United States: Podcast - Chamber Of Commerce v. Internal Revenue Service

In this Ropes & Gray podcast, tax associate Brandon Dunn is joined by tax partners Kat Gregor and David Saltzman to discuss one of the most notable tax decisions from the fourth quarter of 2017 and its implications for taxpayers, particularly multinational corporations.  On September 29, 2017, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al v. Internal Revenue Service et al, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas held that the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department violated the Administrative Procedures Act by issuing an anti-inversion rule, specifically the "Multiple Domestic Entity Acquisition Rule," saying it was unlawfully implemented without giving the public enough notice or time to comment. 

Listen to Tax Controversy Podcast

Brandon Dunn:  Hello, and thank you for joining us today on this Ropes & Gray podcast.  I'm Brandon Dunn, an associate in the tax group, and I'm standing in for Gabrielle Hirz, the regular host of this podcast. Today I'm joined by Kat Gregor, a tax partner and co-founder of the firm's tax controversy group; and David Saltzman, a partner in the tax group who concentrates on international tax matters.  In today's podcast, we are going to discuss a notable court decision from the fourth quarter of 2017, which we've chosen as our case of the quarter.  This case, Chamber of Commerce v. Internal Revenue Service, concerned the validity of the Internal Revenue Service's "Multiple Domestic Entity Acquisition Rule" under the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Rule, which was issued by Treasury in April 2016 and had an immediate effective date, was aimed at deterring certain corporate inversions by decreasing the tax benefits of those transactions. 

David, let's start with a little background.  I understand that the Internal Revenue Code contains rules designed to deter corporate inversions.  Can you tell us a little about corporate inversions and the rules in the Code that govern them?

David Saltzman:  Sure, Brandon.  Prior to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which took effect at the start of this year, the top U.S. tax rate for corporations was 35 percent. That rate was high by world standards, though for many multinationals, the effective rate on earnings could be lower. Unlike many other countries that have territorial tax systems, which exempt earnings from foreign subsidiaries, the U.S. taxed foreign subsidiaries' active business earnings only when those earnings were repatriated to the U.S. parent, but taxed the foreign passive earnings currently. U.S. multinationals kept their active profits offshore to defer tax and to obtain favorable financial accounting treatment.  Foreign multinationals did not have the same issues and could strip earnings from the U.S. and pay less U.S. taxes than a U.S. corporation without a foreign parent. So some companies decided to try to flee the U.S. tax system. 

Brandon Dunn: So, did they actually expatriate? 

David Saltzman.:  Hardly.  In early inversion transactions, the companies created a new foreign holding company and flipped the former U.S. company's shareholders up to become shareholders of the new foreign parent.  The foreign company was a shell and its shareholders were identical to the former shareholders of the U.S. company.  The U.S. corporation continued to operate in the U.S and typically kept its senior management here too.  Through elaborate intercompany planning, the earnings were stripped from the U.S. corporation and landed in its low-tax parent, which also acquired majority control of the foreign subsidiaries out from under the U.S. company.  Congress enacted rules hoping to deter these transactions and where the new foreign company was a shell, they treated it as an U.S. corporation when the shareholders before and after were identical or nearly so.

Brandon Dunn:  Could you explain to us, David, how those rules work? 

David Saltzman: If you have an hour or two, I can do it.  To oversimplify, the rules look at whether the former shareholders of the expatriating U.S. corporation hold 60 percent or more of the equity of the foreign acquiring company and no other business was combined.  That would always be the case if the Foreign parent was a new holding company.  That would also be the case if the foreign company was a real business, but the U.S. company is really the "whale" and its shareholders mainly owned the equity of the combined businesses.  Policy wise, Congress was trying to distinguish between the self-inversion transactions involving a corporate shell and a commercially sensible acquisition of a U.S. company by a foreign acquirer with its own equity.;

Brandon Dunn: David, is it true that the Multiple Acquisition Rule, in section 1.7874-8T of the Treasury regulations, the regulation at issue in Chamber of Commerce, changed this framework?  Could you explain how the IRS justified this regulation?

David Saltzman: Sure, the Multiple Acquisition Rule was part of a broad set of regulations, which targeted inversions. This rule tried to change the way the ownership percentage I mentioned was calculated. Basically, the concern was that U.S. companies that had staged their own inversions could turn around and acquire another U.S. company. It was like a game of Pacman.  The companies would continue on an acquisition binge taking advantage of their superior tax profile and could outbid U.S. competitors for desirable targets.  But they could also be the vehicle of companies looking to leave the U.S. while maintaining a large part of their own shareholder base without running afoul of the anti-inversion rules. With each acquisition, an even larger U.S. target could be acquired with the foreign acquirer's equity. This could be done without the U.S. target's shareholders acquiring more than 60 percent of the foreign target's equity.  The new regulation tried to slow this process by disregarding the stock of the foreign acquiring company that was issued in an acquisition of a U.S. entity with a three-year period.  This regulation was issued without public review during a period when several high profile transactions took place or were being contemplated but had not yet closed.  The Chamber of Commerce, one of whose members was a potential party to such a merger, filed a suit in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging the rule.  

