Microsoft IRS transfer pricing case dismissed

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Microsoft IRS transfer pricing case dismissed

Microsoft and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have agreed to end their battle over documents used in transfer pricing audits of the tech company.

On February 24, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Microsoft reached an agreement which resulted in the dismissal of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over documents used by the tax authority in transfer pricing audits of Microsoft.

The IRS has now made available the files that Microsoft requested. Both parties have agreed to cover their own costs and expenses relating to the lawsuit.

“Counsel for the [IRS] has produced the records sought by [Microsoft] in its Freedom of Information Act request, and as a result, the petition is now moot,” read the notice.

Dispute timeline

On September 22 2014, Microsoft sent a FOIA request for information on a contract between the IRS and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (QEUS). QEUS was hired by the IRS, at a cost of more than $2 million, to assist in auditing Microsoft’s federal income tax returns from 2004 to 2009.

As per FOIA requirements, government agencies must respond to the request within 20 business days of receiving the letter.

On October 23 2014, Microsoft still had not heard back from the IRS and sent another letter.

The IRS responded saying they could not meet the deadline and wanted to extend it by 10 days. Microsoft said the extended deadline was unnecessary.

In October 2014, the IRS issued Microsoft with a summons, requesting more information about the company’s transfer pricing arrangements in Bermuda and Puerto Rico.

Microsoft sued the IRS in November 2014 for failing to respond to its deadline for delivering information on the contract with QEUS.

In a statement, Microsoft said: “Government agencies, funded by citizens, have an obligation of transparency under the Freedom of Information Act”.

On January 15 2015, the IRS asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, stating that Microsoft’s requests were unreasonable and that the company had failed to describe the exact records they were asking for. The IRS also alleged that they had already sent 176 pages of documents before the deadline and that an extension was justified.

Neither the IRS nor Microsoft were willing to comment on the conclusion of the dispute.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers and 20 offices
As ITR’s exclusive data uncovers in-house dissatisfaction with case management, advisers cite Italy’s arcane tax rules
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Gift this article