- 6 -
not to be resolved in such proceedings. See Espinoza v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 415-416 (1982); Shiosaki v.
Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861 (1974). The party moving for summary
judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue
as to any material fact. See Shiosaki v. Commissioner, supra.
The dispute here concerns a cross-border transfer of
intangibles by a domestic parent to its foreign subsidiaries.
Under the regulations in effect for the years under
consideration, if a group of controlled entities participated in
a “bona fide cost-sharing arrangement” as to the development of
intangibles, then the district director is limited in his
approach to reallocation. Sec. 1.482-2(d)(4), Income Tax Regs.
In particular, the regulation provides that if there is a “bona
fide cost-sharing arrangement”, then “the district director shall
not make allocations with respect to such acquisition [of
intangibles] except as may be appropriate to reflect each
participant’s arm’s length share of the costs and risks of
developing the property.” Id.
The regulation goes on to direct that cost-sharing
arrangements will be considered “arm’s length” where the “terms
and conditions * * * [are] comparable to those which would have
been adopted by unrelated parties similarly situated had they
entered into such an arrangement.” Id. There is no disagreement
about the bona fides of the cost-sharing agreements between the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011