[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2078]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 2, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8519]
RIN 1545-AS25

 

Imposition of Accuracy-Related Penalty

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Temporary regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These amendments to the regulations under 26 CFR part 1 
provide guidance on the imposition of the accuracy-related penalty 
under Internal Revenue Code sections 6662 (e) and (h) and section 
6664(c) for transactions between persons described in Internal Revenue 
Code section 482 and net section 482 transfer price adjustments. This 
action is necessary because of changes to the applicable tax laws made 
by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are effective February 2, 1994.
    These regulations apply to taxable years beginning after December 
31, 1993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Ralph at (202) 622-3880 (not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation is being issued without prior notice and public 
procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 
For this reason, the collection of information contained in this 
regulation has been reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of 
public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under control number 1545-1365. The estimated annual burden per 
recordkeeper varies from 5 hours to 15 hours, depending on individual 
circumstances, with an estimated average of 10 hours.
    These estimates are an approximation of the average time expected 
to be necessary for a collection of information. They are based on such 
information as is available to the Internal Revenue Service. Individual 
recordkeepers may require greater or less time, depending on their 
particular circumstances.
    For further information concerning this collection of information, 
and where to submit comments on this collection of information, the 
accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this 
burden, please refer to the preamble in the cross-referencing notice of 
proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this 
issue of the Federal Register.

Background

    On January 21, 1993, the IRS published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register (58 FR 5263) that proposed 
amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under sections 6662 (e) and 
(h) and section 6664(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), as 
amended. Those proposed regulations implemented section 11312 of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, 104 
Stat. 1388. Comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking 
were received and a public hearing was held on May 14, 1993. Section 
13236 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66, 
107 Stat. 312) further amended sections 6662 (e) and (h) of the Code. 
After consideration of all comments received and pursuant to the 
statutory changes, the IRS has withdrawn the previous proposed 
regulations and adopts this Treasury decision.

Explanation of Provisions

    The principal purpose of these regulations is to set forth rules 
implementing the imposition of accuracy-related penalties in the 
context of section 482. The exceptions from the penalty imposed under 
section 6662(e) in the case of certain net section 482 transfer pricing 
adjustments are a key component of these rules are. Reflecting the 
amendments to the statute pursuant to section 13236 of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the regulations provide a two-part 
exception from the imposition of the penalty with respect to such 
adjustments, depending on whether the taxpayer used a specified or 
unspecified method under the regulations under section 482. If the 
taxpayer used a specified method, the taxpayer must have reasonably 
concluded, based on the available data and the potentially applicable 
alternative specified methods, that its application of the selected 
method resulted in the most accurate measure of an arm's length result. 
Thus, if the taxpayer reasonably concluded that a different specified 
method would result in a more accurate measure of an arm's length 
result than the selected method, the taxpayer would not satisfy the 
requirements of this exception. If the taxpayer used an unspecified 
method, the taxpayer generally must have reasonably concluded, based on 
the available data, that none of the specified methods was likely to 
achieve an arm's length result and that the method used was likely to 
achieve such a result.
    Finally, irrespective of the method selected, the taxpayer must 
have prepared documentation articulating the required analysis at the 
time that the tax return was filed, and provide such documentation to 
the Internal Revenue Service within 30 days of a request for such 
documentation.

The Need for Transfer Pricing Analysis and Documentation

    The arm's length standard seeks to mirror the results obtained by 
unrelated parties in their business dealings. Unrelated parties analyze 
the value of property or services prior to selling or buying such 
property or services in the open market. However, transactions between 
related parties do not involve the transfer of goods outside of the 
related party group. A transfer price will not affect the total profit 
ultimately realized by the group but may affect total tax liability. To 
ensure that the transfer price a taxpayer reports on its income tax 
return is determined in a manner consistent with the arm's length 
standard, section 6662(e) encourages a taxpayer engaged in related 
party transactions to prepare a factual and economic analysis based on 
reasonably available related party and third party market data that 
substantiates the price chosen, and to maintain appropriate 
documentation of that analysis.
    The experience of the IRS has been that the majority of taxpayers 
do not provide an explanation of how their intercompany pricing was 
established. In many cases examiners' access to a corporation's 
transfer pricing information is delayed or denied. Moreover, many 
taxpayers do not rely upon any form of comparables or other 
contemporaneous information either in planning or in defending 
intercompany transactions. The taxpayer, not having attempted to 
structure the transaction in accordance with the arm's length standard, 
seeks to defend its position on examination by finding whatever 
uncontrolled transaction or transfer pricing method provides a result 
that most closely approximates the result initially reported. The 
failure by taxpayers to analyze their intercompany pricing prior to 
audit increases controversy between taxpayers and the IRS, as both seek 
to develop post hoc analyses of the arm's length character of the 
transactions. Thus, the failure to apply the arm's length standard in 
setting prices for controlled transactions (and the lack of 
contemporaneous documentation explaining that application) increases 
the time spent and expense incurred by both the taxpayer and the IRS in 
determining whether that result was consistent with the arm's length 
standard. Accordingly, these regulations are designed to encourage 
taxpayers to make a serious effort to comply with the arm's length 
standard, report an arm's length result on their income tax return, 
document their transfer pricing analyses, and provide that 
documentation to the IRS upon request.

Statutory Requirements

    Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty in the amount of 20 percent of 
any underpayment to which the section applies. Section 6662(b) lists 
the types of underpayments to which section 6662(a) applies. One such 
underpayment is an underpayment attributable to any substantial 
valuation misstatement under chapter 1 of the Code.
    Section 6662(e) defines a substantial valuation misstatement. These 
temporary regulations under section 6662(e) contain the rules for 
determining whether there is a substantial valuation misstatement 
attributable to section 482 allocations. A substantial valuation 
misstatement exists if (1) the transfer price for any property or 
services (or for the use of property) claimed on a return is 200 
percent or more (or 50 percent or less) of the amount determined under 
section 482 to be the arm's length amount (the transactional penalty), 
or (2) the net section 482 adjustment exceeds the lesser of five 
million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts (the net adjustment 
penalty).
    Section 6662(h) increases the amount of the penalty to 40 percent 
for both the transactional and the net adjustment penalties in the case 
of a gross valuation misstatement. There is a gross valuation 
misstatement if (1) the price for any property or services (or for the 
use of property) claimed on any return in connection with any 
transaction between persons described in section 482 is 400 percent or 
more (or 25 percent or less) of the amount determined under section 482 
to be the arm's length amount, or (2) the net section 482 adjustment 
exceeds the lesser of twenty million dollars or twenty percent of gross 
receipts.

Amounts Excluded From a Net Section 482 Adjustment

    An amount is excluded from the calculation of a net section 482 
adjustment if the requirements of Sec. 1.6662-6T(d)(2), (3), or (4) are 
met with respect to that amount. If a taxpayer meets the requirements 
of paragraph (d) of these regulations with respect to some, but not all 
of the allocations made under section 482, then for purposes of 
determining the net section 482 adjustment, setoffs, as taken into 
account under Sec. 1.482-1T(e)(5), must be applied ratably against all 
such allocations.

Specified Method Applied

    Paragraph (d)(2) provides that an adjustment will be excluded from 
the calculation of a net section 482 adjustment if the taxpayer 
satisfies the specified method requirement of paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and 
the documentation requirement of paragraph (d)(2)(iii). A taxpayer will 
meet the specified method requirement if the taxpayer selects and 
applies a method specified in the section 482 regulations in a 
reasonable manner. A method is a specified method if it is described in 
the regulations under section 482. With respect to transfers of 
tangible property, these methods currently include the comparable 
uncontrolled price method, resale price method, cost-plus method, and 
comparable profits method. With respect to transfers of intangible 
property these methods currently include the comparable uncontrolled 
transactions method and comparable profits method. A bona fide cost 
sharing arrangement under Sec. 1.482-2A(d)(4) is considered a specified 
method.
    Unspecified methods are methods other than specified methods. The 
profit split method, under Sec. 1.482-6 of the proposed regulations and 
qualified cost sharing arrangements, under Sec. 1.482-2(g) of the 
proposed regulations, will become specified methods if and when 
regulations describing those methods are finalized. A taxpayer will 
ordinarily not be considered to have applied an unspecified method 
merely because it failed to make an adjustment in the application of a 
specified method. However, the failure to make adjustments is relevant 
to the reasonableness of the application of that method. The selection 
and application of a method are reasonable only if, given the available 
data and the potentially available methods, the taxpayer reasonably 
concluded that the method (and its application of that method) provided 
the most accurate measure of an arm's length result under the 
principles of the best method rule in Sec. 1.482-1T(b)(2)(iii).
    The specified method standard differs from the more likely than not 
be sustained on the merits standard set forth in proposed regulations 
issued on January 21, 1993. This change reflects the amendments made by 
section 13236 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 
103-66, 107 Stat. 312) to section 6662(e), under which a section 482 
adjustment is to be excluded from the calculation of a net section 482 
adjustment if the taxpayer reasonably applied one of the specified 
section 482 methods (and satisfied the documentation requirements 
described below). In selecting the method to apply, a taxpayer should 
select the specified method that is most appropriate under the facts 
and circumstances. Thus, the taxpayer must reasonably conclude that its 
application of the transfer pricing method chosen will provide the most 
accurate measure of an arm's length result under the facts and 
circumstances of the transaction under review. The application of a 
specified method will not satisfy this standard if the taxpayer 
concluded, or should have concluded, that a reasonable application of 
another specified method would provide a more accurate arm's length 
result than the method chosen. For example, a taxpayer might not 
satisfy this standard if the taxpayer applied the comparable profits 
method to determine its prices but the taxpayer had data relating to a 
comparable uncontrolled transaction involving substantially similar 
conditions. Given the guidance set forth in the section 482 regulations 
and the existence of closely comparable data, a conclusion that a 
different analysis would provide a more accurate measure of an arm's 
length result, ordinarily would not be reasonable.
    A taxpayer's analysis of its transfer prices must include the most 
current data that is available at the time that the taxpayer files its 
tax return. These regulations require that taxpayers perform a 
reasonably thorough search for data. However, this data may not reflect 
transactions in the current taxable year. Accordingly, it may be 
necessary for taxpayers to make compensating adjustments to reflect 
changes in the data between the time that prices were set for the year 
and the time that the return is filed.

