Members of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. contribute to publications throughout the world and the Firm’s monthly tax journal, Insights.
In a follow-up piece on newly proposed anti-inversion regulations, Phillip R. Hirschfeld offers a detailed analysis of new debt equity regulations. Mind-boggling complexity is proposed for rules in an area of the tax law that lay dormant for almost 40 years.
Read MoreOn March 13, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) reversed a decision of the United States Tax Court regarding the rules relating to the repatriation of earnings under Code §965.
Code §965 was a temporary statute permitting an 85% dividends received deduction in connection with the repatriation of earnings from a foreign subsidiary as long as the proper tests were satisfied. One test related to intercompany loans to foreign subsidiaries allowing them to pay the low-tax dividends. Even though the statute is not currently in effect, the reasoning of the Appeals Court suggests that substance will at times prevail, even if it works against the I.R.S.
BMC Software, Inc. (“BMC”) was a software developer that generated income from licensing operations. It had in effect a qualified joint cost-sharing agreement with a subsidiary. In 2002, the agreement was terminated and BMC began to pay royalties to the subsidiary in return for the transfer of rights back to BMC. In an I.R.S. examination, the arm’s length nature of the royalty amount was challenged and ultimately was resolved through two closing agreements entered into in 2007. The first determined that the amount of an arm’s length royalty was less than the amount paid. The second permitted BMC to treat the excess payment as a loan to the foreign subsidiary. This treatment, which has a long history in practice, was permitted under Rev. Proc. 99-32. As a result, the cash flow between BMC and its subsidiary was not changed but made to conform to the agreed amount of an arm’s length royalty, and the return of the cash would be tax-free but for some deemed interest.
Action 4 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan focuses on best practices in the design of rules to prevent base erosion and profit shifting using interest and other financial payments economically equivalent to interest. Its stated goal is described in the following Action:
Develop recommendations regarding best practices in the design of rules to prevent base erosion through the use of interest expense, for example through the use of related-party and third-party debt to achieve excessive interest deductions or to finance the production of exempt or deferred income, and other financial payments that are economically equivalent to interest payments. The work will evaluate the effectiveness of different types of limitations. In connection with and in support of the foregoing work, transfer pricing guidance will also be developed regarding the pricing of related party financial transactions, including financial and performance guarantees, derivatives (including internal derivatives used in intra-bank dealings), and captive and other insurance arrangements. The work will be coordinated with the work on hybrids and CFC rules.
On December 18, 2014, the O.E.C.D. issued a discussion draft regarding Action 4 (the “Discussion Draft”). The Discussion Draft stresses the need to address base erosion and profit shifting using deductible payments such as interest that can give rise to double non-taxation in both inbound and outbound investment scenarios. It examines existing approaches to tackling these issues and sets out different options for approaches that may be included in a best practice recommendation. The identified options do not represent the consensus view of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs, but are intended to provide stakeholders with substantive options for analysis and comment. This article discusses the Discussion Draft for Action 4 of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan.
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 →
