Eaton Corp.'s Transfer Pricing Trial Begins August 24

Read Publication

The U.S. Tax Court’s transfer pricing trial of Eaton Corp. v. Comm’r1 will begin on August 24, 2015, despite attempts by the I.R.S. to further delay the trial until 2016. The controversy between the parties began in 2011, when the I.R.S. used its discretionary power to cancel its advance pricing agreements2 with Eaton Corp. and issued a notice of deficiency. Eaton Corp. filed a petition in 2012 challenging the I.R.S. cancellations and claiming that the agreements should be upheld on the basis of contract principles. The outcome of the trial could have a substantial impact on the I.R.S. Advance Pricing Agreement Program and impact the finality of these agreements with other taxpayers.

The trial was originally scheduled to begin August 5, but the I.R.S. filed a motion to delay the trial for five months. In response to the motion, Judge Kathleen Kerrigan ordered a 19-day continuance. The I.R.S. filed another motion to reconsider the five-month delay, which Judge Kerrigan denied. The I.R.S. argued that Eaton Corp. has failed to cooperate during the discovery process and that it requires additional time to prepare for trial in light of new developments. Judge Kerrigan denied a further delay of the trial because she doubts that the hostile relationship between the parties will improve with additional time.

“Helen of Troy” Inversions Continue

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Rusudan Shervashidze and Andrew P. Mitchel

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. The Joint Committee Report discovers that a better tax result is obtained when foreign low-tax profits are removed from the U.S. tax stream, leaving more for shareholders and executives. Is it an inversion or merely self-help? Andrew P. Mitchel and Rusudan Shervashidze explain.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Competitiveness of the U.S. Tax System

volume 2 no 4   /   Read article

By Stanley C. Ruchelman, Andrew P. Mitchel, and Sheryl Shah

This month, our team delves into the Joint Committee Report addressing international tax reform in a series of articles. The report compares the U.S. tax system with the systems of other countries. Stanley C. Ruchelman, Andrew P. Mitchel, and Sheryl Shah explain what the J.C.T. staff believes. It is not pretty.  See more →

See all articles in this series →

Corporate Matters: Partnerships

Read Publication

In previous issues, we discussed limited liability companies and the various benefits of using such entities, including pass-through taxation, asset protection, ease of formation and flexibility. There are partnerships that can be used to achieve the same results that may be of particular interest to individuals from jurisdictions where the limited liability company is not recognized to the same extent as it is in the United States. These are “Limited Partnerships,” “Limited Liability Partnerships” and “Limited Liability Limited Partnerships.” We thought it may be helpful to outline the differences between these three types of partnerships. Research should be conducted on a state-by-state basis depending on the jurisdiction one is interested in – the following discussion focusses on Delaware.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

A Limited Partnership is a partnership where one or more of the owners are general partners and one or more of the owners are limited partners. The general partners have unlimited liability and are liable for all of the partnership’s debts and obligations. The limited partners have limited liability – limited to the amount of capital they have invested in the partnership. General partners control the partnership and are responsible for its operation. Limited partners have no say in the operation of the partnership and are subject to losing liability protection if they are found to be participating in the management of the partnership. The Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (“DRLPA”) provides that “a limited partner is not liable for the obligations of a limited partnership unless he or she is also a general partner or, in addition to the exercise of the rights and power of a limited partner, he or she participates in the control of the business.”

LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

A Limited Liability Partnership is a general partnership for which an election has been made to obtain limited liability for all of the general partners. Unlike a Limited Partnership, in a Limited Liability Partnership there are no limited partners and all partners can participate in the management of the partnership. As a general rule, the partners of a Delaware general partnership are liable for all of the obligations of the partnership.

Major U.S. Drug Company Avoids Billions in Taxes on $1,000 Pill

Read Publication

Gilead Sciences Inc. (“Gilead”) has developed one of the most expensive drugs available and is avoiding billions of dollars in U.S. taxes by holding its profits outside of the U.S.

The U.S. company has produced a hepatitis C treatment that costs $1,000 per pill. The treatment, which consists of a 12-week regime of its hit drug, Sovaldi, and another pill called Harvoni, costs $94,500 and has alleviated the hepatitis infection and successfully cured most patients of hepatitis C. Since receiving approval for Sovaldi from the Food and Drug Administration in 2013, the profits poured in for Gilead.

I.R.S. Defines Measure for Tax Rate Disparity Test

Read Publication

In order to reduce its overall foreign tax rate, a company may attempt to separate its foreign manufacturing from its foreign sales operations. If a foreign manufacturing entity sells products at a low margin to a related foreign sales entity in a lowtax jurisdiction, less foreign taxes are paid than if the foreign manufacturing entity sold the products directly to customers. This type of transaction would generally trigger foreign base company sales income (“F.B.C.S.I.”) for the sales entity, while the manufacturing entity could rely on the exception whereby income produced by certain manufacturing activities is not included in F.B.C.S.I. (the “Manufacturing Exception”).

Nice Work If You Can Get It: A New Yorker's Guide to Change of Domicile

Read Publication

New York State has been known to question individuals who leave the state, easily identifiable as prior New York residents who file Form IT-203, Nonresident and PartYear Resident Income Tax Returns. Often, the New York State Division of Taxation (the “Division of Tax”) will argue that the taxpayer has not established sufficient evidence to relinquish New York domicile. New York places a high standard on redomiciliation: “The taxpayer must prove his subjective intent based upon the objective manifestation of that intent displayed through his conduct,” and it is always challenging for the taxpayer to show subjective intent. Therefore, it was welcome news when Judge Herbert M. Friedman Jr., an Administrative Law Judge, in Albany, New York recently ruled in favor of the taxpayer Irenee D. May.

THE MATTER OF IRENEE D. MAY

Mr. May moved to New York State and acquired a home in Harrison, New York (the “Harrison House”), where he resided with his wife and two children. He worked for JP Morgan in New York City for almost 20 years. Mr. May was terminated from his job effective January 2005. Shortly after, Mr. May obtained a position in London, working for the Royal Bank of Scotland. Mr. and Mrs. May made plans for the family to move to London with their children. They rented an apartment in London for the whole family, including their nanny. The lease was for one year; the eventual goal of the family was to sell Harrison House and purchase a home in London.

Subsequently, the children were not accepted to the desired London schools; therefore, Mrs. May returned with the children to Harrison allowing them to continue attending their previous school in Greenwich, C.T. Mr. May’s daughter briefly attended school in London but later returned to Harrison to live with her mother and brother.