Tag

Transfer Pricing

Browsing

New Jersey is the latest state to unveil a voluntary initiative to examine transfer pricing for taxpayers with intercompany transactions.  The initiative is similar to recent programs in North Carolina, Indiana, and Louisiana (see our prior coverage here and here, as well as our prior coverage of the Multistate Tax Commission’s ongoing transfer pricing collaboration and enforcement initiatives). The New Jersey Division of Taxation published guidance outlining the voluntary transfer pricing initiative last week (NJ…

Beginning November 1, 2021, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) will be offering taxpayers the opportunity to participate in a voluntary transfer pricing “managed audit” program (the “Program”). Pursuant to a recently released Department information bulletin, the purpose of the Program is to: Create an efficient and expedited resolution for corporate tax audits when transfer pricing issues exist; andProvide certainty and uniformity to taxpayers on the resolution of transfer pricing issues for open audit periods…

The Multistate Tax Commission (“MTC”) is set to revamp its transfer pricing collaboration and enforcement initiatives following the first public meeting of its State Intercompany Transactions Advisory Service (“SITAS”) Committee in over four years.  At the end of last year, the SITAS Committee appointed its new Chair- Krystal Bolton, who is also an assistant director at the Louisiana Department of Revenue’s field audit income tax division.  On March 23rd, Ms. Bolton hosted representatives from state revenue agencies, practitioners, taxpayers, and other members of the public in a virtual conference to overview the history of the SITAS Committee and to present the results of a multistate survey regarding intercompany transactions and transfer pricing.    

The Utah Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Utah State Tax Comm’n v. See’s Candies Inc., Utah, No. 20160910-SC, which is an important case for whether Utah will respect arm’s-length transfer pricing.  During the hearing, the Utah State Tax Commission (“Commission”) argued that Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 482 should not limit its discretionary authority to reallocate income between related companies.  The taxpayer, on the other hand, claimed the intercompany transactions at issue were at arm’s length and therefore deductible.