Transfer pricing disputes in the United States

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139208123.005

3 - Transfer pricing disputes in the United States

from Part II - North America and Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014

Reuven S. Avi-yonah

Edited by

Eduardo Baistrocchi and

Ian Roxan

Show author details

Eduardo Baistrocchi: Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Ian Roxan: Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

In 1988, the US Treasury Department published a study of inter-company pricing (the ‘White Paper’) that included the following endorsement of the so-called arm's length standard (ALS) for examining the reasonableness of transactions between related parties for tax purposes:

The arm's length standard is embodied in all U.S. tax treaties; it is in each major model treaty, including the U.S. Model Convention; it is incorporated into most tax treaties to which the United States is not a party; it has been explicitly adopted by international organizations that have addressed themselves to transfer pricing issues; and virtually every major industrial nation takes the arm's length standard as its frame of reference in transfer pricing cases. The United States should continue to adhere to the arm's length standard.

What is the ALS, and why did the Treasury seek to defend it in these terms? The problem for which the ALS attempts to provide the solution may be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose that a product (e.g., computers) is manufactured by a corporation in country A, and then sold to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the manufacturer in country B, which proceeds to resell it to unrelated customers. In this common situation, the taxable profit of the subsidiary is determined by three factors: (i) the price at which it resells the computers to the unrelated customers, (ii) its expenses other than cost of goods sold, and (iii) the price which it pays its parent corporation for the computers. The first two of these factors are governed by market forces outside the control of the parent or the subsidiary. However, because the parent controls the subsidiary, the third factor (the price for which the manufacturer sells the computers to the reseller, or the ‘transfer price’) is wholly within the control of the related parties. Accordingly, the potential for abuse arises because the related parties will seek to increase after-tax profits by manipulating the transfer price. If the effective tax rate in the manufacturer's country is higher, the price will be set as low as possible so as to channel all taxable profit to the reseller.

Type: Chapter
Information: Resolving Transfer Pricing Disputes
A Global Analysis
, pp. 27 - 94

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139208123.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Iekel, J., ‘Samuels Defends Revenue Estimating, Arm's Length Standard’, 65 Tax Notes 1587 (16 December 1994)Google Scholar

Turro, J., ‘Treasury Continues to Champion Worldwide Arm's Length Standard’ 66 Tax Notes 316 (16 January 1995)Google Scholar

Gordon, R. and Mackie-Mason, J., Why is there Corporate Taxation in a Small Open Economy? The Rule of Transfer Pricing and Income Shifting, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4690 (1994)

U.S. General Accounting Office, International Taxation: Problems Persist in Determining Tax Effects of Intercompany Prices (1992), pp. 62–3

Miller, B. F., ‘None are So Blind as Those Who Will Not See’ 66 Tax Notes 1023 (13 February 1995)Google Scholar

Turro, J., ‘The Battle over Arm's Length and Formulary Apportionment’ 65 Tax Notes 1595 (26 December 1994)Google Scholar

Wilkins, W. I. and Gideon, K. W., ‘Memorandum to Worldwide Formulary Apportionment’ 65 Tax Notes 1259 (5 December 1994)Google Scholar

Hellerstein, J. R., ‘Federal Income Taxation of Multinationals: Replacement of Separate Accounting with Formulary Apportionment’ 60 Tax Notes 1131 (23 August 1993)Google Scholar

Kauder, L. M., ‘The Unspecific Federal Tax Policy of Arm's Length: A Comment on the Continuing Vitality of Formulary Apportionment at the Federal Level’ 60 Tax Notes 1147 (23 August 1993)Google Scholar

Coffill, E. J. and Wilson, Jr P., ‘Federal Formulary Apportionment as an Alternative to Arm's Length Pricing: From the Frying Pan to the Fire?’ 59 Tax Notes 1103 (24 May 1993)Google Scholar

Miller, B. F., ‘A Reply to “From the Frying Pan to the Fire”’ 61 Tax Notes 241 (11 October 1993)Google Scholar

Avi-Yonah, R., ‘Slicing the Shadow: A Proposal for Updating U.S. International Taxation’ 58 Tax Notes 1511 (15 March 1993)Google Scholar

Kauder, L. M., ‘Intercompany Pricing and Section 482: A Proposal to Shift from Uncontrolled Comparables to Formulary Apportionment Now’ 58 Tax Notes 485 (25 January 1993)Google Scholar

McDaniel, P. R., ‘Formulary Taxation in the North American Free Trade Zone: A Policy Perspective’ (1993–4) 49 Tax L Rev. 691Google Scholar

Arnold, B. J. and McDonnell, T. E., ‘Report on the Invitational Conference on Transfer Pricing: The Allocation of Income and Expenses Among Countries’ (1993) 61 Tax Notes 177, 1381Google Scholar

Amicus Brief of Council of State Governments, Barclays Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Board, 114 S.Ct. 2268 (No. 92–1384) (1994)

Fuller, J. P., ‘Section 482 Revisited’ (1976) 31 Tax L Rev. 475Google Scholar

Fuller, James P., ‘Section 482: Revisited Again’ (1990) 45 Tax L Rev. 421Google Scholar

Loengard, Richard O., ‘The Section 482 Pot Boils On: Comments on Recent Developments’ (1991) 469 Tax ForumGoogle Scholar

Wickham, Dale W., ‘The New U.S. Transfer Pricing Tax Penalty: A Solution, or a Symptom of the Cause, of the International Transfer Pricing Puzzle?’ (1991) 18 Int'l Tax J1Google Scholar

Langbein, Stanley I., ‘The Unitary Method and the Myth of Arm's Length’ 30 Tax Notes 625 (17 February 1986)Google Scholar

Seidman, J., Legislative History of Federal Income Tax Laws 1938–1861 (1938), p. 522

