Skip to content
Home » Publications » Uncategorized » Page 2

Uncategorized

Danish appeal court decision in Ecco Sko A/S

  • by

A recent article in Insights commenting on the decision of the Danish Western High Court on the pricing of intermediate and finished tangible property of the well-known global shoe company at the end of a lengthy transfer pricing audit. See also https://www.plesner.com/insights/highligts/2020/08/ecco-successful-in-landmark-transfer-pricing-case-before-the-danish-western-high-court?sc_lang=en Imagine you are in a Lower East Side tenement in the 19th century. It is 2:00 a.m. the building is totally quiet.  Then, a  sound from above is overhead. It is a shoe dropping on the floor above. You wait for the inevitable follow-up: the sound of a second shoe landing on the floor.  In October, the Danish Tax Agency received a decision[1] from the Western High Court concerning an appeal originating from a transfer pricing audit commenced in 2006. This was the sound of the first shoe. Where is the sound of the second shoe? With a similar sense of inevitability, we… Read More »Danish appeal court decision in Ecco Sko A/S

What next when your transfer pricing approach is 0 for 4 from the 3 point line? (Non-technical)

  • by

The CRA has recently sought leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Cameco to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Surprised?  If you know basketball, this is the play we all knew we would see.  Many streetball players that move into the gym often like to take shots from low-percentage territory, sometimes far beyond the 3-point line.  After all, there is a lot to brag about if one of these shots drops.  Coaches know the probability of scoring from 3-point range is the same for everyone no matter their skill level: lower than the chance of sinking a layup or a 6-foot jump shot.  Moving successfully from the tarmac to a wood court and a competitive game involves taking a coach’s advice, accepting that probability rules, and adjusting your game accordingly by taking more high-probability shots.  The end result?  Fewer 3-pointers attempted, more… Read More »What next when your transfer pricing approach is 0 for 4 from the 3 point line? (Non-technical)

IRS documentation best practices FAQ

  • by

The IRS released some helpful guidance for drafters of §6662(d) transfer pricing reports a few months ago. This guidance is especially helpful if one thinks forward to how it might be used during an examination or a double tax case. This article appears in Insights and is also available in Canada through Thomson Reuters Taxnet Pro service. THE DO’S AND DON’TS OF I.R.S. TRANSFER PRICING STORYTIME Earlier this year, the I.R.S. updated its Transfer Pricing Documentation Best Practices F.A.Q. list with a response to Q. 4, What are some areas the I.R.S. has identified in transfer pricing documentation reports that could benefit from improvement?1 Given the uncanny resemblance of the I.R.S. list of documentation pet peeves to my many years of review notes written for transfer pricing documentation drafters in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere, it seemed that this would be a good time of… Read More »IRS documentation best practices FAQ

Pillar 1 working draft now available

  • by

A working version of a draft of the OECD’s Pillar One and Two has become available via Allison Christians of McGill, and published by #MNETax . Contrast this with the latest from Clausing, Saez and Zucman, and it becomes clear why the policy obstacles are politically enormous.

Muddah, Faddah kindly disregard this letter

  • by

Following transfer pricing for the digital economy? The OECD wrote to the G20, indicating that the letter from US Treasury remains a political obstacle to taxing the digital economy. Back to Camp Granada to make the best of it.

OECD to use hybrid model for digital P.E. and profit attribution

  • by

An early March article in Insights updates on the OECD consensus built around the Unified Approach now being carried forward by the broader international community of tax administrations. Many questions remain to be answered, but there is now direction. Next step is the determination of magnitude. The O.E.C.D. announced on January 31, 2020, that its policy development efforts under Pillar One, related to the taxation of the digital economy, will move forward using the non-consensus “Unified Approach” as a working model.1 In the interest of averting the negative worldwide welfare effects of trade countermeasures to unilateral Digital Services Taxes, the O.E.C.D.’s deadline for obtaining a consensus outcome is highly ambitious. Consensus outcomes for Pillar One and its less controversial, but nonetheless complex, Pillar Two counterpart are expected by the end of 2020 – a relative blink of an eye when we recall that the groundbreaking… Read More »OECD to use hybrid model for digital P.E. and profit attribution

Sketch of Pillar 1 is the Unified Approach, say BEPS IF members

  • by

A January 31 announcement from the OECD signals a willingness to work with the Unified Approach to Pillar 1 as drafted by the OECD CTPA Secretariat. Further work and negotiations will proceed at a quick pace through 2020. Some commentary on the challenges identified appears in the January volume of Insights.

Comments on the OECD Unified Approach

  • by

Ahead of the public consultation on the policy draft, this article in Insights reviews some of the main features of the proposed Pillar 1 attempt at compromise. Also forthcoming on Thomson Reuters Taxnet Pro. HOW SOON IS NOW? O.E.C.D. STARTS WORK ON A SUBSTITUTE FOR UNILATERAL DIGITAL ECONOMY FIXES When you say it’s gonna happen ‘now’ When exactly do you mean? See I’ve already waited too long And all my hope is gone– The Smiths, “How Soon Is Now?” This month finds the arm’s length principle continuing to operate among O.E.C.D. Member States and the broader inclusive framework working toward international tax reform of the digitized economy. In a little more than a year, this may be different. The O.E.C.D.’s work plan1 for urgent policy development will investigate a new nexus standard and departures from the arm’s length principle in certain circumstances where the approach… Read More »Comments on the OECD Unified Approach

Debt characterization under domesticated international rules

  • by

A June 2019 article from the Ruchelman PLLC journal Insights about the source of the new interest deductibility rules under U.S. tax reform The limitation of interest deductibility to approximately 30% of E.B.I.T.D.A. (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization) introduced in amended Code §163(j) has focused the attention of U.S. corporations and their lenders on a new constraint.  For companies with sales less than $25 million that borrow from a foreign parent, the body of case law in the style of Mixon and Laidlaw has remained the standard against which interest deductibility is evaluated by the I.R.S.  Large subsidiaries of foreign parents that do not qualify for the Code §246 gross sales exemption of $25 million are accustomed to (i) proving their capacity to carry and service debt and (ii) demonstrating that the rate of interest and other terms attaching to a cross-border loan… Read More »Debt characterization under domesticated international rules