Brandon Dunn: Taxpayers suing the IRS often face procedural hurdles.  In this case, I understand that the IRS challenged the Chamber of Commerce's suit as prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act.  Kat, can you tell us more about that?

Kat Gregor:  Sure, Brandon.  The IRS argued that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the plaintiffs' claims.  The Anti-Injunction Act, by way of background, prohibits suits that aim to prevent the collection or assessment of a tax.  Generally, a taxpayer seeking to invalidate a tax must sue for a refund after the tax is assessed and collected.  The IRS thought that this case fell squarely into the Anti-Injunction Act's prohibition, but the District Court disagreed.  According to the Court, the plaintiffs were not trying to restrain the collection of any tax or the assessment of any tax liability. Rather, the issue was that the regulation deterred plaintiffs' members from pursuing transactions altogether, so the regulation had never been enforced, and there was no opportunity for a tax to be assessed or collected.  This is particularly noteworthy because the Anti-Injunction Act generally has a wide reach.  As a recent example, in a different case, CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service, just this November, another district court found that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented a suit by CIC to challenge the legitimacy of a disclosure requirement.  The regulation at issue in CIC provided for a "penalty" for a failure to comply, and the Court concluded that a "penalty" was a tax within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act.  There, an organization tried to raise a very similar argument, namely that the act of needing to file a document with the IRS would deter transactions, but the court rejected the argument there, effectively requiring a taxpayer to violate the rule, and then challenge any later assertion of a penalty.

Brandon Dunn: After getting over that procedural hurdle, we know that the plaintiffs challenged the Multiple Acquisition Rule under a piece of legislation called the Administrative Procedure Act.  What are the noteworthy takeaways from that? 

Kat Gregor: Well, the plaintiffs made three broad arguments under the Administrative Procedure Act.  First, they said that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS did not have statutory authority to issue this regulation.  The APA prohibits agency action that exceeds the "statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations" set out by Congress.  Section 7874, according to plaintiffs, only granted the Treasury and the IRS the ability to determine whether transactions are a part of a plan to avoid the purposes of Section 7874.  This grant of authority, as plaintiffs argued, did not include the ability to disregard stock that was not issued in a plan to circumvent 7874.  The District Court disagreed.  Because Section 7874 granted broad authority to the Treasury, the code permitted the Treasury to produce "such regulations as may be appropriate" and to "treat stock not as stock."  The Treasury generally has broad rulemaking authority, so this result isn't necessarily surprising—the court, in essence, held that Treasury had not exceeded its authority.

Second, plaintiffs argued that the Multiple Acquisition Rule was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA.  The APA requires federal agencies to give adequate justification for their decisions and regulations.  Traditionally, there is a lot of deference to the agency's justification, as was the case here.  The District Court rejected plaintiffs' argument, stating that the Treasury had issued detailed reasons for its decision, and it appeared rational and reasoned.  

Brandon Dunn:  Let's pause there for a second, was it surprising that the Chamber tried to assert that Treasury acted arbitrarily? 

Kat Gregor:   Maybe five years ago, it would have seemed like more of a long shot, but recently arguments that Treasury has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner have gotten some traction.  While Courts often defer to the Treasury's reasoning, in another recent IRS loss under the APA, in the Altera case, a Federal Court in California invalidated regulations on a basis very similar to the Chamber's arguments here.  In that case, the regulations involving cost-sharing provisions in a transfer-pricing context, where Treasury had issued regulations requiring that all taxpayers calculate an "arm's length" payment taking into consideration certain incentive compensation. In that case, a court held that even though Treasury had broad rule-making authority, its decision to require all taxpayers to include such costs in related party provisions, without considering any data on whether arm's length taxpayers would take those costs into account, was held to be arbitrary and capricious.  So, it is not at all surprising that the Chamber raised similar arguments here, even if ultimately not successful.  As an aside, it's worth noting, that the Altera case is presently on appeal to the 9th circuit, and we may hear a decision any day.  Perhaps that'll be our case for the next quarter! 

Brandon Dunn:  Perhaps!  But back to the Chamber of Commerce case, we've discussed two losing arguments—so how did the Chamber win in the end? 

Kat Gregor: Well, the final argument was the winner and is a traditional argument under the APA—for any lawyers listening, this one will bring you right back to your admin law class—specifically, the Chamber claimed that Treasury did not satisfy the APA's requirement of a "notice-and-comment period."   Basically, if an agency seeks to issue what are considered "legislative regulations," the APA requires that interested parties have notice of the contents of an agency's regulations, and an opportunity to respond to those contents.  The APA specifically requires that publication of a regulation must occur at least 30 days before its effective date.  This is what the District Court focused on in its decision.

Brandon Dunn: But the APA contains certain exceptions to the notice-and-comment requirement.  Did this regulation fall into those exceptions? 

