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

A landmark ruling on LLP taxation has clarified who truly holds ‘significant influence’ and which partnership structures are most likely to withstand HMRC scrutiny
Chris Jordan promoted tax schemes to clients and received illicit payments, it has also been alleged
Solving the UK's fiscal deficit requires an ‘ease of doing taxes’ framework driven by tax-as-code – not thousands of additional auditors
Despite the ongoing audit controversy, the firm’s tax and legal division saw revenue growth of 10.9%
Fresh from the UN negotiations in New York, Alex Cobham offers ITR readers a rare first-hand perspective on the future of international tax cooperation
Around 450 client-facing roles are due to be axed next week, it has been reported
The OECD may be making a mistake if a 2029 review is intended to outlast Trump in the hope of more favourable treatment from the US Democrats
Nexdigm has invested in Singapore-based infer360, a TP intelligence product designed by ex-PwC partners
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Americas Tax Awards
Despite initial hopes that the reporting obligation had been suspended, compliance challenges brought by Brazil’s indirect tax reform are very much a reality
Gift this article