Arm’s Length Standards (ALS)

1369 Words3 Pages

INTRODUCTION:
The IRS usually do not need to validate ordinary business transactions since both the involved parties behave on their own self-interests. However, the IRS is skeptic of any transactions when it comes to evasion of estate taxes and international subsidiaries. When two unrelated companies enter in a transaction, they are involved in arm’s length transaction. However, such is not the case for related companies as they may try to distort the price of the transaction to avoid tax burden. As the boundary of tax evasion and tax avoidance is very thin, especially when it comes to estate tax and international subsidiaries, people often tend to topple over to the evasion side. The case of Estate of H.A. True, Jr. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 2005 illustrates the difficulty of obtaining the objective of tax avoidance and how expensive the failed effort of tax avoidance can be (Journal of Financial Service Professionals). Numerous cases of tax avoidance and evasion such as XILINX Inc. and H.A. True illustrate the confusion surrounding the arm’s length standards (ALS) and its application to cost sharing agreements (CSAs). In case of XILINX, the court altered its decisions few times considering the uncertainties of the arm’s length standards. Meanwhile the company believed to have satisfied the standards. Due to the complexity of the arm’s length standards, these cases were compared to other similar transactions. However, it is rare to find two identical cases which meet all the criteria. In both of these cases, the court couldn’t pin point what the actual standards of the arm’s length standards were, giving rise to opportunities of tax evasion. To put the arm’s length standards to a simplest form, the standard requires the two related parties to structure their transactions in such a manner as they would if they were two unrelated parties in similar

Open Document