James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Tax Court Overturns IRS Cost-Sharing Regulation
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: September 3, 2015
Key Contacts
Back
The U.S. Tax Court recently issued a surprising decision that invalidated the part of an IRS cost-sharing regulation – under code section 482 – which states that taxpayers are required to take the costs of stock-based compensation into account.
The decision regarding the cost-sharing regulation supports taxpayer criticism that questioned the regulatory requirement that cost-based transfer pricing must include the cost of stock-based compensation.
The case
In Altera Corporation v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that section 482 is invalid. Therefore, taxpayers who are parties to cost-sharing arrangements with foreign affiliates can continue to share costs associated with research and development without allocating stock based compensation in the manner required by the regulation and the Service.
The IRS argued that Altera should not have been able to object that the regulations are inconsistent with the “arm’s length standard” as they are part of an “elective” regulatory regime for cost-sharing. However, the Court struck down this argument to recharacterize relevant provisions as “elective” by explaining that the IRS rejected taxpayers’ suggestions in the regulatory process to make this provision a true safe harbor. The Court noted that Treasury failed to make a connection between the choice it made in drafting the regulation and the facts it found. Thus, the decision to adopt this regulation was held to be arbitrary and capricious.
The significance of the decision
The Tax Court’s decision is significant beyond cost-sharing and stock-based compensation costs because the IRS can no longer issue a valid transfer pricing regulation under the “arm’s length standard.” With this standard, the IRS previously attempted to interpret how related parties “should behave” in the absence of evidence that unrelated parties behave in that fashion. Therefore, despite the fact that the “arm’s length standard” does not appear in section 482, previous decisions upheld that the regulation incorporated this standard. However with this decision, the IRS’ ability to reallocate among affiliates is significantly limited.
The decision is also important because the Court took a novel approach in its review of the cost-sharing regulation. Therefore, if the decision is upheld, it could lead to more successful challenges from taxpayers to IRS regulations.
Takeaway
Taxpayers will have choices going forward if the IRS does not agree to comply with the decision and eliminate stock-based compensation stipulations under section 482. These taxpayers who take advantage of the costs of stock-based compensation in the contexts of cost-sharing and transfer pricing will have the option to continue to rely on the regulation. For instance, if a foreign company with significant stock-based compensation costs provides services or goods to an affiliate in the U.S., that entity can continue to rely on the regulations. However, taxpayers who do not benefit from cost-sharing and transfer pricing are now eligible to do so under the existing regulation.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Tax Court Overturns IRS Cost-Sharing Regulation
Author: James F. McDonough
The U.S. Tax Court recently issued a surprising decision that invalidated the part of an IRS cost-sharing regulation – under code section 482 – which states that taxpayers are required to take the costs of stock-based compensation into account.
The decision regarding the cost-sharing regulation supports taxpayer criticism that questioned the regulatory requirement that cost-based transfer pricing must include the cost of stock-based compensation.
The case
In Altera Corporation v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that section 482 is invalid. Therefore, taxpayers who are parties to cost-sharing arrangements with foreign affiliates can continue to share costs associated with research and development without allocating stock based compensation in the manner required by the regulation and the Service.
The IRS argued that Altera should not have been able to object that the regulations are inconsistent with the “arm’s length standard” as they are part of an “elective” regulatory regime for cost-sharing. However, the Court struck down this argument to recharacterize relevant provisions as “elective” by explaining that the IRS rejected taxpayers’ suggestions in the regulatory process to make this provision a true safe harbor. The Court noted that Treasury failed to make a connection between the choice it made in drafting the regulation and the facts it found. Thus, the decision to adopt this regulation was held to be arbitrary and capricious.
The significance of the decision
The Tax Court’s decision is significant beyond cost-sharing and stock-based compensation costs because the IRS can no longer issue a valid transfer pricing regulation under the “arm’s length standard.” With this standard, the IRS previously attempted to interpret how related parties “should behave” in the absence of evidence that unrelated parties behave in that fashion. Therefore, despite the fact that the “arm’s length standard” does not appear in section 482, previous decisions upheld that the regulation incorporated this standard. However with this decision, the IRS’ ability to reallocate among affiliates is significantly limited.
The decision is also important because the Court took a novel approach in its review of the cost-sharing regulation. Therefore, if the decision is upheld, it could lead to more successful challenges from taxpayers to IRS regulations.
Takeaway
Taxpayers will have choices going forward if the IRS does not agree to comply with the decision and eliminate stock-based compensation stipulations under section 482. These taxpayers who take advantage of the costs of stock-based compensation in the contexts of cost-sharing and transfer pricing will have the option to continue to rely on the regulation. For instance, if a foreign company with significant stock-based compensation costs provides services or goods to an affiliate in the U.S., that entity can continue to rely on the regulations. However, taxpayers who do not benefit from cost-sharing and transfer pricing are now eligible to do so under the existing regulation.