US vs Microsoft, May 2017, US District Court

Category: Cost Contribution Arrangements, Digital Economy, Legality - Legitimacy - Constitutional, Tax Avoidance Schemes | Tag: , , , ,
« | »

In an ongoing transfer pricing battle between Microsoft and the IRS related to Microsofts’ use of a IP subsidiary in Puerto Rico to shift income and reduce taxes, the District Court of Washington has now ordered Microsoft to provide a number of documents as requested by the IRS.

US vs Microsoft May 2017 US District Court

In a prior decision from November 2015 the District Court ruled, that the IRS’ use of an external representative was not in conflict with US regulations.

Microsoft argued that the IRS’ use of an outside law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, to assist in the audit was an improper delegation of its authority to examine taxpayer books.

The Court ruled that the government had a legitimate purpose in continuing to pursue the audit, and that the use of Quinn Emanuel was not a breach of IRS authority that would invalidate the summonses.

“The court’s role in this matter is not to pass judgment on the IRS’ contracting practices, but to enforce or not enforce the summonses,” Martinez wrote. The law allows the IRS some flexibility in its use of outside contractors, he said, and Microsoft’s characterization of the role of Quinn Emanuel “greatly exceeds what is evident in the record.”

U.S. v. MICROSOFT CORP November 2015


Related US regulations and OECD guidelines

§ 1.482-7(g)(2)(iii)(B) Example 2.(i) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that there are no reliable estimates of the value to P from the licensing alternative to the CSA. Further, reasonably reliable estimates indicate that an arm’s length return for S’s routine manufacturing and distribution activities is a 10% mark-up on total...
§ 1.482-7(g)(2)(iv) Aggregation of transactions.The combined effect of multiple contemporaneous transactions, consisting either of multiple PCTs, or of one or more PCT and one or more other transactions in connection with a CSA that are not governed by this section (such as transactions involving cross operating contributions or make-or-sell rights), may require evaluation in...
§ 1.482-7(g)(2)(iii)(B) Example 3.(i) The facts are the same as in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Example 2. In addition, based on reliable financial projections that include S’s cost contributions and S’s PCT Payment, and using a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of S’s role as a CSA participant, the anticipated post-tax net present...
§ 1.482-7(i)(6)(vii) Example 2.The facts are the same as in paragraphs (i) through (iii) of Example 1. At the time of the Determination Date, it is determined that the first Adjustment Year in which a Periodic Trigger occurred was Year 6, when the AERR of FS was determined to be 2.73. Upon further investigation as...
§ 1.482-7(g)(2)(ix)(C) Variable input parameters.For some market-based input parameters (variable input parameters), the parameter’s value is most reliably determined by considering two or more observations of market data that have, or with adjustment can be brought to, a similar reliability and comparability, as described in § 1.482-1(e)(2)(ii) (for example, profit levels or stock betas...
§ 1.482-7(e)(2) Measure of benefits –...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 11. 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...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 521. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that the functional analysis indicates Company A has no capacity to make decisions to take on or decline the risk-bearing opportunity represented by its participation in the CCA, or to make decisions on whether and how to respond to...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.49When a CCA terminates, the arm’s length principle requires that each participant retains an interest in the results, if any, of the CCA activity consistent with their proportionate share of contributions to the CCA throughout its term (adjusted by any balancing payments actually made, including those made as a result...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.42In services CCAs, a participant’s contribution to the CCA will often give rise to benefits in the form of cost savings (in which case there may not be any income generated directly by the CCA activity). In development CCAs, the expected benefits to participants may not accrue until some time...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.24Contributions to a CCA may take many forms. For services CCAs, contributions primarily consist of the performance of the services. For development CCAs, contributions typically include the performance of development activities (e.g. R&D, marketing), and often include additional contributions relevant to the development CCA such as pre-existing tangible assets or...

Leave a Reply

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