Alert

The IRS officially released final updates to the regulations under Section 367(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), effective October 10, 2024. These updates are essential for companies that have transferred intangible property (IP) to foreign entities and are contemplating the repatriation of that IP to the United States.

The relationship between Section 367(d) and Section 482 is particularly significant in this context, as it governs the treatment of cross-border intercompany transactions involving IP. A thorough understanding of how these two sections interact is crucial for ensuring compliance and optimizing tax strategies.

Explore key changes associated with the final Section 367(d) updates, their impact on Section 482, and how to respond effectively with the following insights.

Key Changes Under Section 367(d)

The new regulations under Section 367(d) introduce several significant changes that impact how companies handle the transfer of IP for tax purposes. Specifically, these final regulations aim to prevent excessive US tax liabilities for companies already subject to US taxes on income from intangible property.

The final rules allow for the termination of the ongoing application of section 367(d) when intangible property transferred to a foreign corporation is repatriated to a qualified domestic person, provided certain reporting requirements are met. This change aims to alleviate the tax burden on companies repatriating their IP, but it applies only to transfers to a qualified domestic person.

The definition of a qualified domestic person is based on the principle that application of section 367(d) can only be terminated when all income generated by the IP, along with any gains recognized from its disposition, is subject to current taxation in the United States.

Details of the new regulation and key implications include the following:

Definition of a Qualified Domestic Person

The IRS has specified a narrow definition of a qualified domestic person, which includes:

• The original U.S. transferor of the IP
• A qualified successor
• A US person or qualified corporation that’s related to either the original US transferor or the qualified successor.

Partnerships and S corporations don’t qualify under this definition, which may limit options for some businesses.

Although the proposed regulations don’t recognize domestic partnerships as qualified domestic persons or treat them as a group of partners—aggregate approach—for this status, the Treasury Department and the IRS have explicitly stated that these long-standing issues related to the treatment of partnership under section 367(d) may be addressed in future rulemaking.

The IRS emphasized its intent to maintain a narrow scope for the application of the new final regulations to minimize potential compliance complexities and administrative burdens.

Required Adjustments for Annual Section 367(d) Inclusion

The regulations state that the annual payment considered under section 367(d) by the transferee foreign corporation can be treated as an allowable deduction. This deduction must be allocated and apportioned to the appropriate classes of gross income of the transferee foreign corporation, in accordance with §§1.882-4(b)(1), 1.954-1(c), and 1.960-1(c) and (d). The regulations clarify that this deduction is applicable to any class of gross income, not just those subject to subpart F.

Clarification of Reporting Requirements

To terminate the application of the rules regarding repatriated intangible property, a US transferor must provide specific information. If this information isn’t submitted, the repatriation will still be subject to existing rules that require annual reporting over the useful life of the intangible property. However, if the US transferor realizes they missed providing the information and promptly submits it along with an explanation, they may qualify for relief under the proposed regulations, provided they meet the necessary conditions.

The Treasury Department and the IRS clarify that this relief depends on the requirements mentioned above. They also plan to consider creating a specific form to improve reporting related to these rules in the future. To help taxpayers, the final regulations include an eFax number for submitting explanations for any compliance failures. If the US transferor's taxable year is under examination, this information should be given directly to the IRS personnel handling the examination.

The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that requiring the U.S. transferor to promptly address compliance failures—without a fixed deadline—provides the necessary flexibility for relief based on individual facts and circumstances.

No Retroactive Application

The Treasury Department and the IRS assessed various factors when deciding whether to allow retroactive application of these new regulations on an elective basis. They considered the relevance of the new legislation, the necessity of retroactivity to meet policy objectives, and the potential administrative burden it may create.

Additionally, they evaluated whether retroactive application might unfairly benefit certain taxpayers over other similarly situation taxpayers. After weighing these factors, they have concluded that, overall, they will not permit retroactive application of the final regulations.

Interplay Between Section 367(d) and Section 482

The interplay between Section 367(d) and Section 482 is important for companies engaged in cross-border IP transactions, as understanding this relationship is key for compliance and effective tax strategy.

Valuation Consistency

Both Section 367(d) and Section 482 stress the necessity for accurate and consistent valuation of intangible assets.

• Section 367(d) mandates that companies recognize income from the transfer of IP over its useful life. This requires a reliable valuation at the time of transfer, with the IRS expecting companies to substantiate the value based on anticipated economic benefits.
• Section 482 requires that transactions between related parties adhere to the arm's-length principle, meaning that pricing must reflect what unrelated parties would agree upon under similar circumstances. This necessitates the application of consistent methodologies for valuing IP across both regulatory frameworks.

Any discrepancies in valuation between the two sections can expose companies to significant tax risks, including audits, adjustments, and penalties. It’s imperative for companies to ensure that their valuation methodologies are well-documented and aligned with both compliance requirements.

Arm's Length Principle

The arm's length principle serves as a foundational element in both Section 367(d) and Section 482, aimed at preventing tax avoidance through manipulation of intercompany transactions.

• Under Section 367(d), the IRS expects that the income recognized from the transfer of IP accurately reflects the economic reality of the transaction. This means that the terms and conditions of the transfer should mirror those that would be agreed upon by unrelated parties.
• Section 482 reinforces this principle by requiring that income and expenses be allocated among related entities based on competitive market conditions. This ensures that profits are reported in the jurisdictions where value is created.

Companies must conduct thorough analyses of their intercompany agreements and pricing strategies to ensure compliance with the arm's length principle. This may involve market analyses and benchmarking studies to support the pricing of IP transfers.

Documentation Requirements

Both sections impose rigorous documentation requirements, albeit with different focuses.

• Section 367(d) requires comprehensive documentation regarding the nature of the IP transferred, the valuation methods used, and the expected economic benefits. This documentation is essential for justifying income recognition over the useful life of the IP.
• Section 482 requires companies to maintain extensive transfer pricing documentation that demonstrates compliance with the arm's-length standard. This includes evidence of the pricing methodologies employed, comparables identified, and the rationale for the chosen approach.

Corporations must develop a cohesive documentation strategy that meets the requirements of both sections. This may include maintaining clear records that connect the valuation of IP under Section 367(d) with the transfer pricing analysis under Section 482.

Risk of Double Taxation

The interplay between Section 367(d) and Section 482 can create risks of double taxation if not managed effectively.

If the IRS challenges the valuation of IP under Section 367(d) and adjusts the recognized income, it may inadvertently impact the transfer pricing calculations under Section 482. Conversely, if the transfer pricing adjustments under Section 482 don’t align with the income recognized under Section 367(d), companies may face double taxation across different jurisdictions.

Companies should proactively engage in risk assessment and mitigation strategies to minimize the potential for double taxation. This may involve seeking advance pricing agreements (APAs) with tax authorities to establish clear guidelines for how IP valuations and transfer pricing will be treated.

Implications for Your Business

The impact of the Section 367(d) update and its impact on Section 482 on businesses include:

• Increased Incentives for IP Repatriation. With the new rules in place, companies are likely to feel more encouraged to repatriate their intangible assets, as reduced potential tax liabilities associated with these transfers can yield substantial financial advantages.
• Expanded Strategic Planning. Companies must carefully evaluate their existing IP holdings and consider the implications of repatriating these assets. Understanding the definition of a qualified domestic person is critical for meeting compliance requirements and leveraging potential tax benefits.
• Structured Compliance and Reporting Processes. Businesses will need to establish clear processes for addressing any compliance issues that may arise. The flexibility in reporting requirements allows for a tailored approach, but it is essential to stay proactive in managing these obligations.

Next Steps

These final regulations represent a significant development in the management of intangible assets for multinational companies. To navigate this evolving landscape, companies should conduct a comprehensive review of their IP portfolio, focusing on assets previously transferred to foreign corporations.

Engaging tax professionals who specialize in international tax law can provide valuable insights into how these new regulations affect specific situations, helping businesses manage compliance and reporting obligations effectively. If repatriation is deemed beneficial, developing a detailed strategy that outlines the necessary steps, timelines, and compliance measures will be essential.

Companies should remain vigilant about any updates from the IRS or changes in tax regulations that could impact operations, allowing for timely adjustments to strategies.

We’re Here to Help

To learn more about international transfer pricing strategies and how to implement them successfully, contact your Moss Adams professional.

Additional Resources

• Transfer Pricing Services
• International Tax Services