Langbein, S. I., ‘The Unitary Method and the Myth of Arm's Length’ (1986) 30 Tax Notes 625, 628–34Google Scholar

Kaplan, R. L., ‘Treasury Blasted over Alleged Transfer Pricing Shenanigans’, 55 Tax Notes 150 (13 April 1992)Google Scholar

Surrey, S. S., ‘Treasury's Need to Curb Tax Avoidance in Foreign Business Through Use of 482’ (1968) 28 J. Taxation75Google Scholar

US General Accounting Office, IRS Could Better Protect U.S. Tax Interests in Determining the Income of Multinational Corporations (1981) pp. 29

Hexner, J. T. and Jenkins, G. P., ‘Puerto Rico and Section 936: A Costly Dependence’ (1995) 10 Tax Notes Int'l235Google Scholar

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises (1979) (‘OECD Report’), p. 52.

Langbein, S. I., ‘Langbein Blasts Arm's Length Method as Unworkable’, Tax Analysts Highlights and Documents, 24 August 1990.

Kaplan, R. L., ‘International Tax Enforcement and the Special Challenge of Transfer Pricing’, (1990) U Ill. L Rev. 299

Rapp, R. T., ‘Pitfalls in the BALRM’ (1990) 49 Tax Notes703Google Scholar

‘International Chamber of Commerce Opposing Proposed Transfer Pricing Rules, 69 Daily Tax Rep. (BNA), 9 April 1992, G7

‘Proposed Transfer Pricing Regulations Could Spark Tax War, Experts Say’, 115 Daily Tax Rep. (BNA), 15 June 1992

‘U.S. Trading Partners Respond Favorably to Proposed Section 482 Regs’ 95 Tax Notes Today, 11 March 1992, 55-17

Dolan, D. Kevin, ‘Proposed Transfer Pricing and Cost Sharing Regulations’ (1992) 21 Tax Mgmt Int'l J171Google Scholar

King, Elizabeth, ‘The Section 482 White Paper and the Proposed Regulations: A Comparison of Key Provisions’ (1992) 4 Tax Notes Int'l331, 334Google Scholar

Hannes, Steven P., ‘An Examination of the New U.S. Transfer Pricing Proposals’ (1992) 4 Tax Notes Int'l281, 282Google Scholar

Fuller, James P. and Aud, Jr Ernest F., ‘The Proposed Section 482 Regulations’ (1992) 4 Tax Notes Int'l599, 600Google Scholar

‘Service Promises Section 482 Review, Leniency Administrating Payroll Tax Rules’ 92 Tax Notes Today, 3 September 1992, 180–1.

Fuller, J. P. and Aud, Jr E. F., ‘The New Temporary and Proposed Section 482 Regulations: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?’ (1993) 6 Tax Notes Int'l525Google Scholar

Hannes, S. P., ‘An Evaluation of IRS's 1993 Transfer Pricing and Related Penalty Proposals: Round Three’ (1993) 6 Tax Notes Int'l397Google Scholar

Zonana, V., Section 482: The 1993 Regulations – Once More, With Feeling!, Tax Club Paper (9 February 1993).

Turro, J., ‘An Interview with U.S. Treasury International Tax Counsel Jim Mogle (1993) 6 Tax Notes Int'l 303Google Scholar

‘Korean Finance Ministry Comments on Transfer Pricing Regs’, Tax Notes Today, 31 August 1993

‘German Industry Rep Takes Aim at Proposed Regs’, Tax Notes Today, 5 August 1993

‘Keidanren Urges IRS to Take Another Look at Proposed Regs’, Tax Notes Today, 29 July 1993

‘Intercompany Transfer Pricing Regulations under Section 482’, Highlights and Documents, 5 July 1994, 117

Carlson, G. N. et al., ‘The Final Transfer Pricing Regulations: The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same’, Tax Notes Today, 29 July 1994

Hannes, S. P., ‘IRS 1994 Transfer Pricing Rules Reward Planning and Documentation, Increase Penalty Risks’, Tax Notes Today, 1 August 1994

Turro, J., ‘Mogle Comments on Finalized Transfer Pricing Regulations’, Tax Notes Today, 6 July 1994

‘Foreign Tax Officials Discuss Final Transfer Pricing Regs’, Tax Notes Today, 30 September 1994

Avi-Yonah, R. S., The Rise and Fall of Arm's Length: A Study in the Evolution of US International Taxation, University of Michigan Law and Economics, Olin Working Paper No 07–017 (2007)Google Scholar

Avi-Yonah, R. S., ‘Comment on Yin, Reforming the Taxation of Foreign Direct Investment by US Taxpayers’ (2008) 28 VA Tax Rev. 281Google Scholar

Avi-Yonah, R. S., Clausing, A. K. and Durst, M., ‘Allocating Business Profits for Tax Purposes: A Proposal to Adopt a Formulary Profit Split’ (2009) 9(5) Florida Tax Rev. 497–553Google Scholar

Avi-Yonah, R. and Clausing, A. K., ‘Reforming Corporate Taxation in a Global Economy: A Proposal to Adopt Formulary Apportionment’ in Furman, J. and Bordoff, J. (eds.), Path to Prosperity: Hamilton Project Ideas on Income Security, Education, and Taxes (Brookings Institution Press, 2008) pp. 319–44Google Scholar

Mintz, J. and Weiner, J., ‘Some Open Negotiation Issues Involving a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base in the European Union’ (2008) 62 Tax L Rev. 81Google Scholar

Avi-Yonah, R. S., ‘Between Formulary Apportionment and the OECD Guidelines: A Proposal for Reconciliation’ (2010) 2 World Tax Journal3Google Scholar

Book contents

3 - Transfer pricing disputes in the United States

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive