Tag: Eaton

US vs Eaton Corp., August 2022, Sixth Circuit, Nos. 21-1569/2674

US vs Eaton Corp., August 2022, Sixth Circuit, Nos. 21-1569/2674

Eaton is an Ohio corporation with a global presence. It manufactures a wide range of electrical and industrial products. During the relevant period—2005 and 2006—Eaton had its foreign subsidiaries in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic manufacture certain products which Eaton then sold to its other affiliates and third-party customers. In 2002, Eaton applied for an APA related to these transactions. In 2004 the IRS and Eaton entered into the first APA which covered tax years 2001 through 2005. And in 2006 a second APA was entered which covered tax years 2006 through 2010. A few years after entering in to the APAs, Eaton reviewed its records and caught some inadvertent calculation errors. After letting the IRS know, Eaton corrected the mistakes. But the IRS thought that Eaton’s mistakes were serious enough to warrant its unilateral cancellation of the APAs for tax years 2005 and 2006. And after cancelling the APAs, the IRS handed Eaton a notice claiming a deficiency of ... Read more
US vs Eaton, Oct. 2019, United States Tax Court, Docket No 5576-12

US vs Eaton, Oct. 2019, United States Tax Court, Docket No 5576-12

Eaton Corporation is a global manufacturer of electrical and industrial products headquartered in the US.  This case concerning the computation of penalties is related to a previous 2017 dispute concerning the cancellation of two advance pricing agreements (APAs) establishing a transfer pricing methodology (TPM) for covered transactions between Eaton Corp and its subsidiaries. In 2011 IRS determined that Eaton had not complied with the applicable terms of the governing APA revenue procedures and canceled APA I and APA II, effective January 1, 2005 and 2006, respectively. The US Tax Court found that the cancellation of the APAs was an abuse of discretion (US vs Eaton TC opinion from July 2017), and the APAs remained in effect. Irespective of the ruling related to the cancellation of the APAs, the IRS determined that a section 482 adjustment were still necessary to reflect an arm’s-length result for Eaton’s intercompany transactions, and that the computations should include 40% penalties pursuant to I.R.C. sec. 6662(h). Section 6662(a) imposes a ... Read more