Kat Gregor: Well, the IRS argued it did.  They first argued that Section 7805(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires that Treasury issue any temporary regulation as a proposed regulation simultaneously, and to finalize that regulation within three years, does not require notice-and-comment for the temporary regulation.  But the court rejected this outright, stating that nothing in 7805(e) altered the APA, and that the APA specifically requires that any statute seeking to alter the APA in this regard do so explicitly. 

In its final defense, Treasury also argued that the Multiple Acquisition Rule was an interpretative regulation, not a legislative regulation.  So-called "interpretive" regulations do not require notice-and-comment periods.  This is because, if an agency is merely interpreting a statute, it is not issuing new law, but merely stating its interpretation of existing law. This means that, in theory, a taxpayer was already on notice of the law itself.   But the District Court did not agree with the Treasury that the rule was interpretative rather than legislative.  It said that the change is substantive in nature, in effect creating new law, because it changes the computation for determining the tax treatment of a corporation.  An interpretative regulation merely explains what a statute means, or how it ought apply, it does not, according to the Court, change the way in which it applies or the substantive rights of those to whom it applies.  Therefore, the Court held that the Multiple Acquisition Rule violated the APA and had to be set aside.  

Brandon Dunn: So, how important is the decision in this case?  How far reaching are its effects? 

Kat Gregor: I think it's a really important case for administrative challenges to IRS regulations.  The IRS often issues temporary regulations without notice and comment sometimes, also issues other regulations without notice and comment on the basis that such regulations are "interpretative" and therefore can skip notice and comment periods.  This decision puts at risk any regulations issued in that manner.  Treasury has a habit of putting in, as a default, a statement that a regulation is interpretive—this practice alone will raise questions as other regulations begin to be scrutinized.  If Treasury has been arbitrarily declaring regulations to be interpretive to skirt the notice-and-comment period requirement, we can expect a wider backlash in the months and years to come. 

That said, the government recently appealed the District Court decision, but if the decision is upheld, it would seriously limit Treasury's ability to promulgate regulations without going through the notice-and-comment period.  That is ultimately going to slow down the pace of bringing new regulations into effective, which may be particularly significant to tax reform, as new regulations are going to be necessary for a variety of new and amended statutory provisions.  We could also see the IRS attempt to make greater use of the good cause exception to the notice-and-comment requirement.  The APA allows agencies to skip notice-and-comment were it would be "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." The IRS does sometimes use the good cause exception, but not that often.  For example, it has justified issuing regulations without notice and comment "in order to provide taxpayers with immediate guidance" in situations where no regulations were available.  

Brandon Dunn: David, what does this decision mean for taxpayers, particularly multinational corporations considering this kind of transaction, or other kinds of international transactions? 

David Saltzman: Well, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the rule only slowed things down.  A taxpayer could wait out the three-year holding period or do more modest transactions.  The decision only set aside one rule in a much larger body of regulations, all of which were aimed at discouraging inversions.  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act now in effect introduces new sticks that discourage inversions.  But the Act also offers carrots for U.S. corporations that choose to stay in the U.S., like a 21 percent tax rate and the ability to repatriate off-shore cash free of tax. 

Brandon Dunn: This regulation ultimately targeted base erosion, which has been a serious concern of Congress and the IRS in recent years, as well as in other international jurisdictions with historically high comparative tax rates—which is why the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS project, has been such a priority in Europe.  How relevant will base erosion measures be under the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act? 

David Saltzman: Well, despite the changes in rates and the move to a territorial system, there are still strong incentives in the U.S. tax code to locate operations overseas. As a result, The Tax Act contains a few new base erosion measures.  First, the Act creates a new "tax on a foreign subsidiary's global intangible low-tax income."  Second, the Act creates a reduced rate of tax on "foreign derived" income for U.S. companies that export from the U.S. and own their intellectual property here. These two measures aim to encourage companies to keep their valuable IP in the U.S.  Third, the Act creates anti-hybrid rules that deny U.S. tax deductions in certain situations where there are no taxable inclusions abroad, as well as a "base erosion and anti-abuse tax" which applies to other tax-deductible payments domestic companies make to foreign affiliates.  This tax, however, would only apply to companies with annual gross receipts over $500 million, so it would only affect very large businesses. 

Brandon Dunn: How about you Kat, would you like to offer any closing observations? 

Kat Gregor: Well, certainly, any taxpayers potentially affected directly by this decision should watch how the case unfolds in the Court of Appeals.  For others, as Gabby and Rom Watson observed last quarter regarding the Grecian Magnesite Mining case, decisions like this are a positive indication that courts will take the IRS to task if it does not comply with the law.  Particularly, if the Court of Appeals upholds this ruling, it could cause a ripple effect, delaying new guidance and putting existing regulations at risk. 

Brandon Dunn: Thank you, Kat and David, for joining me in this fascinating discussion.  We'll be back next quarter to discuss one of the major tax decisions of the first quarter of 2018.  In the meantime, please visit our tax controversy newsletter webpage at www.disputingtax.com, or of course, www.ropesgray.com for additional news and commentary about other notable tax developments as they arise. Thank you for listening.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions