TaxConnections

 
 

Access Leading Tax Experts And Technology
In Our Global Digital Marketplace

Please enter your input in search


Looming Transfer Pricing Exams & IRS Preparedness Measures (Part 3 of Series): “TPEP Execution Phase”



Doug Schwerdt

In this third article in our Looming Transfer Pricing Exams & IRS Preparedness Measures series, we highlight and summarize the essential aspects of the IRS’s Transfer Pricing Examination Process (TPEP) Execution Phase.

The Execution Phase immediately follows the opening conference and consists of continued risk assessment, fact finding, information gathering, and issue development. Stages of issue development include determining the facts, applying the law to those facts, and understanding the various tax implications of the issue. The issue team is advised to make every effort to resolve factual differences with the taxpayer.

Although the transfer pricing documentation IDR is no longer mandatory at the beginning of the Planning Phase, issue teams are advised to issue this IDR “early in the audit process” and review and analyze the taxpayer’s transfer pricing documentation before the taxpayer orientation meetings, which occur during the Execution Phase. Generally, the TPEP advises the issue team to determine whether all documentation requirements of Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-6(d)(2) or (d)(3) have been met and whether the documentation and its conclusions are reasonable. In particular, the issue team is instructed to evaluate the taxpayer’s selection and application of the best method for each relevant controlled transaction.

Indeed, the latest TPEP[1] (Rev 9-2020), which was posted to the IRS Forms and Publications (PDF) website on 09/23/2020, lists Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) section 4.61.3.4.12 (12-13-2018)[2] “Selecting the Best Method” as an additional “Helpful Reference” in the Risk Assessment section of the Execution Phase. The key takeaway from IRM 4.61.3.4.12, and subsection 4.61.3.4.12.1 “Transfer Pricing Review Panel (TPRP),” is when the taxpayer has timely provided transfer pricing documentation that both clearly states and analyzes the best method selection, but the issue team determines that an alternative method is the best method to achieve a more reliable measure of the arm’s length result, the issue team must obtain TPRP approval for use of the alternative method. Whereas, TPRP approval is not required when 1) the taxpayer does not definitively identify the selection of a best method or provide sufficient supporting analysis in its transfer pricing documentation and the issue team seeks to use an alternative method, or 2) when the issue team changes the application of the taxpayer’s best method, but not the selection of the best method.

Per IRM 4.61.3.4.12.1(4), “TPRP approval is an additional level of managerial review and is considered an intermediate step in the examination to help ensure transfer pricing cases are fully developed.” The TPRP generally includes a Transfer Pricing Practice (TPP) Director – or an Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (APMA) Program Director when the proposed best method change is part of an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA), a Senior Advisor to the TTPO Director, and the Income Shifting Practice Network (ISPN) Manager or other Practice Network manager such as an Economics Practice Network (EPN) manager. Key factors the TPRP will focus on include: 1) Reasons the issue team concludes that the taxpayer’s method is unreliable, and 2) Whether the taxpayer’s method can be adjusted to make it more reliable, and if not, what method is the best method to more reliably achieve an arm’s length result and why. The TPEP additionally instructs the issue team to consult with the IRS APMA Program when a taxpayer transaction involves a U.S. treaty partner country.

Orientation meetings are to be conducted within 30 days of the opening conference. The issue team will prepare IDRs to request a financial statement orientation and then a transfer pricing/supply chain orientation. Each IDR includes an extensive list of items to request from the taxpayer. Additionally, per IRM 4.61.3.4.6(3), a written agenda should be prepared for every taxpayer meeting and shared with the taxpayer in advance.  

Generally, the financial statement orientation meeting will cover a walk-through of the Country-by-Country reports; geographic, legal entity, tax, and functional organizational charts; all reporting platforms (e.g., management reporting) that exist; and all relevant aspects of the financial statements such as reconciliations, roll ups to consolidated financial statements, book/tax differences, adjusting and true-up entries, cost centers and profit centers, and any other relevant taxpayer accounting policies and practices.

The transfer pricing/supply chain orientation meeting generally includes: background and business reasons for the intercompany transactions (e.g., rationale for entering into the controlled transactions, value drivers, and whether the intercompany transaction is associated with a change in functions, assets or risks), persons responsible for structuring the intercompany transactions, discussion of the functional analysis of each controlled party and how the transfer pricing report preparer gained knowledge for the functional analysis, total profits or losses associated with each material controlled transaction and each controlled party’s share of the total profits or losses, and the selection and application of the best method.

