Skip to Main Content

Tax Notes Quotes Richard Skillman: Transfer Pricing Needs a "Save Shot"

May 2, 2016, Tax Notes Today

Tax Notes Today quotes Richard W. Skillman during a panel discussion on the Altera decision at an International Tax Institute Luncheon on April 20th. For the complete article, please visit Tax Notes Today's website (subscription required).

Excerpt taken from the article "News Analysis: Transfer Pricing Needs a Save Shot" by Lee A. Sheppard for Tax Notes Today. 

The decision was the subject of a lively debate between Michael Schler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Richard Skillman of Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. at the April 20, 2016, International Tax Institute (ITI) luncheon in New York.

. . .

"The arm's-length result is a platonic ideal," Skillman commented at ITI. "Where Treasury failed in the preamble, I believe, was in pretending that this was the arm's-length standard as usual, rather than coming out and acknowledging that it was embracing a more expansive and theoretical view of the arm's length standard," Skillman elaborated later.

. . .

In Altera, incoming Chief Judge L. Paige Marvel took Treasury at its word that the validity of the 2003 regulation depends on its consistency with the arm's-length method as interpreted in Xilinx to mean whatever unrelated parties would do. The government had not bothered to adduce evidence about what unrelated parties would do, while the taxpayer trooped in everyone in Silicon Valley and his lawyer to argue that unrelated parties do not share equity-based compensation.

"That's not quite true," said Skillman at ITI. He noted that parties could agree to share predictable costs of equity-based compensation or use book values.

. . .

At ITI, Skillman mused that the court might have meant process rather than substance in this statement. "It invalidated the regulation based on how it was explained by Treasury; nothing in the Tax Court's Altera decision suggests that the regulation would have been invalidated if Treasury hadn't maintained that it was consistent with the arm's-length standard," he wrote in his viewpoint.

Skillman, who could not predict how the Ninth Circuit would handle the case, argued that Altera would permit a taxpayer to have the benefit of the cost-sharing safe harbor while refusing to share the cost of equity-based compensation. In the BEPS context, Altera might mean that an island cash box would be allocated the residual extra-normal profit from valuable technology -- the irony being that only a related party would allow an island cash box to have the residual.

.  . .

In Altera, the cash box was literally on an island -- the taxpayer's subsidiary was in the Cayman Islands, removing treaty arguments from the case. Thus the treaty consistency argument about the 2003 regulation can wait for another day, in Skillman's view. But the Altera opinion may require a future court to interpret a U.S. treaty to require pricing according to the behavior of unrelated parties, regardless of generally accepted deviations contained in the OECD transfer pricing guidelines. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether the regulation is consistent with U.S. treaties because a U.S. resident taxpayer is allowed to choose treaty treatment over statute when it gives a better result.

. . .

In adopting the cost-sharing regulation, "Treasury wasn't making an empirical judgment like that underlying the seatbelt regulation that was invalidated in State Farm," Skillman wrote in his viewpoint. Let's unpack that.

. . .

The commensurate with income clause gives Treasury the clear power to make rules forcing related taxpayers to share all costs to qualify for the cost-sharing safe harbor. "Because the 1986 legislative history provides ample basis to conclude that Congress authorized Treasury to adopt a cost-sharing regulation that was inconsistent with the arm's-length standard, Treasury's assertion of consistency with that standard is irrelevant to the regulation's validity under this view of the legal basis for the regulation," Skillman wrote in his viewpoint.

. . .

"If a regulation can be invalidated because of a flaw or gap in its preamble explanation, it will be open season, and in some cases easy pickings, to challenge the validity of many tax regulations that have gone unchallenged for years," Skillman wrote in his viewpoint.


About Caplin & Drysdale
Celebrating our 55th Anniversary in 2019, Caplin & Drysdale continues to be a leading provider of legal services to corporations, individuals, and nonprofits throughout the United States and around the world. We are also privileged to serve as legal advisors to accounting firms, financial institutions, law firms, and other professional services organizations.

The firm's reputation over the years has earned us the trust and respect of clients, industry peers, and government agencies. Moreover, clients rely on our broad knowledge of the law and our keen insights into their business concerns and personal interests. Our lawyers' strong tactical and problem-solving skills -- combined with substantial experience handling a variety of complex, high stakes, matters in a boutique environment -- make us one the nation's most distinctive law firms.

With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C., Caplin & Drysdale's core practice areas include:
For more information, please visit us at
Washington, DC Office:
One Thomas Circle NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
New York, NY Office:
600 Lexington Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022


This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other reader. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney Advertising
It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.
©2021 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
All Rights Reserved.

Related Professionals

Related Practice Area(s)