Factors

    The regulations discuss several nonexclusive factors that are to be 
taken into account in determining whether the taxpayer reasonably 
concluded that its application of the method selected would provide the 
most accurate measure of an arm's length result. The first factor is 
that a taxpayer's experience and knowledge in transfer pricing will be 
relevant in determining how thorough and precise the taxpayer's 
analysis must be. In assessing the experience and knowledge of the 
taxpayer, the experience and knowledge of the controlled group is taken 
into account, rather than the experience and knowledge of any member of 
the controlled group. Thus, the larger and more sophisticated a 
controlled group of corporations, the more thorough and precise its 
analysis should be.
    The second factor is the extent to which sufficient accurate data 
is available to apply a method reasonably. A taxpayer is obligated to 
engage in a reasonably thorough search for comparable transactions and 
other data necessary to apply the methods under section 482. A factor 
to consider in determining whether a search for data is reasonably 
thorough is the cost of searching for the data in relation to the 
dollar amount of the intercompany transaction in question. For example, 
a taxpayer need not obtain data regarding a comparable uncontrolled 
transaction if the intercompany transaction had a value of $50,000 and 
the search for and analysis of the data will cost $25,000. 
Alternatively, if necessary to reasonably apply a specified method, it 
ordinarily would be reasonable to expect that a taxpayer would incur a 
similar expense to search for and analyze data if the taxpayer is 
engaged in intercompany transactions with a dollar amount of $250 
million. If a taxpayer's analysis neglected data that it would have 
been expected to obtain under the above criteria, then the analysis 
would not be considered reasonable.
    The third factor is the extent to which a taxpayer follows the 
relevant requirements set forth in regulations under section 482. 
Furthermore, in applying the selected method, the extent to which the 
taxpayer makes all the adjustments necessary to reasonably conclude 
that its application of the method chosen would provide the most 
accurate measure of an arm's length result will be taken into account.
    The fourth factor is the extent to which the taxpayer relied on the 
advice of a qualified professional. The extent to which reliance is 
appropriate will depend on the qualifications of the professional and 
the quality of the study or other advice that is rendered, rather than 
the relationship that the professional has to the taxpayer.

Unspecified Method Applied

    Paragraph (d)(3) provides that an adjustment will be excluded from 
the calculation of a net section 482 adjustment if the taxpayer 
satisfies the unspecified method requirement of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) 
and the documentation requirement of paragraph (d)(3)(iii). The 
unspecified method requirement is met if a method other than a 
specified method was applied and the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(3)(ii) (B) or (C) are met, as appropriate.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B) provides that if the transaction is of a 
type for which there are specified methods, then a taxpayer will be 
considered to have met the unspecified method requirement if the 
taxpayer reasonably concludes that, given the available data, none of 
the specified methods was likely to provide an accurate measure of an 
arm's length result, and that it selected and applied an unspecified 
method in a way that would likely provide an accurate measure of an 
arm's length result, given the available data.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) provides that if the transaction is of a 
type for which there are no specified methods, then a taxpayer will be 
considered to have met the unspecified method requirement if it 
selected and applied an unspecified method in a reasonable manner. A 
taxpayer's selection and application is reasonable if the taxpayer 
reasonably concludes that the method (and its application of that 
method) provided the most accurate measure of an arm's length result 
under the principles of the best method rule in Sec. 1.482-
T(b)(2)(iii).

