Watch Out Whirlpool: The I.R.S. Has Put 50 Million Wrinkles in Your Permanent Press Cycle
/
As 2020 comes to a close, Subpart F is approaching its 59th anniversary as part of the Internal Revenue Code. During that period of time, various portions have been revised, but by and large, the branch rule has remained untouched. Under that rule, a C.F.C. based in a country that exempts income of a permanent establishment can be treated as two companies where manufacturing takes place in one country and selling activity takes place in a different country. From a U.S. viewpoint, the same abusive tax planning can be undertaken between the head office and the branch as can be undertaken between brother-sister or parent-subsidiary C.F.C.’s. Nonetheless, no taxpayer ever lost a case brought by the I.R.S. until this year. In Whirlpool Financial Corp. v. Commr., Whirlpool Corporation determined that the branch rule regulations were invalid when manufacturing operations were conducted by the branch and selling activities were conducted by the head office. Arguing that the law permitted the loophole because a single corporation conducted the manufacturing operations, Whirlpool became the first U.S. Shareholder to lose a case in which the I.R.S. asserted the application of the branch rule to a manufacturing branch. Gianluca Mazzoni, S.J.D. 2020 and L.L.M.2016 International Tax, University of Michigan Law School, explains the plan that was adopted, the argument presented by the taxpayer, the decision of the court, and the likely issues that will be addressed on appeal.
Read More
