Wealth & Risk Management Blog

William Byrnes (Texas A&M) tax & compliance articles

IRS 2015 APA for Transfer Pricing Final Rev Proc 13 Key Differences from 2013 Version

Posted by William Byrnes on August 13, 2015


This morning the US Treasury released the long awaited Advanced Pricing Agreement Procedures.IRS_logo

The 13 principal differences between these final revenue procedures and the proposed version of Notice 2013-79 are:

1. The final revenue procedure clarifies that if APMA requires, as a condition of continuing with the APA process, that the taxpayer expand the proposed scope of its APA request to cover interrelated matters (interrelated issues in the same years, covered issues or interrelated issues in other years, and covered issues or interrelated issues in the same or other years as applied to other countries), APMA will do so with due regard to considerations of principled, effective, and efficient tax administration and only after considering the views of the taxpayer and the applicable foreign competent authority. Further, APMA will communicate to the taxpayer any concerns about interrelated matters and possible scope expansion as early as possible.

2. In the interest of efficient tax administration, rollback years may be formally covered within an APA. A rollback will be included in an APA when a rollback is either requested by the taxpayer and approved after coordination and collaboration between APMA and other offices within the IRS or, in some cases, is required by APMA, after coordination and collaboration with other offices within the IRS, as a condition of beginning or continuing the APA process.

3 The final revenue procedure provides expanded guidance as to when an APA request will be considered complete.

4. The required contents of APA requests that were specified in the Appendix of the proposed revenue procedure have generally been retained.

5. Taxpayers are required to execute consent agreements to extend the period of limitations for assessment of tax for each year of the proposed APA term, and the required consent could be either general or restricted.

6. User fees are increased for APA requests but provides that total user fees may be reduced for multiple APA requests filed by the same controlled group within a sixty-day period. Also, user fee for requests for discretionary LOB relief are increased.

7. The final revenue procedure limits the scope of requests to which mandatory -pre-filing procedures apply to requests involving taxpayer-initiated positions.

8. To ensure that taxpayers have broad access to the U.S. competent authority to resolve disputes under U.S. tax treaties, taxpayers will not be required under the final revenue procedure to expand the scope of a competent authority request to include interrelated issues as a condition of receiving competent authority assistance. Taxpayers may still be required to provide information that will allow the U.S. competent authority to evaluate the appropriateness of the relief sought under the applicable U.S. tax treaty in light of the taxpayer’s positions on interrelated issues.

9. The final revenue procedure clarifies that the U.S. competent authority may consult with taxpayers with respect to certain additional issues that may arise in connection with competent authority requests, such as issues relevant to the determination of foreign tax credits and repatriation payments.

10. The final revenue procedure provides additional guidance on requesting discretionary determinations under the limitation on benefits articles of U.S. tax treaties, including time frames for taxpayers to provide notification of material changes in fact or law and the introduction of a triennial statement procedure to maintain a favorable grant of discretionary benefits.

11. Consistent with the objective of providing taxpayers with broad access to the U.S. competent authority to resolve disputes under U.S. tax treaties, the U.S. competent authority will not condition assistance on the taxpayer’s notification of the U.S. competent authority, or on obtaining its concurrence, with respect to signing a standard Form 870 with IRS Examination.

Similarly, a taxpayer will not be required to obtain the U.S. competent authority’s agreement prior to entering into a closing agreement or similar agreement with IRS Examination, but in these cases the assistance provided by the U.S. competent authority will be limited to seeking correlative relief from the foreign competent authority, thus potentially not eliminating double taxation.

12. The final revenue procedure provides additional information about the process followed by the U.S. competent authority in conducting its review under the simultaneous appeals procedure.

13. The final revenue procedure clarifies and refines the bases on which the U.S. competent authority may decline to accept a competent authority request or may cease providing assistance, consistent with U.S. tax treaty policy that taxpayers should have broad access to the U.S. competent authority to resolve instances of taxation not in accordance with the applicable U.S. tax treaty.

Procedures for Advance Pricing Agreements  Download APA New Procedures Rev Proc 15-40

Procedures for Requesting Competent Authority Assistance under Tax Treaties  Download APA New MAP Procedures Rev Proc 15-41

William Byrnes is the primary author of Lexis’ Practical Guide to US Transfer Pricing which provides 3,000 pages of in-depth analysis and practical examples for the corporate transfer pricing counsel and risk manager.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: