SDI Netherlands B v. v. Commissioner
107 T.C. 161, 107 T.C. No. 10, 1996 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 41 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Royalty payments from one foreign corporation to another do not constitute U.S. source income subject to withholding tax merely because the funds used for the payment were derived from U.S. source royalties. For the source character of the income to flow through, the intermediary corporation must be a mere conduit, rather than a separate entity with an independent business purpose and economic substance.
Facts:
- SDI Bermuda, a Bermuda corporation, granted a nonexclusive worldwide license for certain computer software to petitioner, SDI Netherlands B.V., a Dutch corporation.
- The license agreement required SDI Netherlands to pay SDI Bermuda royalties fixed at 93% (or more) of the net royalties SDI Netherlands received from its sub-licensees.
- SDI Netherlands granted an exclusive license for the U.S. territory to its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, SDI USA.
- The agreement required SDI USA to pay SDI Netherlands an annual royalty equal to 50% of its gross revenues from leasing and sublicensing the software in the United States.
- During the years at issue, SDI USA made royalty payments to SDI Netherlands based on its U.S. software sales.
- These payments from SDI USA to SDI Netherlands were exempt from U.S. withholding tax under the U.S.-Netherlands Income Tax Convention.
- SDI Netherlands then made royalty payments to SDI Bermuda, calculated as a percentage of its total worldwide royalty receipts, which included the funds from SDI USA.
- There is no U.S. tax treaty with Bermuda that provides an exemption for royalty payments.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) determined deficiencies in Federal withholding taxes against SDI Netherlands B.V. (petitioner) for the tax years 1987-1990.
- The Commissioner issued notices of deficiency to the petitioner on July 29, 1994.
- Petitioner filed a petition with the United States Tax Court, a court of first instance for federal tax matters, to challenge the determined deficiencies.
- The parties submitted the case to the Tax Court on a fully stipulated set of facts.
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 a royalty payment from one foreign corporation (a Netherlands entity) to another foreign corporation (a Bermuda entity) constitute income 'from sources within the United States' subject to U.S. withholding tax, solely because the payment was funded in part by U.S. source royalties that the first corporation received from its U.S. subsidiary?
Opinions:
Majority - Tannenwald, Judge
No. A royalty payment between two foreign corporations does not constitute income 'from sources within the United States' simply because the payor's funds originated from U.S. sources. The court reasoned that the U.S. source royalties paid by SDI USA to SDI Netherlands lost their character as U.S. source income upon receipt by SDI Netherlands. The subsequent payment from SDI Netherlands to SDI Bermuda was a separate and distinct transaction governed by a different license agreement. The court distinguished this case from situations involving a 'mere conduit,' noting that SDI Netherlands had an independent role, operated under a separate contract, and retained a significant profit spread (5-7%) on the royalties it collected before paying SDI Bermuda. This economic substance and business activity prevented it from being treated as a mere agent or conduit for passing funds. Furthermore, the court expressed concern that the government's 'flow-through' theory could lead to a 'cascading royalty problem,' where the same income is subjected to multiple layers of withholding tax as it moves up a corporate chain, a result Congress did not intend.
Analysis:
This case significantly rejects the IRS's 'tracing' or 'flow-through' theory of income sourcing in the context of multi-tiered international licensing arrangements. It provides that the U.S. source character of income can be terminated at an intermediary foreign entity, so long as that entity has economic substance and is not a mere conduit. This holding solidifies the legal distinction between a legitimate, treaty-benefited holding company structure and an artificial pass-through arrangement like that in Aiken Industries. The court's concern about 'cascading' taxes highlights a major policy consideration against applying withholding tax to every payment in a multinational supply chain, thereby providing greater certainty for international tax planning.
Unlock the full brief for SDI Netherlands B v. v. Commissioner