Documentation Requirement

    An examiner cannot effectively examine a taxpayer's transfer 
pricing without adequate documentation setting forth the basic transfer 
pricing analysis conducted by the taxpayer. Accordingly, the 
documentation requirement does not provide a long, rigid list of 
documents that must be maintained; rather it focuses on the type of 
information necessary to evaluate how the taxpayer determined its 
transfer prices. The documentation requirements are essentially the 
same regardless of whether the taxpayer uses a specified method or an 
unspecified method. They diverge only in what the documentation must 
establish rather than the type of information that must be maintained. 
A taxpayer that uses a specified method must maintain sufficient 
documentation (that is in existence when the return is filed) to 
establish that it met the specified method requirement. A taxpayer that 
uses an unspecified method must maintain sufficient documentation (that 
is in existence when the return is filed) to establish that it met the 
unspecified method requirement. Regardless of the method used by the 
taxpayer, it must provide that documentation to the IRS within 30 days 
of a request.
    The temporary regulations set forth two classifications of 
documentation--principal and background documents. Principal documents 
consist of the basic transfer pricing analysis conducted by the 
taxpayer. Background documents are documents that typically support the 
principal documents. Only principal documents must be provided upon the 
IRS's request for principal documents. However, both types of 
documentation must be produced within thirty days of a request.
    A district director has discretion to extend the period for 
producing principal documents only if the taxpayer has made a minor or 
inadvertent failure to provide the required documents, has otherwise 
made a good faith effort to comply, and remedies the failure when it 
becomes known. For background documents, a district director has 
discretion to extend the production period for a short period.

Foreign-to-Foreign Transactions

    Finally, paragraph (d)(4) provides that adjustments that are 
attributable to a transaction between foreign corporations are also 
excluded from the calculation of a net section 482 adjustment, unless 
the treatment of that transaction affects the determination of U.S. 
source income or taxable income that is effectively connected with the 
conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

Carryovers and Carrybacks

    The regulations contain a special rule concerning tax benefits, 
such as losses, deductions, or credits, that may be carried to another 
taxable year. If a taxpayer's substantial or gross valuation 
misstatement gives rise to such a tax benefit that is carried to 
another taxable year, then the penalty will be imposed on any resulting 
underpayment of tax attributable to such a tax benefit in that other 
taxable year. In determining whether there is a substantial or gross 
valuation misstatement for a taxable year, no amount carried from 
another taxable year shall be included.

Coordination Rules

    The coordination rules remain substantively unchanged from the 
proposed regulations issued on January 21, 1993. These regulations 
provide rules for coordinating imposition of the transactional penalty 
and the net adjustment penalty.

Advance Pricing Agreements

    If a transfer pricing methodology is developed and applied pursuant 
to an Advance Pricing Agreement in any tax year, that methodology may 
reasonably be relied upon in the current year if the relevant facts and 
circumstances have not changed or if the methodology has been 
appropriately modified to reflect any changes in facts and 
circumstances.

Effective Date

    These regulations apply to taxable years beginning after December 
31, 1993. For taxable years ending after November 5, 1990, but 
beginning prior to January 1, 1994, the Treasury Department considers 
the proposed regulations issued on January 21, 1993, to be a reasonable 
interpretation of sections 6662 (e) and (h), except that no requirement 
of contemporaneous documentation may be imposed for transactions prior 
to April 21, 1993. In any case, contemporaneous documentation may be 
helpful in establishing that the taxpayer had reasonable cause and 
acted in good faith.

Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a 
significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. 
Therefore, an initial Regulatory Impact Analysis is not required. It 
has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to these regulations, and, therefore, 
an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to 
section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these temporary 
regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small 
business.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Thomas L. Ralph of the 
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International), Internal Revenue 
Service. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department 
participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding 
an entry in numerical order to read as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Secs. 1.6662-0 and 1.6662-6T 
also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6662. * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.6662-0 is amended by:
    1. Adding the entries for Sec. 1.6662-5T.
    2. Adding the entries for Sec. 1.6662-6T.
    3. The additions read as follows:


Sec. 1.6662-0  Table of contents. * * *

* * * * *

Section 1.6662-5T  Substantial and Gross Valuation Misstatements 
Under Chapter 1 (Temporary)

    (a) through (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Definitions.
    (1) Substantial valuation misstatement.
    (i) 200 percent test.
    (ii) Tests related to section 482.
    (2) Gross valuation misstatement.
    (i) 400 percent test.
    (ii) Tests related to section 482.
    (3) Property.
    (f) through (i) [Reserved]
    (j) Transactions between persons described in section 482 and 
net section 482 transfer price adjustments.

