an interesting, if unlikely, scenario. This article will explore that scenario.

OVERVIEW OF B.E.P.S./WHY B.E.P.S.?/WHY NOW?

Base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”) refers to tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules in order to make profits “disappear” for tax purposes or to shift profits to locations where there is little or no real activity and the taxes are low. This results in little or no overall corporate tax being paid.

The McKesson Transfer Pricing Case

volume 1 no 7   |   Read article

By Sherif Assef

In this month’s lead article, Sherif Assef of Duff & Phelps weighs the consequences of a recent Tax Court of Canada case involving risk shifting and function shifting within a multinational group when neither risks nor functions are actually shifted. Nonetheless, profits were shifted and this annoyed the C.R.A.  See more →

Transfer Pricing - Bankruptcy Court Prevents I.R.S. from Pursuing Unsupported Transfer Pricing Claims; In Re: DeCoro USA, Limited, Debtor (2014 U.S.T.C. PAR 50,227)

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

A recent decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District North Carolina (the “Court”) provides interesting guidance on the practical application of U.S. transfer pricing rules. While one would not normally expect significant transfer pricing insight from a bankruptcy court, an I.R.S. claim for tax due caused the Court to apply U.S. tax transfer pricing rules in a surprisingly clear, concise and practical manner in order to determine the validity of the claim. In holding the claim invalid, the Court provided valuable guidance to taxpayers and the I.R.S. alike, finding that assertions of underpayment of tax in connection with the pricing of a controlled transaction must be based on the facts presented, rather than those imagined by the I.R.S.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The DeCoro Group was founded in 1997 by an Italian businessman whose goal was to produce high quality Italian leather furniture at affordable prices on a worldwide basis. In order to accomplish this, a Chinese manufacturing plant was purchased then expanded. Business management of the DeCoro Group was carried out by DeCoro Limited (“DCL”), a Hong Kong company. Strategic customer relationships with furniture retailers around the world were developed and maintained by DCL. Through a Chinese manufacturing facility, DCL was engaged in the manufacture and sale of high end leather furniture.