US Inbound: Tax Court decision raises attorney-client privilege questions

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Inbound: Tax Court decision raises attorney-client privilege questions

fuller.jpg

forst.jpg

Jim Fuller


David Forst

The IRS made a transfer pricing adjustment in its examination of Eaton Corporation. As it often does in transfer pricing disputes, the IRS also asserted that a transfer pricing penalty was due. Eaton disputes the adjustment and the penalty. The case is docketed in the US Tax Court. In a surprising development, the court held that in asserting the standard reasonable-cause defence to the penalty, Eaton had put at issue material otherwise protected by attorney-client privilege that would reveal the expertise and knowledge and state of mind of those who acted on Eaton's behalf regarding its transfer pricing. The court stated that a reasonable cause/good faith defence under section 6664(c) is dependent upon a review of all the pertinent facts and circumstances, and that Eaton's communications with its attorneys and tax practitioners may be the only probative evidence of the state of mind or knowledge of the persons who acted on Eaton's behalf.

Accordingly, the court held that Eaton had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protections regarding the documents in dispute.

This does not seem appropriate: Congress cannot have intended in enacting the penalty rules that attorney-client privilege must be waived as the price of asserting that a penalty should not apply. The attorney-client privilege is a common law privilege that is deeply ingrained in the US legal system.

While there may or may not be a connection with Eaton, Illinois Tool Works' subsequently conceded that in its pending Tax Court case the reasonable cause defence to penalties had no application. Illinois Tool Works also involves international tax issues, although not transfer pricing.

Inbound taxpayers (and other taxpayers) should be guided by this development in determining their transfer pricing and developing their transfer pricing documentation, as well as in considering other tax matters. This Tax Court holding also likely will increase the IRS's interest in asserting penalties in future transfer pricing and other tax disputes.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com) andDavid Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Fenwick & West

Tel: +1 650 335 7205; +1 650 335 7274

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Jurisdictions have moved to ensure that multinationals are not punished for late GIR filings due to a lack of available filing portals or exchange relationships
HMRC’s push for unified tax adviser registration won’t prevent every instance of improper conduct, but it is good for taxpayers and the UK’s reputation
Elsewhere, the UAE’s tax office has issued an update on registration penalties and two firms have been busy making lateral hires
The case sits within a context of Brazil signalling that it is replacing informal discretion and ambiguity with structures that reward analytical rigour, one expert tells ITR
Jeff Soar lifts the lid on WTS UK’s ambitious recruitment plans, the firm's positioning against the big four, and why tax is the perfect profession for AI
The move reinforces Milan’s role as a key European hub for international business, the firm said
Australia’s government has also announced that it will implement the pillar two side-by-side agreement
Sara Morgan is due to join Joseph Hage Aaronson & Bremen as a partner in London, ITR understands
The newly combined tax team has already worked on thousands of joint client matters, leaders from McDermott Will & Schulte tell ITR
As AI becomes increasingly intuitive and idiot-proof, its tax applicability is becoming impossible to overstate
Gift this article