Eaton Corp. Loses Summons Enforcement Summons Skirmish with IRS over Foreign Employee Valuations (5/23/24)

In United States v. Eaton Corp. (N.D. Oh Case No. 1:23-MC-00037 Doc 22 Opinion & Order dated 5/16/24), CL here, the Court rejected Eaton’s attempt to hide evidence in this long-running dispute with the IRS. (The CL docket entries are here.) The case was a summons enforcement proceeding to enforce an IRS summons seeking various information and documents.  The parties settled all of the disputed items except “whether Eaton needed to produce certain foreign employees’ performance evaluations.” Now, what was that about? The ultimate dispute is about Eaton’s transfer pricing with a foreign affiliate. Plainly, one line of inquiry is how much “value” the foreign affiliate’s employees contributed to the whole income-producing pie. Performance evaluations might be relevant to that issue.

The Court goes through the standard drill for summons enforcement and finds that, given the IRS’s broad investigatory powers to protect the revenue, the summons was appropriate. Further, the Court held, Eaton’s feint to avoid disclosure based on certain alleged foreign country prohibitions on disclosure prevented its compliance with the summons and the Court’s ability to avoid compliance. Consistent with prior cases, that does not work. Summons enforced.

Of course, this is just a skirmish in the battle. There is more to come.

District Court Enforces Summons to Delaware Dept of Insurance for Micro-Captive Information (10/4/21)

The district court has enforced the IRS summons issued to the Delaware Department of Insurance (“DDOI”) for information and documents on about 200 micro-captive insurance companies that DDOI issued certificates of authority.  United States v. Del. Dep't of Ins., No. 20-829, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186623 (D. Del. Sep. 29, 2021), CL here.  I previously wrote on the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) to enforce the summons.  Magistrate Judge Recommends Enforcement of IRS Summons to Delaware Dept of Insurance for Information Filed by Micro-Captives (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/19/21), here.  Substantial portions of the district court’s Background are simply a copy and paste from the Magistrate’s Report.

DDOI raised arguments of error in the Magistrate’s Report related to the interpretation and application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (“MFA”):

(1) by applying a “threshold test” of whether the conduct at issue constitutes the business of insurance for a non-antitrust case; and (2) by determining that the challenged conduct does not constitute the “business of insurance.” DDOI also argues that the Report erred by failing to recommend dismissal of the Petition on the grounds that the MFA reverse-preempted the Summons.

The resolution of this issue gets into arcana of the MFA, so I won’t delve into it here in detail.  In summary, the district court held that, in non-antitrust cases, there was a threshold requirement for MFA that the activity in question constitute the business of insurance.  In doing so, the district court has an interesting discussion of precedential authority in the Third Circuit regarding whether a subsequent panel opinion that seems inconsistent with an earlier panel precedential decision can reverse the earlier holding without en banc consideration.  The Court finds that, under Third Circuit, authority, the prior precedential opinion controls.  Interesting.

The district court also affirmed the Magistrate’s Report’s finding that the activity in question was record maintenance rather than insurance subject to MFA.

The district court then summarily rejected the DDOI argument for reverse preemption under the MFA.

Microsoft Summons Enforcement on Transfer Pricing "Planning" - Mixed on Privilege Claims (1/22/20)

After publishing this blog entry, a new article was published about Microsoft's transfer pricing planning and the audit.  I discuss that article in my comments below (Comment #4.)

In United States v. Microsoft, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8781 (W.D. Wash. 1/17/20), here, the district court resolved a contentious summons enforcement proceeding started in December 2014.  (See the CourtListener docket entries, here.)  Summons enforcement proceedings are supposed to be “summary in nature.”  United States v. Clarke, 573 U.S. 248, 254 (2014) (citing United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 369 (1989)).

So, why was this summons enforcement proceeding not so summary, taking just over 5 years to resolve?  A hint at the answer is the amount of the tax savings involved (perhaps $5 billion over 10 years, achieved at a cost of $10 million (I don't think that planning included tax professional fees)), the promoter tax shelter context (involving one of the prominent bullshit promoter tax shelter players, KPMG, in the early 2000s), and the sheer number of attorneys appearing in the case (many of whom are amici).  (For the attorneys, see the CourtListener list which may be reviewed by clicking on the “Parties and Attorneys on the CourtListener docket list above; the Government lists 4 attorneys, Microsoft lists 14 (included terminated attorneys), and the amici attorneys are more than I want to count; the relative imbalance between the attorneys for Government and attorneys for the parties opposing the Government reminds me of the old saying about Texas rangers–one mob, one Ranger; in this case one mob, 4 Government attorneys.)

