Skip to content

MENUMENU
  • Show more results

    Generic filters
    Exact matches only
    Search in title
    Search in content
  • Show more results

    Generic filters
    Exact matches only
    Search in title
    Search in content
  • Keywords
  • Countries
  • Countries
    • Albania
    • Angola
    • Argentina
    • Australia
    • Austria
    • Bahamas
    • Bangladesh
    • Belgium
    • Bermuda
    • Brazil
    • Bulgaria
    • Canada
    • Cayman
    • Chile
    • China
    • Colombia
    • Costa Rica
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech
    • Denmark
    • Dominica
    • Egypt
    • El Salvador
    • Estonia
    • European Union
    • Finland
    • France
    • Georgia
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Greenland
    • Honduras
    • Hong Kong
    • Hungary
    • Iceland
    • India
    • Indonesia
    • Isle of Man
    • Ireland
    • Israel
    • Italy
    • Jamaica
    • Japan
    • Kenya
    • Korea
    • Labuan
    • Latvia
    • Liberia
    • Liechtenstein
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Maldives
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Nigeria
    • Norway
    • Panama
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Paraguay
    • Peru
    • Philippines
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Puerto Rico
    • Romania
    • Russia
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Senegal
    • Seychelles
    • Singapore
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • South Africa
    • Spain
    • Sri Lanka
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
    • Taiwan
    • Tanzania
    • Thailand
    • Tunisia
    • Turkey
    • Uganda
    • Ukraine
    • United Kingdom
    • Uruguay
    • United States
    • Zimbabwe
    • OECD
    • UN
    • G20
  • Guidelines
    • OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2022
    • OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017
    • OECD Model Tax Convention 2017
    • UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing 2021
    • UN Model Double Tax Convention 2017
  • Case Laws
    • Arm's Length Principle
    • Benchmark, Range and Median
    • Beneficial Owner
    • Burden of Proof
    • Business Restructuring
    • Commodity Transactions
    • Comparability Analysis
    • Cost Contribution Arrangements
    • Delineation - Substance over Form
    • Digital Economy
    • Disallowed Deduction
    • EU State Aid
    • Financial Transactions
    • General Anti-Avoidance Rules
    • Intangibles - Goodwill Know-how Patents
    • Legal and Constitutional Issues
    • Losses that continue indefinitely
    • Non-Recognition and Recharacterisation
    • Permanent Establishments
    • Royalty and License Payments
    • Sales and Marketing Hubs
    • Series of Related Transactions
    • Services and Fees
    • Shares and Dividends
    • Tax Avoidance Schemes
    • Tax Treaty Interpretation
    • Transfer Pricing Documentation
    • Transfer Pricing Methods
    • Valuation - DCF and CUT/CUPs
    • VAT and Customs Valuation
    • Withholding Tax (WHT)
  • TP News
  • blank
MENUMENU
  • Show more results

    Generic filters
    Exact matches only
    Search in title
    Search in content
  • Show more results

