All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

US: Approach to TP and blocked income

Sponsored by sponsored-firms-kpmg.png
The core of the US transfer pricing framework is the arm’s-length standard

Mark Martin and Thomas Bettge of KPMG describe the US approach to transfer pricing issues involving blocked income, a problem highlighted by recent and upcoming developments.

The core of the US transfer pricing (TP) framework is the arm’s-length standard. What is a taxpayer to do when a legal restriction forbids the payment or receipt of what would otherwise be an arm’s-length amount? 

Treasury regulations issued in 1994 supply an onerous framework for navigating issues involving foreign legal restrictions. Litigation in Coca-Cola v. Commissioner and 3M Co. v Commissioner calls the validity of those regulations into question, and new developments are expected soon.

Legal framework

Courts in the US have grappled with the relevance of legal restrictions on the payment or receipt of funds (commonly referred to as ‘blocked income’) for TP since the 1950s, and have consistently held in favour of taxpayers. 

In the only TP case to reach the US Supreme Court, Commissioner v First Security Bank of Utah (1972), two banks sold insurance policies to their retail customers, and those policies were insured by a related party. While commissions of approximately 40% would ordinarily have been paid to the parties generating the policies, US Federal Law prohibited the banks from receiving insurance premium income, and thus no commissions were charged. 

The IRS argued that certain income earned by the related party insurer should be allocated to the banks. The Supreme Court held that the legal restriction prevented the IRS from allocating commission income to the banks.

In the 1990s, the principle of First Security was extended to foreign legal restrictions in Procter & Gamble Co. v Commissioner (Sixth Circuit, 1992) and Texaco, Inc. v Commissioner (Fifth Circuit, 1996). 

Around the same time, the government – apparently dissatisfied with its consistent losing streak in the courts – issued new regulations addressing the blocked income problem. While the 1994 regulations do not cover cases involving US legal restrictions, they effectively overrule Procter & Gamble and Texaco in most circumstances.

The regulations provide that a qualifying foreign legal restriction will be respected if the taxpayer can show it affected a third party under comparable circumstances for a comparable amount of time. Absent such a showing, deferred accounting treatment is permitted, but again only if there is a qualifying restriction. 

The rub is that almost no restrictions, with the exception of increasingly uncommon exchange controls, qualify. Among other things, a qualifying restriction must prohibit the payment or receipt of the income in any form. Many restrictions, such as the Brazilian limitations on royalty payments at issue in Coke and 3M, limit a taxpayer’s ability to make a deductible payment without prohibiting the payment of non-deductible dividends, and thus do not qualify under the regulation. In most cases, therefore, income has to be taken into account in the US notwithstanding the foreign legal restriction.

New challenges

Both Coke and 3M have challenged the validity of 1994 blocked income rules, and both cases involve Brazilian restrictions that limit that royalties that can be paid by Brazilian entities. In a prior article, we noted that the US Tax Court had reserved ruling on the blocked income issue in Coke, opting instead to wait for the issuance of an opinion in 3M. 

The petition in 3M was filed in 2013, and oral arguments were held in 2016. Both parties fully stipulated the facts, so no trial will be held. Instead, the challenge in 3M turns on whether the blocked income regulations are valid under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Chevron framework for review of Treasury regulations, and the prior cases (First Security and its progeny) that respected legal restrictions for transfer pricing purposes.

Given the Tax Court’s decision to reserve ruling on the blocked income issue in Coke, it seems likely that an opinion in 3M is expected sometime soon. Of course, the Tax Court’s decision in both cases would be appealable, and appeals may be more likely given that both cases hinge on legal rather than factual issues, but we are nonetheless on the cusp of a development two and a half decades in the making. 

The 1994 regulations directly contradict sound caselaw, and are difficult to reconcile with the arm’s-length standard. Multinational enterprises with transactions that are affected by foreign legal restrictions should watch this area with interest.

 

Mark Martin

Principal, KPMG

E: mrmartin@kpmg.com

 

Thomas Bettge

Manager, KPMG

E: tbettge@kpmg.com

 

 

More from across our site

Multinational enterprises run the risk of hefty penalties if the company in question fails to register for VAT when providing electronic services in South Africa.
Tax directors have urged companies to ensure they have robust tax risk management controls when outsourcing tax functions.
Japan reports a windfall from all types of taxes after the government revised its stimulus package. This could lead to greater corporate tax incentives for businesses.
Sources at Netflix, the European Commission and elsewhere consider the impact of incoming legislation to regulate tax advice in the EU – if it ever comes to pass.
This week European Commission officials consider legal loopholes to secure minimum corporate taxation, while Cisco and Microsoft shareholders call for tax transparency.
The fast-food company’s tax settlement with French authorities strengthens the need for businesses to review their TP arrangements and documentation.
The full ALP model will be adopted through a new TP regime, which is set to boost the country’s investments and tax certainty.
Tax professionals have called on the UK government to reconsider its online sales tax as it would affect the economy at the worst time.
Tax professionals have called on companies to act urgently to meet e-invoicing compliance targets as the EU plans to ramp up digitisation.
In the wake of India’s ambitious 25-year plan for economic growth, ITR has partnered with leading tax commentators to discuss what the future will look like for India and for the rest of the world.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree