Skip to content

Recent Posts

  • Taxgirl Goes To The Movies: Star Wars
  • Looking For Tax Breaks?
  • Taxgirl Goes Back To The Movies In 2025
  • Here’s What You Need To Know About Submitting Tax Questions
  • Looking For More Great Tax Content?

Most Used Categories

  • individual (1,314)
  • politics (862)
  • IRS news/announcements (753)
  • tax policy (582)
  • ask the taxgirl (543)
  • prosecutions, felonies and misdemeanors (479)
  • just for fun (478)
  • state & local (403)
  • pop culture (399)
  • charitable organizations (389)
Skip to content

Taxgirl

Because paying taxes is painful… but reading about them shouldn’t be.

  • About Taxgirl
  • Info
    • My Disclaimer
    • A Word (or More) About Your Privacy
    • Subscribe
  • Ask The Taxgirl
  • Comments
  • Taxgirl Podcast
    • Podcast Season 1
    • Podcast Season 2
    • Podcast Season 3
  • Contact
  • Home
  • 2009
  • May
  • 29
  • Landmark Transfer Pricing Case: Is It A Different World?

Landmark Transfer Pricing Case: Is It A Different World?

Kelly Phillips ErbMay 29, 2009May 17, 2020

It’s rare that decisions regarding transfer pricing make big news. But this one is different. An IRS victory in the Ninth Circuit against chip company Xilinx Inc. earlier this week may change the way that companies allocate their costs for purposes of transfer pricing. The decision already has international tax practitioners abuzz.

The facts of the case aren’t terribly good, causing some practitioners to wonder if it’s a case of “bad facts making bad law.” But here goes: Xilinx allocated part of its R&D costs to a subsidiary in Ireland, where corporate rates are much lower than those in the US. So far, so good. Lots of companies do this sort of thing.

Here’s where it turned ugly: for purposes of stock options, Xilinx kept the entire value of tax deductions related to the options inside the US. In other words, none of the deductions were allocated to the Irish company. This, of course, made the IRS go “Hmmm.”

Xilinx argued that these unrelated companies wouldn’t have shared the costs of the stock options. The IRS said differently. A lower court sided with Xilinx but an appellate court overturned that ruling by a vote of 2-1. Not an overwhelming victory for IRS but still a victory.

What gives tax practitioners pause is that the ruling could be considered to give IRS broad powers to adjust corporate tax returns. In an environment that is increasingly hostile for US corporations with foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower tax rates, it could be unsettling that discretion to allocate costs may now be called into question. My guess is that little will happen immediately, pending Xilinx’ decision as to an appeal. The company hasn’t yet indicated that it will appeal but I think we’d all be surprised if it didn’t.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
author avatar
Kelly Phillips Erb
Kelly Phillips Erb is a tax attorney, tax writer, and podcaster.
See Full Bio
social network icon social network icon
international taxpayers, transfer pricing, Xilinx

Post navigation

Previous: Tax Quote Of The Day: Churchill
Next: Elizabeth Garrett Says No To Top Tax Job

Related Posts

What CEOs Think About The Economy and New Challenges Ahead

March 8, 2022March 8, 2022 John Luckenbaugh

The OECD Global Minimum Tax Deal: What to Expect

January 11, 2022January 25, 2022 John Luckenbaugh
financial crime

Fighting Financial Crime with More Transparency after Panama Papers Drama

December 21, 2021January 5, 2022 John Luckenbaugh

3 thoughts on “Landmark Transfer Pricing Case: Is It A Different World?”

  1. JBruce says:
    May 29, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    What Xilinx did was to transfer some profits to a low-tax environment while keeping (deductible) expenses in a high-tax environment. I guess the IRS was trying to say you can’t have it both ways. Whatever the arguments are, I’m sure they’re arcane and not all that entertaining for us observers to watch and listen to.
    I guess Congress needs to clarify this. Not that they ever will, but the confusions of multi-national corporate operations so need some clarification.

    Reply
  2. CWA says:
    December 11, 2009 at 12:47 am

    The R&D must have been capitalized else this would’ve lowered profits in Ireland…right?

    Reply
  3. mphil says:
    March 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Under IRC §482, the IRS has long been given “broad powers to adjust corporate tax returns”. Like, since the 1930s. The Xilinx case in first instance had given taxpayers hope that stock options would be a way for companies to get around §482. They had a great argument: how can the deal be the same as would have been made between unrelated parties, when Ireland treats stock options so differently? Hearts were broken on appeals, alas.

    (This is a really old post, I know, I know…)

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2005-2022, Kelly Phillips Erb | Theme: BlockWP by Candid Themes.
Skip to content
Open toolbar Accessibility Tools

Accessibility Tools

  • Increase TextIncrease Text
  • Decrease TextDecrease Text
  • GrayscaleGrayscale
  • High ContrastHigh Contrast
  • Negative ContrastNegative Contrast
  • Light BackgroundLight Background
  • Links UnderlineLinks Underline
  • Readable FontReadable Font
  • Reset Reset
  • SitemapSitemap
  • FeedbackFeedback