E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United States
44 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5906, 608 F.2d 445, 221 Ct. Cl. 333 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has broad discretion under Section 482 to reallocate income between commonly controlled entities to prevent tax evasion or clearly reflect income, and this reallocation will be upheld if the taxpayer fails to demonstrate a more accurate arm's-length price under the prescribed regulatory methods or to prove the Commissioner's result is unreasonable.
Facts:
- In early 1959, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours (Du Pont) created a wholly-owned Swiss marketing and sales subsidiary, Du Pont International S.A. (DISA), for its foreign sales.
- Du Pont's president envisioned DISA as an international sales branch to market Du Pont’s proprietary products, especially textile fibers and elastomers, using technical sales services and "indirect selling" to promote demand.
- Du Pont's internal planning documents referred to tax advantages as an important consideration, aiming to shift a significant portion of profits to DISA in a low-tax country to finance European capital improvements.
- Du Pont deliberately calculated prices on its intercorporate sales to DISA to give DISA the "lion’s share" of profits (initially targeting 75% of total profits), bypassing individual producing departments and economic valuation.
- DISA operated without developing extensive laboratories or needing to hunt for qualified personnel, relying on Du Pont's resources, and enjoying low credit risks and insulation from losses due to the parent's pricing formula.
- Du Pont maximized DISA’s income by funneling a large volume of sales through DISA, including products requiring no special services or already having ample technical services, and sales to non-European countries like Australia and South Africa.
- For the taxable years 1959 and 1960, the actual division of total profits between Du Pont and DISA was closer to a 50-50 split (48.3% for DISA in 1959, 57.1% in 1960) due to some intercorporate transfers being omitted from the initial pricing scheme.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue found these profit divisions economically unrealistic under Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue reallocated a substantial part of DISA's income to E. I. Du Pont de Nemours for 1959 and 1960, increasing Du Pont's taxes.
- E. I. Du Pont de Nemours paid the additional taxes.
- E. I. Du Pont de Nemours brought a refund suit in the United States Court of Claims (the trial division).
- Before the trial, the trial judge ruled that E. I. Du Pont de Nemours had to prove it owed either nothing or a lesser amount, not just that the IRS determination was erroneous.
- Before the trial, the United States Court of Claims denied E. I. Du Pont de Nemours' motion for summary judgment, which was based on the ground that once it is shown the IRS computation is erroneous in method, the taxpayer must necessarily prevail.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have the authority under Section 482 to reallocate income between a parent company and its controlled foreign subsidiary when the parent fails to demonstrate that its intercorporate pricing satisfies the arm's-length standard under the applicable Treasury regulations?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Judge
Yes, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has the authority under Section 482 to reallocate income between a parent company and its controlled foreign subsidiary when the parent fails to demonstrate that its intercorporate pricing satisfies the arm's-length standard under the applicable Treasury regulations. The court held that E. I. Du Pont de Nemours (Du Pont) failed to demonstrate entitlement to a refund because its intercorporate prices to DISA were set "wholly without regard to the factors which normally enter into an arm’s length price." Section 482 grants the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to allocate income between related corporations to prevent tax evasion or clearly reflect income, treating controlled taxpayers as if they were uncontrolled. The applicable Treasury regulations (retroactive to 1959-1960) set forth a hierarchy of methods to determine an arm's-length price, with the resale price method being the one Du Pont primarily invoked. This method requires the existence of "substantially comparable uncontrolled resellers" and mandates "appropriate adjustment" for "material differences." Du Pont failed to identify any truly comparable uncontrolled resellers, as DISA's unique structure and operations—designed to accumulate profits with minimal risk or substantial function—made direct comparables impossible. The group of 21 distributors proposed by Du Pont lacked sufficient data to establish similarity in products, functions, or market conditions, and their significantly higher selling costs indicated different service scales. Furthermore, Du Pont failed to suggest the necessary adjustments for these differences as required by the regulation. Since Du Pont could not satisfy the requirements of the preferred methods, the Commissioner's allocation was assessed under the alternative "fourth method," which allows for "some appropriate method of pricing" when others are inapplicable. The court focuses on the reasonableness of the Commissioner’s result, not the details of the agent's methodology, and accords broad discretion to the Service. The reallocation of approximately $18 million was found reasonable, supported by two economic indices: DISA's pre-reallocation income/cost ratios vastly exceeded those of functionally similar firms, and its return on capital was extraordinarily high compared to industry averages, even after reallocation, remaining better than 96% of surveyed companies. This evidence demonstrated that DISA's profits were not earned through arm's-length practices.
Concurring - Nichols, Judge
Yes, the Commissioner's allocation of income was appropriate because the taxpayer failed to prove that the profits made by its subsidiary were comparable to those of uncontrolled entities, and the Commissioner's ultimate result was reasonable, despite the Commissioner's initial method being potentially flawed. Judge Nichols agreed with the court's opinion and judgment, emphasizing that a taxpayer's burden is to prove an overpayment, not merely that the Commissioner's original method of calculation was incorrect. He considered Part III of the majority opinion, which reviewed the reasonableness of the Commissioner's allocation under the "fourth method," to be "superfluous" but acknowledged its utility in demonstrating the fairness of the outcome. He highlighted the inherent difficulty and complexity of reallocating income under Section 482 when specific regulatory formulae are not applicable, noting the lack of clear guidelines leads to a situation where there is "no one sure formula." He concluded that the Commissioner "gets the best of both worlds": counsel is not bound to defend the original methodology, and the allocation stands if any reasonable approach supports the result. Nichols suggested that the current regulations leave too many cases to the undefined "fourth method," effectively granting the Treasury almost unreviewable discretion in determining tax liability for such allocations, which goes against the general principle of the Treasury not having discretionary power over tax amounts.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad discretion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under Section 482, particularly when taxpayers fail to adhere to the strict requirements of the arm's-length pricing methods outlined in the regulations. It establishes a high bar for taxpayers challenging Section 482 allocations, requiring not only a demonstration that the Commissioner's method was flawed but also proof that the taxpayer's own method leads to an arm's-length price or that the Commissioner's result is unreasonable. The case highlights the importance of detailed economic analysis and documentation to support intercompany pricing, especially when dealing with unique or specially designed foreign subsidiaries, and underscores the judiciary's deference to the IRS in applying the "fourth method" when more specific methods are inapplicable due to a lack of comparables. This decision encourages taxpayers to conduct diligent economic studies to justify their transfer pricing rather than solely focusing on tax minimization, as failure to do so can lead to a court upholding a broad reallocation by the IRS.
