Facebook Sues IRS Seeking Access to Internal Agency Appeal
Facebook claims that IRS counsel have stymied the company's request to pursue an internal IRS appeal by citing a new and so far seldom-used rule.
November 09, 2017 at 01:47 PM
3 minute read
Facebook Inc. has sued the Internal Revenue Service seeking access to an internal IRS appeal process regarding a decision related to the social media giant's tax bill.
In a 12-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Wednesday, Facebook claims that IRS counsel have stymied the company's request to pursue an internal IRS appeal by citing a new and so far seldom-used rule that allows IRS exam teams to deny access to internal appeals when they determine such an appeal would not be in the interest of “sound tax administration.”
Facebook wants a finding that the IRS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing the new rule—Revenue Procedure 2016-22, 2016-15 I.R.B. 1—and by denying Facebook's request for an internal appeal.
“Facebook is entitled to an independent administrative forum, and upon information and belief, the IRS decision to deny Facebook access to IRS Appeals was made by individuals in IRS Counsel who were charged with litigating against, or overseeing litigation against Facebook, and were thus not independent,” wrote Facebook's lawyers at Baker McKenzie.
Baker McKenzie has represented Facebook in its ongoing dispute with the IRS over the value of assets the company transferred in 2010 to its Irish holding company, which underlies the lawsuit filed Wednesday. Facebook has been challenging the IRS's claim that it underpaid taxes, possibly by more than $3 billion, due to the way it valued intangible assets transferred to its Irish subsidiary in 2010. According to Facebook's lawsuit, the decision to refuse an internal appeal was made in retaliation against Facebook for refusing to extend the statute of limitations in the ongoing matter.
The IRS has accused a number of U.S. multinational corporations of transferring profits to countries with lower tax rates. These so-called transfer pricing cases have focused heavily on technology and pharmaceutical companies whose intangible assets—patents, trademarks, user bases and customer lists—can be transferred across borders and cross-licensed to lower tax liability.
In Wednesday's complaint, Facebook's lawyers point out that during calendar years 2012 through 2014, the IRS proposed adjustment amounts that totaled about $10.5 billion in the 213 taxpayer examinations that included at least one transfer pricing issue. According to the complaint, IRS records show that only $321 million of the original proposed $10.5 billion in adjustments for the period were posted to taxpayer accounts.
“By denying Facebook access to IRS Appeals the IRS has treated Facebook differently than similarly situated taxpayers for which the IRS had proposed similar income adjustments prior to the issuance of Rev. Proc. 2016-22,” the company's lawyers wrote.
Facebook is asking a federal judge to set aside the new rule, finding it “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
A Facebook spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the court papers.
A spokeswoman for the IRS wasn't immediately prepared to comment on the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250