For several years, the European Commission has been on a mission to raise on a retroactive basis the income tax of large corporations that received favorable tax rulings from national authorities. Using as its tool the rules prohibiting State Aid, the Commission has gone after Fiat Chrysler, McDonald’s, Starbucks, and others.  Christine Long and Beate Erwin explore the Commission’s latest push and the outcry it is causing on both sides of the Atlantic.  Luxembourg and the Netherlands have appealed recent rulings and the mood in Washington, D.C. is chilly, at best.

Global taxpayers live in a process driven world. It is not enough to be correct when claiming a benefit, the paperwork must be completed.  In a detailed article on proper procedure, Beate Erwin and Christine Long explain that U.S. persons claiming treaty tax benefits with regard to payments from Spanish entities face two hurdles. First, they must meet the treaty qualification tests under the limitation on benefits article. Second, they must obtain a U.S. Tax Residency Certification from the I.R.S. before payment is met.

One of the fallouts of the Panama Papers is a European call for a blacklist of countries that fail to meet the O.E.C.D. C.R.S. standards.  The European Parliament and several E.U. Member States contend that if the U.S. should be declared a tax haven and added to the European Commission’s new blacklist if it does not implement the C.R.S. and B.E.P.S. Project recommendations.  Are these contentions based on fact or on political agenda?  Christine Long and Beate Erwin explain a trend that that is inching towards an outright trade war.

In the heyday of tax shelters, transactions involving transfers of low value assets with high tax bases were elevated to an art form. The fervor effectively ended when the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 enacted anti-loss importation provisions under Code §§334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1). In March, the I.R.S. issued final regulations to stop base erosion through shifting of loss property into the U.S. Christine Long and Beate Erwin explain all.

On February 17, 2016, the Treasury Department released its 2016 Model Treaty. The model serves as the baseline from which the U.S. initiates treaty negotiations. Various provisions are discussed in detail in this month’s Insights.

A new provision of the 2016 Model Treaty attacks special tax regimes. Treaty benefits are denied for payments to connected persons who benefit from such provisions. Patent box regimes and regimes that allow for notional interest deductions are specifically targeted. Christine Long and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.

U.S. multinationals are the target of a global trade war initiated by the European Commission, resulting from its attack on State Aid in the form of advance rulings. Christine Long and Beate Erwin explain the latest developments and the brewing response in the U.S. Congress.

Two court cases in different parts of the world attack tax plans premised on the absence of a permanent establishment. Pertinent U.S. income tax treaties, with Japan and India respectively, were effectively ignored in each case. Taketsugu Osada, Christine Long, and Stanley C. Ruchelman explain.

Christine Long explains how I.R.S. examiners are encouraged to determine whether foreign subsidiaries are paying fair compensation for using I.P. owned by U.S. parent companies.

Christine Long delves into the world of I.P. contributions to foreign subsidiaries. She explains how Code §367(d) works and how the regulations have been revised recently to attack goodwill and going concern contributions.

Everyone likes Christmas presents and the P.A.T.H. Act delivers. It provides favorable tax treatment in the form of (i) F.I.R.P.T.A. exemptions for foreign pensions funds, (ii) increased ownership thresholds before F.I.R.P.T.A. tax is imposed on C.I.V. investment in R.E.I.T.’s, (iii) increased ownership thresholds before F.I.R.P.T.A. tax is imposed on foreign investment in domestically-controlled R.E.I.T.’s, (iv) a reduction in the time that must elapse in order to avoid corporate level tax on built-in gain when an S-election is made by a corporation after the close of the year of its formation, and (v) a permanent exemption from Subpart F income for active financing income of C.F.C.’s.

However, not all taxpayers benefitted from the Act. The P.A.T.H. Act increases F.I.R.P.T.A. withholding tax to 15%, adopts new partnership tax examination rules, and tightens rules regarding I.T.I.N.’s. Elizabeth V. Zanet, Christine Long, Rusudan Shervashidze, and Philip R. Hirschfeld explain these and certain other legislative changes.

Last month, Christine Long analyzed the basis of the I.R.S. motion for summary judgment in Mylan Inc. v. Commr., a case addressing whether a license that relinquishes all substantial rights in a patent is the equivalent of a sale, so that basis can be recovered and capital losses can reduce the resulting capital gain. This month, she analyzes the taxpayer’s opposition to the motion. In addition to the existence of material questions of fact that were ignored by the I.R.S., the taxpayer argues economic substance in support of its position and evaluates the rights that were transferred and those that were retained.

The question of the proper treatment of a contract transferring exclusive rights to the use of a patent – as a sale or a license – is one that has been addressed many times in U.S. jurisprudence.  It has recently popped up again in a case before the U.S. Tax Court involving the generic pharmaceutical giant Mylan Inc., a company that has been the subject of much negative publicity arising from its inversion and subsequent re-immersion as a U.S. domestic company. In September, the I.R.S. filed a memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment. We explain the basis for the I.R.S. position and comment on its merits.

Newly issued temporary regulations (T.D. 9733) modify three of the six ways that rental or royalty income can qualify for the active exception to foreign personal holding company income (F.P.H.C.I.) under Subpart F. The new Treas. Reg. §1.954-2T addresses who can perform the required functions when a controlled foreign corporation (C.F.C.) leases or licenses property to an unrelated person, as well as the treatment of cost sharing arrangements.

In April, the I.R.S. proposed regulations (REG-108214-15) that provide exceptions for P.F.I.C. treatment for offshore insurance companies, unless they are formed by hedge funds intending to defer or reduce tax. Andrew P. Mitchel and Christine Long look at comments of industry representatives. Many professionals deem these regulations too restrictive, needlessly subjecting legitimate insurance businesses to the harsh tax treatment of P.F.I.C.’s.