On 3 February 2023, the United States (US) Tax Court issued a stipulation approving an agreement between Eaton Corp. (Eaton) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to adjust Eaton's tax bill for 2005 and 2006 to US$8.81 million.2 The proposal follows lengthy litigation in both the Tax Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case originated with Eaton's inadvertent errors in calculating its transfer pricing methodology for its Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) annual reports in 2005 and 2006 (see EY Tax Alert, Sixth Circuit sides with Eaton in appeal from Tax Court regarding APA cancellation, dated 1 September 2022, for an in-depth history). The IRS used these inadvertent errors to justify cancelling Eaton's APAs and proposing a $75 million adjustment plus $51 million in Internal Revenue Code Section 6662 penalties.
The Tax Court held that the IRS was not authorized to cancel Eaton's APAs and rejected the IRS's assertion of penalties. The IRS appealed the Tax Court's decision to the Sixth Circuit, but the appeals court ruled in favor of Eaton, finding that the IRS had the burden of proving that it had grounds to cancel the APAs under contract-law principles and failed to do so. In November 2022, Chief Judge Kerrigan ordered Eaton and the IRS to submit a proposed decision on or before 20 January 2023.3 The proposed decision determined deficiencies of $4.7 million in 2005 and $4.6 million in 2006, with no penalties. On 3 February 2023, Chief Judge Kerrigan issued a stipulated order identical to the proposed decision, which also took into account overpayments of tax for each year to result in the final $8.8 million adjustment.4
Implications
Taxpayers should pay attention to how the IRS revises Revenue Procedure 2015-41 (which provides guidance on requesting and obtaining APAs) while keeping in mind that every dispute concerning an APA depends on the facts of the particular case. The IRS rarely cancels APAs,5 and taxpayers can often resolve mistakes in an APA annual report while keeping the APA intact. The IRS has indicated that it intends to rewrite Revenue Procedure 2015-41 in light of the Sixth Circuit's ruling in Eaton, although no timeline has been given on when the revised revenue procedure will be released.6 Until new guidance is released, APAs are binding under contract-law principles, and the IRS has the burden of proving the grounds supporting an APA cancellation.
For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following:
Ernst & Young LLP (United States), National Tax Department, International Tax and Transaction Services, Transfer Pricing
Ryan J. Kelly, Americas ITTS Tax Controversy Leader, Washington, DC
Hiro Furuya, Dallas
Ameet Kapoor, San Jose
Carlos M. Mallo, Washington, DC
Marla McClure, Washington, DC
Donna McComber, Washington, DC
Mike McDonald, Washington, DC
Tom Ralph, Washington, DC
Craig Sharon, Washington, DC
Kent Stackhouse, Austin
Thomas A. Vidano, Washington, DC
Heather Gorman, Washington, DC
Giulia Di Stefano, Washington, DC
Carolina Figueroa, Washington, DC
Mitch Gibson, Washington, DC
Published by NTD’s Tax Technical Knowledge Services group; Andrea Ben-Yosef, legal editor
For a full listing of contacts and email addresses, please click on the Tax News Update: Global Edition (GTNU) version of this Alert.