Section 1.6662-6T  Transactions Between Persons Described in Section 
482 and Net Section 482 Transfer Price Adjustments (Temporary)

    (a) In general.
    (1) Purpose and scope.
    (2) Reported results.
    (3) Identical terms used in section 482 regulations.
    (b) The transactional penalty.
    (1) Substantial valuation misstatement.
    (2) Gross valuation misstatement.
    (3) Reasonable cause and good faith.
    (c) Net adjustment penalty.
    (1) Net section 482 adjustment.
    (2) Substantial valuation misstatement.
    (3) Gross valuation misstatement.
    (4) Setoff allocation rule.
    (5) Gross receipts.
    (6) Coordination with reasonable cause exception under section 
6664(c).
    (7) Examples.
    (d) Amounts excluded from net section 482 adjustments.
    (1) In general.
    (2) Application of a specified section 482 method.
    (i) In general.
    (ii) Specified method requirement.
    (iii) Documentation requirement.
    (A) In general.
    (B) Principal documents.
    (C) Background documents.
    (3) Application of an unspecified method.
    (i) In general.
    (ii) Unspecified method requirement.
    (A) In general.
    (B) Specified method potentially applicable.
    (C) No specified method applicable.
    (iii) Documentation requirement.
    (A) In general.
    (B) Principal and background documents.
    (4) Certain foreign to foreign transactions.
    (5) Special rule.
    (6) Examples.
    (e) Special rules in the case of carrybacks and carryovers.
    (f) Rules for coordinating between the transactional penalty and 
the net adjustment penalty.
    (1) Coordination of a net section 482 adjustment subject to the net 
adjustment penalty and a gross valuation misstatement subject to the 
transactional penalty.
    (2) Coordination of net section 482 adjustment subject to the net 
adjustment penalty and substantial valuation misstatements subject to 
the transactional penalty.
    (3) Examples.
    (g) Effective date.
    Par. 3. Section 1.6662-5T is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1.6662-5T  Substantial and gross valuation misstatements under 
chapter 1 (temporary).

    (a) through (d)  [Reserved]
    (e) Definitions--(1) Substantial valuation misstatement.  There is 
a substantial valuation misstatement if--
    (i) 200 percent test. The value or adjusted basis of any property 
claimed on a return of tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal 
Revenue Code is 200 percent or more of the correct amount; or
    (ii) Tests related to section 482. There is a misstatement 
described in Sec. 1.6662-6T (b)(1) or (c)(1) (concerning substantial 
valuation misstatements pertaining to transactions between related 
persons).
    (2) Gross valuation misstatement. There is a gross valuation 
misstatement if--
    (i) 400 percent test. The value or adjusted basis of any property 
claimed on a return of tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal 
Revenue Code is 400 percent or more of the correct amount; or
    (ii) Tests related to section 482. There is a misstatement 
described in Sec. 1.6662-6T (b)(2) or (c)(2) (concerning gross 
valuation misstatements pertaining to transactions between related 
persons).
    (3) Property. For purposes of this section, the term property 
refers to both tangible and intangible property. Tangible property 
includes property such as money, land, buildings, fixtures, and 
inventory. Intangible property includes property such as goodwill, 
covenants not to compete, leaseholds, patents, contract rights, debts, 
choses in action, and any other item of intangible property described 
in Sec. 1.482-4T(b).
    (f) through (i)  [Reserved]
    (j) Transactions between persons described in section 482 and net 
section 482 transfer price adjustments. For rules relating to the 
penalty imposed with respect to a substantial or gross valuation 
misstatement arising from a section 482 allocation, see Sec. 1.6662-6T.
    Par. 4. Section 1.6662-6T is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1.6662-6T  Transactions between persons described in section 482 
and net section 482 transfer price adjustments.