    Generic filters
    Exact matches only
    Search in title
    Search in content
  • Keywords
  • Countries
  • Countries
    • Albania
    • Angola
    • Argentina
    • Australia
    • Austria
    • Bahamas
    • Bangladesh
    • Belgium
    • Bermuda
    • Brazil
    • Bulgaria
    • Canada
    • Cayman
    • Chile
    • China
    • Colombia
    • Costa Rica
    • Croatia
    • Cyprus
    • Czech
    • Denmark
    • Dominica
    • Egypt
    • El Salvador
    • Estonia
    • European Union
    • Finland
    • France
    • Georgia
    • Germany
    • Greece
    • Greenland
    • Honduras
    • Hong Kong
    • Hungary
    • Iceland
    • India
    • Indonesia
    • Isle of Man
    • Ireland
    • Israel
    • Italy
    • Jamaica
    • Japan
    • Kenya
    • Korea
    • Labuan
    • Latvia
    • Liberia
    • Liechtenstein
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Maldives
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Nigeria
    • Norway
    • Panama
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Paraguay
    • Peru
    • Philippines
    • Poland
    • Portugal
    • Puerto Rico
    • Romania
    • Russia
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Senegal
    • Seychelles
    • Singapore
    • Slovakia
    • Slovenia
    • South Africa
    • Spain
    • Sri Lanka
    • Sweden
    • Switzerland
    • Taiwan
    • Tanzania
    • Thailand
    • Tunisia
    • Turkey
    • Uganda
    • Ukraine
    • United Kingdom
    • Uruguay
    • United States
    • Zimbabwe
    • OECD
    • UN
    • G20
  • Guidelines
    • OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2022
    • OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017
    • OECD Model Tax Convention 2017
    • UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing 2021
    • UN Model Double Tax Convention 2017
  • Case Laws
    • Arm's Length Principle
    • Benchmark, Range and Median
    • Beneficial Owner
    • Burden of Proof
    • Business Restructuring
    • Commodity Transactions
    • Comparability Analysis
    • Cost Contribution Arrangements
    • Delineation - Substance over Form
    • Digital Economy
    • Disallowed Deduction
    • EU State Aid
    • Financial Transactions
    • General Anti-Avoidance Rules
    • Intangibles - Goodwill Know-how Patents
    • Legal and Constitutional Issues
    • Losses that continue indefinitely
    • Non-Recognition and Recharacterisation
    • Permanent Establishments
    • Royalty and License Payments
    • Sales and Marketing Hubs
    • Series of Related Transactions
    • Services and Fees
    • Shares and Dividends
    • Tax Avoidance Schemes
    • Tax Treaty Interpretation
    • Transfer Pricing Documentation
    • Transfer Pricing Methods
    • Valuation - DCF and CUT/CUPs
    • VAT and Customs Valuation
    • Withholding Tax (WHT)
  • TP News
  • blank

US vs Altera Corp, June 7, 2019, US Court of Appeal, Nos 16-70496 and 16-70497

Posted on June 7, 2019 | By Courts of the US | No comments
Category: Cost Contribution Arrangements, Legality - Legitimacy - Constitutional | Tag: Altera, CCA/CSA, Cost Sharing Arrangement (CSA), Employee stock options, Qualified cost-sharing arrangements
« Prev | Next »

The US Court of Appeal had reversed a decision from the Tax Court that 26 C.F.R. § 1.482-7A(d)(2), under which related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment, was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had not gone beyond the authority delegated under 26 U.S.C. § 482, and that the Commissioner’s rule-making authority complied with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Opinion was shortly after (August 7, 2018) withdrawn by the Court of Appeal.

A final Decision was issued June 7, 2019, reaching the conclusion that 26 C.F.R. § 1.482-7A(d)(2), under which related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment, was not (arbitrary and capricious) invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act..

The Court held that the Treasury reasonably interpreted § 482 as an authorization to require internal allocation methods in the QCSA context, provided that the costs and income allocated are proportionate to the economic activity of the related parties, and concluded that the regulations are a reasonable method for achieving the results required by the statute.

 

US vs Altera Corp 2019

 

