The US tax authorities had increased Whirlpool US’s taxable because income allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg for selling appliances was considered taxable foreign base company sales income FBCSI/CFC income to the parent company in the U.S. under “the manufacturing branch rule” under US tax code Section 951(a). The income from sales of appliances had been allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg  through a manufacturing and distribution arrangement under which it was the nominal manufacturer of household appliances made in Mexico, that were then sold to Whirlpool US and to Whirlpool Mexico. According to the arrangement the income allocated to Luxembourg was not taxable in Mexico nor in Luxembourg. Whirlpool challenged IRS’s assessment and brought the case to the US Tax Court. In May 2020 the Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS. “If Whirlpool Luxembourg had conducted its manufacturing operations in Mexico through a separate entity, its sales income would plainly have been FCBSI [foreign base company sales income] under section 954(d)(1),”. The income should therefore be treated as FBCSI under the tax code, writing that “Section 954(d)(2) prevents petitioners from avoiding this result by arranging to conduct those operations through a branch.” Whirlpool brought this decision to US court of appeal. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the tax court and found that under the text of the statute alone, the sales income was FBCSI that must be included in the taxpayer’s subpart F income. Excerpt: “The question presented is whether Lux’s income from its sales of appliances to Whirlpool-US and Whirlpool-Mexico in 2009 is FBCSI under §954(d)(2). That provision provides in full: Certain branch income. For purposes of determining foreign base company sales income in situations in which the carrying on of activities by a controlled foreign corporation through a branch or similar establishment outside the country of incorporation of the controlled foreign corporation has substantially the same effect as if such branch or similar establishment were a wholly owned subsidiary corporation deriving such income, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary the income attributable to the carrying on of such branch or similar establishment shall be treated as income derived by a wholly owned subsidiary of the controlled foreign corporation and shall constitute foreign base company sales income of the controlled foreign corporation. As the Tax Court aptly observed, § 954(d)(2) consists of a single (nearly interminable) sentence that specifies two conditions and then two consequences that follow if those conditions are met. The first condition is that the CFC was “carrying on” activities “through a branch or similar establishment” outside its country of incorporation. The second condition is that the branch arrangement had “substantially the same effect as if such branch were a wholly owned subsidiary corporation [of the CFC] deriving such income[.]” If those conditions are met, then two consequences follow as to “the income attributable to” the branch’s activities: first, that income “shall be treated as income derived by a wholly owned subsidiary of the controlled foreign corporation”; and second, the income attributable to the branch’s activities “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of the controlled foreign corporation.” 26 U.S.C. § 954(d)(2).” … “From these premises, § 954(d)(2) expressly prescribes the consequences that follow: first, that the sales income “attributable to” the “carrying on” of activities through Lux’s Mexican branch “shall be treated as income derived by a wholly owned subsidiary” of Lux; and second, that the income attributable to the branch’s activities “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of” Lux. That second consequence directly answers the question presented in this appeal. We acknowledge that § 954(d)(2) states that, if the provision’s two conditions are met, then “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary” the provision’s two consequences “shall” follow. And Whirlpool makes various arguments as to those regulations, seeking a result different from the one mandated by the statute itself. But the agency’s regulations can only implement the statute’s commands, not vary from them. (The Tax Court read the “under regulations” text the same way. See Op. at 38 (“The Secretary was authorized to issue regulations implementing these results.”)). And the relevant command here—that Lux’s sales income “shall constitute foreign base company sales income of” Lux—could hardly be clearer.” Click here for translation ...

In a November 2020 opinion the US Tax Court agreed with the IRS that Coca-Cola’s US-based income should be increased by $9 billion in a dispute over royalties from its foreign-based licensees. Coca-Cola filed a Motion to Reconsider June 2, 2021 – 196 days after the Tax Court had served its opinion. Judgement of the tax court The Tax Court denied the motion to reconsider. There is a 30-day deadline to move for reconsideration and the court concluded that Coca-Cola was without a valid excuse for the late filing and that the motion would have failed on the merits in any event ...

Coca Cola, a U.S. corporation, was the legal owner of the intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute, and sell some of the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trade- marks, product names, logos, patents, secret formulas, and proprietary manufacturing processes. Coca Cola licensed foreign manufacturing affiliates, called “supply points,” to use this IP to produce concentrate that they sold to unrelated bottlers, who produced finished beverages for sale  to distributors and retailers throughout the world. Coca Cola’s contracts with its supply points gave them limited rights to use the IP in performing their manufacturing and distribution functions but gave the supply points no ownership interest in that IP. During 2007-2009 the supply points compensated Coca Cola for use of its IP under a formulary apportionment method to which Coca Cola and IRS had agreed in 1996 when settling Coca Cola’s tax liabilities for 1987-1995. Under that method the supply points were permitted to satisfy their royalty obligations by paying actual royalties or by remitting dividends. During 2007-2009 the supply points remitted to Coca Cola dividends of about $1.8 billion in satisfaction of their royalty obligations. The 1996 agreement did not address the transfer pricing methodology to be used for years after 1995. Upon examination of Coca Cola’s 2007-2009 returns IRS determined that Coca Cola’s methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it over-compensated the supply points and undercompensated Coca Cola for the use of its IP. IRS reallocated income between Coca Cola and the supply points employing a comparable profits method (CPM) that used Coca Cola’s unrelated bottlers as comparable parties. These adjustments increased Coca Cola’s aggregate taxable income for 2007- 2009 by more than $9 billion. The US Tax Court ruled on November 18 that Coca-Cola’s US-based income should be increased by about $9 billion in a dispute over the appropriate royalties owned by its foreign-based licensees for the years from 2007 to 2009. The court reduced the IRS’s adjustment by $1.8 billion because the taxpayer made a valid and timely choice to use an offset treatment when it came to dividends paid by foreign manufacturing affiliates to satisfy royalty obligations ...

Coca Cola collects royalties from foreign branches and subsidiaries for use of formulas, brand and other intellectual property. Years ago an agreement was entered by Coca Cola and the IRS on these royalty payments to settle an audit of years 1987 to 1995. According to the agreement Coca-Cola licensees in other countries would pay the US parent company royalties using a 10-50-50 formula where 10% of the gross sales revenue is treated as a normal return to the licensee and the rest of the revenue is split evenly between the licensee and the US parent, with the part going to the US parent paid in the form of a royalty. The agreement expired in 1995, but Coca-Cola continued to use the model for transfer pricing in the following years. Coca-Cola and the Mexican tax authorities had agreed on the same formula and Coca-Cola continued to use the pricing-formula in Mexico on the advice of Mexican counsel. In 2015, the IRS made an adjustment related to 2007 – 2009 tax returns stating that Coca-Cola licensees should have paid a higher royalty to the US parent. On that bases the IRS said that too much income had been declared in Coca Cola’s tax returns in Mexico because a higher royalty should have been deducted. The IRS therefore disallowed $43.5 to $50 million in foreign tax credits in each of the three years for taxes that the IRS said Coca-Cola overpaid in Mexico due to failure to deduct the right amount of royalty payments – voluntary tax payments cannot be claimed as a foreign tax credit in the United States. The court sided with Coca-Cola on this question and concluded that the all practical remedies to reduce Mexican taxes had been exhausted and Coca Cola. Foreign tax credits were to be allowed ...