    (a) In general--(1) Purpose and scope. Pursuant to section 6662(e) 
a penalty is imposed on any underpayment attributable to a substantial 
valuation misstatement pertaining to either a transaction between 
persons described in section 482 (the transactional penalty) or a net 
section 482 transfer price adjustment (the net adjustment penalty). The 
penalty is equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax attributable 
to that substantial valuation misstatement. Pursuant to section 6662(h) 
the penalty is increased to 40 percent of the underpayment in the case 
of a gross valuation misstatement with respect to either penalty. 
Paragraph (b) of this section provides specific rules related to the 
transactional penalty. Paragraph (c) of this section provides specific 
rules related to the net adjustment penalty, and paragraph (d) of this 
section describes amounts that will be excluded for purposes of 
calculating the net adjustment penalty. Paragraph (e) of this section 
sets forth special rules in the case of carrybacks and carryovers. 
Paragraph (f) of this section provides coordination rules between 
penalties. Paragraph (g) of this section provides the effective date of 
this section.
    (2) Reported results. Whether an underpayment is attributable to a 
substantial or gross valuation misstatement must be determined from the 
results of controlled transactions that are reported on an income tax 
return, regardless of whether the amount reported differs from the 
transaction price initially reflected in the taxpayer's books and 
records. The results of controlled transactions that are reported on an 
amended return will be used only if the amended return is filed before 
the Internal Revenue Service has contacted the taxpayer regarding the 
corresponding original return. A written statement furnished by a 
taxpayer subject to the Coordinated Examination Program will be 
considered an amended return for purposes of this section if it 
satisfies either the requirements of a qualified amended return for 
purposes of Sec. 1.6664-2(c)(3) or such requirements as the 
Commissioner may prescribe by revenue procedure. In the case of a 
taxpayer that is a member of a consolidated group, the rules of this 
paragraph (a)(2) apply to the consolidated income tax return of the 
group.
    (3) Identical terms used in section 482 regulations. For purposes 
of this section, the terms used in these regulations shall have the 
same meaning as identical terms used in regulations under section 482.
    (b) The transactional penalty--(1) Substantial valuation 
misstatement. In the case of any transaction between related persons, 
there is a substantial valuation misstatement if the price for any 
property or services (or for the use of property) claimed on any return 
is 200 percent or more (or 50 percent or less) of the amount determined 
under section 482 to be the correct price.
    (2) Gross valuation misstatement. In the case of any transaction 
between related persons, there is a gross valuation misstatement if the 
price for any property or services (or for the use of property) claimed 
on any return is 400 percent or more (or 25 percent or less) of the 
amount determined under section 482 to be the correct price.
    (3) Reasonable cause and good faith. Pursuant to section 6664(c), 
the transactional penalty will not be imposed on any portion of an 
underpayment with respect to which the requirements of Sec. 1.6664-4 
are met. A taxpayer that meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of 
this section with respect to an allocation under section 482 will be 
treated as having established that there was reasonable cause and good 
faith with respect to that item for purposes of Sec. 1.6664-4. If a 
substantial or gross valuation misstatement under the transactional 
penalty also constitutes (or is part of) a substantial or gross 
valuation misstatement under the net adjustment penalty, then the rules 
of section (d) (and not the rules of Sec. 1.6664-4) will be applied to 
determine whether the adjustment is excluded from calculation of the 
net section 482 adjustment.
    (c) Net adjustment penalty--(1) Net section 482 adjustment. For 
purposes of this section, the term net section 482 adjustment means the 
sum of all increases in the taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxable 
year resulting from allocations under section 482 (determined without 
regard to any amount carried to such taxable year from another taxable 
year) less any decreases in taxable income attributable to collateral 
adjustments as described in Sec. 1.482-1T(e). For purposes of this 
section, amounts that meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this 
section will be excluded from the calculation of the net section 482 
adjustment. Substantial and gross valuation misstatements that are 
subject to the transactional penalty under paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) 
are included in determining the amount of the net section 482 
adjustment. See paragraph (f) of this section for coordination rules 
between penalties.
    (2) Substantial valuation misstatement. There is a substantial 
valuation misstatement if a net section 482 adjustment is greater than 
the lesser of 5 million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts.
    (3) Gross valuation misstatement. There is a gross valuation 
misstatement if a net section 482 adjustment is greater than the lesser 
of 20 million dollars or twenty percent of gross receipts.
    (4) Setoff allocation rule. If a taxpayer meets the requirements of 
paragraph (d) of this section with respect to some, but not all of the 
allocations made under section 482, then for purposes of determining 
the net section 482 adjustment, setoffs, as taken into account under 
Sec. 1.482-1T(e)(5), must be applied ratably against all such 
allocations. The following example illustrates the principle of this 
paragraph (c)(4).