Well, there is not much in the case.  It is, after all, a summons enforcement proceeding where, once the minimal Powell standards are met, the summons is enforced.  United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (1964).  The Court thus early on ordered the summons enforced.  United States v. Microsoft Corp., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (2015).  But that left the privilege assertions to be thrashed over, hence the delay.

So, what’s the context for this battle?  Not surprisingly, high-dollar transfer pricing cost sharing arrangements that has drawn similar high dollar litigation with loads of attorneys.  E.g., Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, 926 F.3d 1061 17143 (9th Cir. 2019), reh. en banc den. 941 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2019) (with an analogous melange of attorneys, including amici).  As the Microsoft Court said in the most recent opinion (the one linked in the opening paragraph):

Ultimately Microsoft did enter into cost sharing arrangements through technology licensing agreements. Because those cost sharing arrangements were required by law to be arm's length transactions, the design and implementation details are a central focus of the government's examination. The government expresses skepticism that a third party would be likely to enter into the agreements, thereby satisfying the arm's length standard, because the agreements contained several unique provisions. Dkt. #146 at ¶¶ 18-20. While many of the terms changed before and afterward the agreements were to have been formed, they remained favorable for Microsoft's income tax liability. Id. at ¶¶ 9-11. The government believes that the transactions were "designed and implemented for the purpose of avoiding tax." Id. at ¶ 20. n1
   n1 The government expresses further skepticism on the basis that the agreements effectively netted the Puerto Rican entity $30 billion for the "routine" reproduction of CDs containing software and did not otherwise have a significant impact on Microsoft's operations. Dkt. #146 at ¶¶ 15-20. 

Microsoft maintains that nothing was abnormal about its actions. [*7]  Microsoft argues that transfer pricing disputes with the government were prevalent and, "[r]ecognizing the inevitability of an [Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")] challenge, Microsoft was determined to be adequately prepared to defend these cost sharing arrangements." Dkt. #140 at 6; see also Dkt. #143 at ¶ 23. To this end, and because of the complexity of facts relevant to corporate international tax, Microsoft employed KPMG "to help the lawyers provide legal advice" and to give its own tax advice. Dkt. #140 at 1; Dkt. #143 at ¶¶ 7, 10. Mr. Boyle, then Microsoft's Corporate Vice President and Tax Counsel, maintains that the materials at issue were prepared for his use and that they were "prepared in anticipation of an administrative dispute or litigation with the IRS over the Puerto Rican cost sharing arrangement, the pricing of the software sales to Microsoft, and other issues expected to be in dispute relating to those transactions." Dkt. #143 at ¶ 23.

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Consider Summons Opponent's Right to Question IRS Personnel re Reason for Summons (1/18/14)

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Clarke, 517 Fed. Appx. 689, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7773 (11th Cir. 2013), here.  See the SCOTUS Blog on the case, here, which on an ongoing basis reports the Supreme Court developments in the case and has links to the briefs.  I previously reported on the Government's petition for writ of certiorari.  See Is a Party Entitled to a Hearing in a Summons Enforcement Case Based Solely on Allegations of Improper Purpose? (12/13/13), here.

The question presented, per the Government's petition, is:

Whether an unsupported allegation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issue a summons for an improper purpose entitles an opponent of the summons to an evidentiary hearing to question IRS officials about their reasons for issuing the summons.

The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Clarke and its predecessor opinions gave the opponent that right.  The other circuits do not give the opponent that right, but require that opponents develop their proof of improper purpose some other way.

Is a Party Entitled to a Hearing in a Summons Enforcement Case Based Solely on Allegations of Improper Purpose? (12/13/13)

The United States has petitioned the Supreme Court in United States v. Clarke, 517 Fed. Appx. 689, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7773 (11th Cir. 2013), here, an unpublished decision.  The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Clarke is short and pithy, so I quote it all (except I omit the caption and two of the three footnotes):

This case involves the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) issuance of five administrative summonses, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602, during an investigation into the tax liabilities of Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership (Dynamo). Specifically, [List of summonsed parties omitted] appeal the district court's orders granting the IRS's petitions to enforce the summonses. After careful review of the record, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court's order enforcing the summonses and remand for the district court to hold a hearing. 

To obtain enforcement of a summons, the IRS must make a four-part prima facie showing that (1) "the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose," (2) "the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose," (3) "the information sought is not already within the Commissioner's possession," and (4) "the administrative steps required by the Code have been followed." United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S. Ct. 248, 13 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1964); see also Nero Trading, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, IRS, 570 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2009). Once the IRS makes its prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing the summons to either (1) disprove one of the four elements of the IRS's prima facie case, or (2) "convince the court that enforcement of the summons would constitute an abuse of the court's process." Nero, 570 F.3d at 1249 (internal quotation omitted). The Supreme Court has stated that because the district court's process is used to enforce a summons, the court should not permit its process to be abused by enforcing a summons that was issued for an improper purpose. See Powell, 379 U.S. at 58. According to the Powell Court, an improper purpose may include any purpose "reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation." Id. 

