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 2026

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

Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
As GCCs increasingly become strategic hubs, multinationals face heightened risks around permanent establishment and place of effective management
While all options presented ‘drawbacks’, European Commission tax leader Wopke Hoekstra said the controversial US carve-out deal has ‘many benefits’
From tech preparations to competitiveness concerns, Tax Systems’ Russell Gammon addresses the most pressing client considerations arising from the SbS deal
Despite estimates that the US/OECD agreement will cost countries billions, the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan believes the deal is a ‘necessary evil’
The firm’s eye-catching UK launch is a major statement of intent, but it will face stern opposition in its quest to be the top global tax player
The postponement came after industry representatives flagged implementation issues with the registration regime; in other news, firms made key tax partner additions
Despite the increased yield, the time taken to resolve enquiries was at a six-year high, new HMRC statistics have revealed
The High Court’s dismissal of barrister Setu Kamal’s legal challenge represents the first successful strike-out under a new law on SLAPPs
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
Gift this article