Close
Close

Tax Court holds that IRS’s cancellation of APAs was abuse of discretion

RFP
Tax Court holds that IRS’s cancellation of APAs was abuse of discretionOn July 26, 2017, in Eaton Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-147, (July 26, 2017), the Tax Court held that the IRS’s decision to cancel two advance pricing agreements (APAs) was an abuse of discretion. The U.S. Tax Court further held that the taxpayer, Eaton Corporation, did not transfer intangibles subject to Section 367, and that certain bonus payments to executives were deductible under Section 162(a).

An APA is an agreement between the IRS and a taxpayer on a transfer pricing methodology. This methodology may be applied to any apportionment or allocation of income, deductions, credits, or allowances between or among two or more organizations, trades, or businesses owned or controlled, directly or indirectly by the same interests.

The case involved two unilateral APAs entered into by Eaton Corporation and its subsidiaries. The first APA, from 2001 through 2005, covered the sale of circuit breakers, the license of intangible property and a cost-sharing payment. The other, from 2006 through 2010, covered the sale of circuit breakers. Eaton’s transfer pricing computations under the APAs contained several errors. However, when Eaton discovered these errors, it made the IRS aware of them.

The IRS contended that Eaton did not comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of the APAs and failed to satisfy certain other requirements. Eaton contended that the errors were not significant enough to merit the cancellation of the APAs under the applicable revenue procedures. The Tax Court agreed with Eaton, finding that the errors were “immaterial and inadvertent” and did not constitute “material” errors as provided under the relevant revenue procedures.

The Tax Court decision is yet another in a string of transfer pricing-related defeats for the IRS. The Tax Court’s decision emphasizes the need for taxpayers to carefully manage their transfer pricing data and prepare and retain quality transfer pricing studies. Although the decision underscores the high bar that must be overcome by the IRS when revoking an APA, it nevertheless highlights the importance of meticulous transfer pricing documentation.

Contact David Bowen
Principal, International Tax
T +1 202 521 1580

David Sites
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 861 4104

Cory Perry
Senior Manager, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1509

Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.