IDRs or summonses may be issued after the orientation meetings for further factual development and may include requests for interviews and site visits (e.g., plant tours). The TPEP lists IRM 4.46.4.2 “Overview of the Execution Phase” as a Helpful Resource. IRM 4.46.4.2(2) states, “A cooperative and transparent taxpayer will assist in the factual development of each issue.” It also states that IDRs are required to be “issue-focused” and contain a statement of the issue. Further, with the exception of the Initial Transfer Pricing Documentation IDR (which has a 30-day response time as codified by law), a discussion with the taxpayer and/or their representative is required to confirm an understanding of the items requested and to set a reasonable response date for the request.

IRM 4.46.4.2(5) states, “For potentially unagreed issues, the issue team is required to solicit an acknowledgment of facts (AOF) by attaching a draft Form 886-A, Explanation of Items, to the AOF IDR to request the taxpayer’s concurrence on the facts.” IRM 4.46.4.10(7) states, “Although an AOF IDR is not required for agreed issues, a draft 886-A may be issued as a best practice.” Issuing an AOF IDR for all transfer pricing issues (whether potentially agreed or unagreed) is also listed as a Best Practice in the TPEP. The facts in the AOF, acknowledged in writing by the taxpayer, must be consistent with the facts in both the Economist Report and NOPA. Then, the issue team should resolve any factual differences and/or document all disputed facts. Finally, the issue team issues Form 5701, Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) and the Economist Report (the issue team economist is responsible for drafting the economist report whether an IRC § 482 adjustment is pursued or not). IRM 4.61.3.4.15 lists the major required sections in the Economist Report. The issue team is to discuss a NOPA response date with the taxpayer, and if no agreement is reached then the issue team will set a “reasonable response date.”

The next installment in our series of articles on Looming Transfer Pricing Exams & IRS Preparedness Measures will condense and explain salient aspects of the TPEP’s Resolution Phase, which is the last of the TPEP’s three phases.

If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this article, please contact the authors:

Guy Sanschagrin, Principal in Charge of Transfer Pricing and Valuation Services, WTP Advisors (Minneapolis, MN, USA) guy.sanschagrin@wtpadvisors.com

Doug Schwerdt, Transfer Pricing and Valuation Specialist, WTP Advisors (Houston, TX, USA)  doug.schwerdt@wtpadvisors.com

Read Blog Post Part 1 in this Series

Read Blog Post Part 2 in this Series

_______________________________________________

[1] Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Publication 5300 (Rev 9-2020), “Revised September 8, 2020”, Catalog Number 71492Y, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5300.pdf.

[2] All IRM sections referenced in this article were revised as of 12-13-2018.

Avatar

Doug is a transfer pricing enthusiast with >20 years of consulting and in-house company transfer pricing (“TP”) experience. He has worked with WTP Advisors as a TP and Valuation Specialist since 2014, and since 2018 as the firm’s Intra-Group Financial Transactions Leader. Prior to WTP, Doug developed his broad understanding of most major industries and his specialized technical expertise at Big 4 and boutique consulting firms. Moreover, he forged in-house operational TP know-how as a full-time professional in Hewlett-Packard’s and CEMEX’s corporate tax departments.

Doug’s distinctive proficiencies include: intra-group loans and factoring; ERP-based cost allocation; IRS exam preparedness; intangible property valuation; TP for multi-country intra-industry sourcing and trading companies, across the value chain; and navigating intricate TP rules and requirements of LATAM and Asian countries and providing OECD BEPS Action 13 documentation and controversy support.

As WTP’s Intra-Group Financial Transactions Leader, Doug recently completed the following types of projects: credit rating scoring, debt capacity analysis, interest rate determination, guarantees, factoring, and captive insurance. Additionally, Doug has experience designing and managing TP aspects of MNE treasury centers, including hedging (F/X and interest rate), cash pools, and accounts receivable factoring.

TP technology is a hallmark of Doug’s interests and experiences, notably: 1) Collaborating in teams on Big 4 global TP tech initiatives; 2) Contributing to early start-up stage company TP S/W development; 3) Evaluating, selecting, and building expertise in WTP’s TP research and analysis platforms; and 4) Developing aspects of the Transportal TP management platform and pioneering its tools including the Risk Assessment Model and the OECD CbCR XML Generator module.

Thanks to numerous years of in-house MNE TP experience, Doug is equipped to understand the challenges and objectives of large corporate tax departments — enabling him to maintain alignment between consulting and larger client company projects and goals. He is dedicated to delivering TP documentation of industry-leading quality and providing clients with sound, actionable advice. What’s more, Doug is tirelessly keen on collaboratively designing innovative TP plans that are supported by comprehensive research and methodical analyses. Doug maintains up-to-date knowledge on noteworthy TP topics and he’s happy to talk with you about TP matters.

Twitter LinkedIn 

Subscribe to TaxConnections Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.