In Powell, the Supreme Court also explained that a party opposing a summons is entitled to an adversary hearing before enforcement is ordered, and that, at the hearing, the opponent "may challenge the summons on any appropriate ground." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Subsequently, in United States v. Southeast First National Bank of Miami Springs, we held that "an allegation of improper purpose is sufficient to trigger a limited adversary hearing where the taxpayer may question IRS officials concerning the Service's reasons for issuing the summons." 655 F.2d 661, 667 (5th Cir. 1981) (footnote omitted). More recently, we have reaffirmed Southeast First National Bank, calling it "the legitimate offspring of the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Powell." Nero, 570 F.3d at 1249. 

Appellants contend they were entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing before the district court granted the IRS's petitions to enforce the summonses because they alleged the IRS may have issued and sought to enforce the summonses for at least four improper purposes.One of the reasons the IRS may have issued the summonses, according to Appellants, was solely in retribution for Dynamo's refusal to extend a statute of limitations deadline. Although Appellants raised the possibility of numerous improper purposes, federal pleading standards allow claims and defenses to be pled in the alternative, and do not require them to be consistent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2) & (d)(3). If the IRS issued the summonses only to retaliate against Dynamo, that purpose "reflect[s] on the good faith of the particular investigation," and would be improper. See Powell, 379 U.S. at 58. 

IRS Won Some / Lost Some on Privilege Assertions in Summons Enforcement (8/20/12)

In United States v. Eaton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115003 (ND OH 2012), here, the IRS was not pleased with the taxpayer's assertion of privilege in a contentious audit.  In an earlier blog today on the sister blog site, Federal Tax Crimes blog, in discussing the John Doe Summons, I discussed the administrative summons and the minimal showing the IRS must make to obtain a court enforcement order.  See The IRS Administrative Summons as Pretext to Avoid the Need for a John Doe Summons (8/20/12), here.  I won't repeat that discussion here, for it overlaps with what I do discuss.

I should just stick to the opinion, but I do link to an earlier article that suggests that the ongoing to and fro between Eaton and the IRS has been quite adversarial (adversarial on steroids).  See Patrick Temple-West, Eaton, IRS tangle over cross-border pricing pacts (Reuters 6/17/12), here.  The IRS had, for the first time in four years, canceled APAs, Advanced Pricing Agreements between the IRS and the taxpayer as to transfer pricing mothologies, and then, after extensive investigation, issued a notice of deficiency.  The article discusses the filing of a Tax Court petition in response to the notice of deficiency.  But, apparently toward the end of the audit rancor, the IRS issued those summonses which it sought to enforce.  Hence the case I discuss in this blog.

In the summons dispute, the Court's statement of the Background for the case consists almost entirely of Eaton's complaints, in effect, that the the IRS had abused its information gathering tools in a vendetta against Eaton:

The examination of Eaton's 2005 and 2006 tax returns has lasted more than four years, and Eaton asserts that the examination has been extensive in scope. In particular, Eaton asserts that its employees and outside advisors have spent more than 30,000 hours addressing various information requests issued  to Eaton by the IRS in connection with the examination. Eaton asserts that it has responded to more than 240 Information Document Requests (the IRS's standard means of communicating written requests for information) by providing written, narrative answers to the IRS's information document requests and producing more than 10,000 pages of documents and "massive amounts of electronic information." In addition, in connection with its investigation, the IRS has conducted a total of 12 site visits to Eaton facilities in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, two full days of transcribed interviews each with Eaton's Senior Vice President-Taxes and its Vice President-Federal Tax Strategy, interviews of "multiple third parties engaged in business with Eaton's relevant operations, and eight days of transcribed interviews with a former employee of Eaton's Tax Department, John Semanchik (and in addition is currently seeking an unspecified number of additional interview days with Mr. Semanchik in a separate enforcement proceeding recently filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania). n1
   n1 Eaton also asserts that, "in practical terms," the 2005 and 2006 examination ended on December 19, 2011 (just four business days after the summons response date in Case Nos. 24, 26, and 27), when the IRS issued Eaton a Notice of Deficiency asserting tax deficiencies related to Eaton's 2005 and 2006 tax years. Eaton contends the IRS was aware when it served its summonses that Eaton intended to challenge in court any adjustments made by the IRS to its transfer pricing. In fact, on February 29, 2012, Eaton filed a petition with the United States Tax Court challenging the IRS's Notice of Deficiency, Eaton Corp.  v. Commissioner, Case No. 5576-12 (T.C. filed February 29, 2012).