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.28 Whereas it cannot be assumed that the value of pre-existing contributions corresponds to costs, it is sometimes the case that cost could be used as a practical means to measure relative value of current contributions. Where the difference between the value and costs is relatively insignificant, for practical reasons, current...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.63 The work on Action 14 also addresses a number of other aspects related to the content of mutual agreement procedure programme guidance: Element 3.2 of the Action 14 minimum standard states that countries should identify in their mutual agreement procedure programme guidance the specific information and documentation that a taxpayer...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 1a 8. The facts are the same as Example 1. In accordance with the guidance in paragraph 8.27, an alternative way to achieve the identical result under Example 1 is through the use of a two-step process as set out below 9. Step 1 (contributions measured at cost): Company A should...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.7 In some cases CCAs can provide helpful simplification of multiple transactions (bearing in mind that the tax consequences of transactions are determined in accordance with applicable local laws). In a situation where associated enterprises both perform activities for other group members and simultaneously benefit from activities performed by other group...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 2 Example 2 12. The facts are the same as Example 1, except that the per-unit value of Service 1 is 103 (that is, both Service 1 and Service 2 are low-value services). Assume, therefore, that the calculation of the costs and value of the services is as follows:   Cost to...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.39 As indicated in paragraph 8.9, the economically relevant characteristics of the arrangement identified under the guidance in Section D of Chapter I may indicate that the actual transaction differs from the terms of the CCA purportedly agreed by the participants. For example, one or more of the claimed participants may...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.15 A party would also not be a participant in a CCA if it does not exercise control over the specific risks it assumes under the CCA and does not have the financial capacity to assume these risks, as this party would not be entitled to a share in the output...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 1 1. Example 1 illustrates the general principle that contributions should be assessed at value (i.e. based on arm’s length prices) in order to produce results that are consistent with the arm’s length 2. Company A and Company B are members of an MNE group and decide to enter into a...
March 2019: ATO – Risk assessment of inbound distribution arrangements The Guideline outlines ATO’s compliance approach to the transfer pricing outcomes associated with the following activities of inbound distributors: distributing goods purchased from related foreign entities for resale, and distributing digital products or services where the intellectual property in those products or services is owned by related foreign entities Such...
2020: ATO Alert on arrangements and schemes connected with DEMPE of intangibles The ATO is currently reviewing international arrangements that mischaracterise Australian activities connected with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation (DEMPE) of intangible assets. Such arrangements may be non-arm’s length or structured to avoid tax obligations, resulting in inappropriate outcomes for Australian tax purposes. One of the issues is whether...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Case Laws

US vs Altera Corp, July 2018, US Court of Appeal, Nos 16-704996 The US Court of Appeal reversed a decision from the Tax Court that 26 C.F.R. § 1.482-7A(d)(2), under which related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment, was invalid...
US vs Proctor & Gamble Co, April1992, Court of Appeal (6th Cir.), Case No 961 F.2d 1255 Proctor & Gamble is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of consumer and industrial products. Proctor & Gamble operates through domestic (US) and foreign subsidiaries and affiliates. Proctor & Gamble owned all the stock of Procter & Gamble A.G. (AG), a Swiss corporation. AG was engaged in marketing...
New Zealand vs Alesco New Zealand Limited and others, Supreme Court, SC 33/2013, NZSC 66 (9 July 2013) In 2003 Alesco New Zealand Ltd (Alesco NZ) bought two other New Zealand companies. Its Australian owner, Alesco Corporation (Alesco), funded the acquisitions by advancing the purchase monies of $78 million. In consideration Alesco NZ issued a series of optional convertible notes (OCNs or notes). The notes were non-interest bearing...
Hungary vs “Lender” Kft, February 2020, Budapest Administrative Court, Case No. 16.K.33.691/2019/18 In 2008 Lender Kft. entered into a loan agreement with its foreign domiciled affiliated company Kft. 1. According to the terms of the contract, the loan amounted to 53,174,516, the maturity date of the loan was 31 January 2013 and the interest was paid semi-annually at the semi-annual CDI rate...
Poland vs C. spółka z o.o. , November 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 974/22 C. spółka z o.o. is part of a larger group and mainly (95%) sells products (boxes, metal enclosures, etc.) and related services to related parties. According to its transfer pricing documentation the “cost-plus” method had been used to determine the prices of products sold to related parties. The company was...
Czech Republic vs. EWE s.r.o., June 2013, Supreme Administrative Court , Case No 7 Afs 48/2013 – 31 EWE s.r.o first criticised the Regional Court for the lack of logical reasoning in the grounds of the judgment, based on evidence that it had established a legal relationship with another person mainly for the purpose of reducing the tax base. Although the facts adduced by the administrative court show...
Kenya vs Dominion Petroleum Dkenya Ltd, November 2021, High Court of Kenya, TAX APPEAL NO. E093 OF 2020 Dominion Petroleum Dkenya’s principal activity was exploration of oil and gas. The tax authorities carried out an in-depth audit of Dominion’s operations and tax affairs for the years of income 2011 to 2016, which resulted in the following taxes being raised: Withholding Income Tax (WHT) on imported services – KES...
US vs Altera. February 2016, Appeal On July 27, 2015 the United States Tax Court issued its ruling regarding the petition filed by Altera Corporation and its subsidiaries against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The court found in favor of Altera, and concluded that on an arm’s length basis employee profit sharing should not be included...
Copyright 2023