    Example. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments for the taxable year:


(1)........................................................  $9,000,000 
(2)........................................................   6,000,000 
(3) Because of a setoff under Sec. 1.482-1T(e)(5)..........  (5,000,000)
                                                            ------------
    Total section 482 adjustments..........................  10,000,000 
                                                                        

    (ii) The taxpayer meets the requirements of paragraph (d) with 
respect to adjustment number one, but not with respect to adjustment 
number two. The five million dollar setoff will be allocated ratably 
against the nine million dollar adjustment ($9,000,000/$15,000,000 
x  $5,000,000 = $3,000,000) and the six million dollar adjustment 
($6,000,000/$15,000,000  x  $5,000,000 = $2,000,000). Accordingly, 
in determining the net section 482 adjustment, the nine million 
dollar adjustment is reduced to six million dollars ($9,000,000 - 
$3,000,000) and the six million dollar adjustment is reduced to four 
million dollars ($6,000,000 - $2,000,000). Therefore, the net 
section 482 adjustment equals four million dollars.

    (5) Gross receipts. For purposes of this section, gross receipts 
must be computed pursuant to the rules contained in Sec. 1.448-
1T(f)(2)(iv), as adjusted to reflect allocations under section 482.
    (6) Coordination with reasonable cause exception under section 
6664(c). Pursuant to section 6662(e)(3)(D), a taxpayer will be treated 
as having reasonable cause under section 6664(c) for any portion of an 
underpayment attributable to a net section 482 adjustment only if the 
taxpayer meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section with 
respect to that portion.
    (7) Examples. The principles of this paragraph (c) are illustrated 
by the following examples.

    Example 1. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments for the taxable year:


(1) Attributable to an increase in gross income because of              
 an increase in royalty payments...........................  $2,000,000 
(2) Attributable to an increase in sales proceeds due to a              
 decrease in the profit margin of a related buyer..........   2,500,000 
(3) Attributable to a decrease in the cost of goods sold                
 because of a decrease in the cost plus mark-up of a                    
 related seller............................................   2,000,000 
                                                            ------------
    Total section 482 adjustments..........................   6,500,000 
                                                                        

    (ii) None of the adjustments are excluded under paragraph (d) of 
this section. The net section 482 adjustment ($6.5 million) is 
greater than five million dollars. Therefore, there is a substantial 
valuation misstatement.
    Example 2. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments for the taxable year:


(1).......................................................  $11,000,000 
(2).......................................................    2,000,000 
(3) Because of a setoff under Sec. 1.482-1T(e)(5).........    9,000,000)
                                                           -------------
    Total section 482 adjustments.........................    4,000,000 
                                                                        

    (ii) The taxpayer has gross receipts of sixty million dollars 
after taking into account all section 482 adjustments. None of the 
adjustments are excluded under paragraph (d) of this section. The 
net section 482 adjustment ($4 million) is less than the lesser of 
five million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts ($60 million 
x  10% = $6 million). Therefore, there is no substantial valuation 
misstatement.
    Example 3. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments to the income of an affiliated group that 
files a consolidated return for the taxable year:


(1) Attributable to Member A................................  $1,500,000
(2) Attributable to Member B................................   1,000,000
(3) Attributable to Member C................................   2,000,000
                                                             -----------
    Total section 482 adjustments...........................  4,500,000 
                                                                        

    (ii) Members A, B, and C have gross receipts of 20 million 
dollars, 12 million dollars, and 11 million dollars, respectively. 
Thus, the total gross receipts are 43 million dollars. None of the 
adjustments are excluded under paragraph (d) of this section. The 
net section 482 adjustment ($4.5 million) is greater than the lesser 
of five million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts ($43 
million x 10%=$4.3 million). Therefore, there is a substantial 
valuation misstatement.
    Example 4. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments to the income of an affiliated group that 
files a consolidated return for the taxable year:


(1) Attributable to Member A................................  $1,500,000
(2) Attributable to Member B................................   3,000,000
(3) Attributable to Member C................................   2,500,000
                                                             -----------
    Total section 482 adjustments...........................  7,000,000 
                                                                        

    (ii) Members A, B, and C have gross receipts of 20 million 
dollars, 35 million dollars, and 40 million dollars, respectively. 
Thus, the total gross receipts are 95 million dollars. None of the 
adjustments are excluded under paragraph (d) of this section. The 
net section 482 adjustment (7 million dollars) is greater than the 
lesser of five million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts ($95 
million x 10%=$9.5 million). Therefore, there is a substantial 
valuation misstatement.
    Example 5. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments to the income of an affiliated group that 
files a consolidated return for the taxable year:


(1) Attributable to Member A................................  $2,000,000
(2) Attributable to Member B................................   1,000,000
(3) Attributable to Member C................................   1,500,000
                                                             -----------
    Total section 482 adjustments...........................  4,500,000 
                                                                        

    (ii) Members A, B, and C have gross receipts of 10 million 
dollars, 35 million dollars, and 40 million dollars, respectively. 
Thus, the total gross receipts are 85 million dollars. None of the 
adjustments are excluded under paragraph (d) of this section. The 
net section 482 adjustment ($4.5 million) is less than the lesser of 
five million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts ($85 
million x 10%=$8.5 million). Therefore, there is no substantial 
valuation misstatement even though individual member A's adjustment 
($2 million) is greater than ten percent of its individual gross 
receipts ($10 million x 10%=$1 million).


    (d) Amounts excluded from net section 482 adjustments--(1) In 
general. An amount is excluded from the calculation of a net section 
482 adjustment if the requirements of paragraph (d)(2), (3), or (4) of 
this section are met with respect to that amount.
    (2) Application of a specified section 482 method--(i) In general. 
An amount is excluded from the calculation of a net section 482 
adjustment if the taxpayer establishes that both the specified method 
and documentation requirements of this paragraph (d)(2) are met with 
respect to that amount. For purposes of this paragraph (d), a method 
will be considered a specified method if it is described in the 
regulations under section 482 and the method applies to transactions of 
the type under review. A bona fide cost sharing arrangement is 
considered a specified method. See Sec. 1.482-2A(d)(4). An unspecified 
method is not considered a specified method. See Sec. 1.482-3T(e) and 
Sec. 1.482-4T(d).
    (ii) Specified method requirement. The specified method requirement 
is met if the taxpayer selects and applies a specified method in a 
reasonable manner. The taxpayer's selection and application of a 
specified method is reasonable only if, given the available data and 
the applicable pricing methods, the taxpayer reasonably concluded that 
the method (and its application of that method) provided the most 
accurate measure of an arm's length result under the principles of the 
best method rule in Sec. 1.482-1T(b)(2)(iii). For examples illustrating 
the selection of a specified method consistent with this paragraph 
(d)(2)(ii), see Sec. 1.482-1T(b)(2)(iii)(C). An application of a 
specified method provides the most accurate measure of an arm's length 
result if it provides a more accurate measure of an arm's length result 
than any alternative specified method and any alternative application 
of the method chosen. Thus, it is not necessary for a taxpayer to 
conclude that the selected specified method provides a more accurate 
measure of an arm's length result than any unspecified method. Whether 
the taxpayer's conclusion was reasonable must be determined from all 
the facts and circumstances. The factors relevant to this determination 
include the following:
    (A) The experience and knowledge of the taxpayer, including all 
members of the taxpayer's controlled group.
    (B) The extent to which accurate data was available and the data 
was analyzed in a reasonable manner. A taxpayer must engage in a 
reasonably thorough search for the data necessary to determine which 
method should be selected and how it should be applied. Furthermore, a 
taxpayer must use the most current reliable data that is available 
before the return is filed. In this regard, the expense of collecting 
data relative to the dollar amount of the transactions in question is a 
factor that may be taken into account in determining the scope of a 
reasonably thorough search for data.
    (C) The extent to which the taxpayer followed the relevant 
requirements set forth in regulations under section 482 with respect to 
the application of the method.
    (D) The extent to which the taxpayer reasonably relied on the 
analysis of, or a study done by, a professional qualified to conduct 
such an analysis or study, including an attorney, accountant, or 
economist. Whether the professional is an employee of, or related to, 
the taxpayer is not determinative in evaluating the reliability of that 
analysis or study, as long as the analysis or study is objective, 
thorough, and well reasoned. Such reliance is reasonable only if the 
taxpayer disclosed to the professional all relevant information 
regarding the controlled transactions at issue. A transfer pricing 
study or analysis that was reasonably relied upon in a prior year may 
reasonably be relied upon in the current year if the relevant facts and 
circumstances have not changed or if the study or analysis has been 
appropriately modified to reflect any change in facts and 
circumstances.
    (iii) Documentation requirement--(A) In general. The documentation 
requirement of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii) is met if the taxpayer 
maintains sufficient documentation to establish that the taxpayer 
reasonably concluded that, given the available data and the applicable 
pricing methods, the method (and its application of that method) 
provided the most accurate measure of an arm's-length result under the 
principles of the best method rule in Sec. 1.482-1T(b)(2)(iii), and 
provides that documentation to the Internal Revenue Service within 30 
days of a request for it. That documentation must be in existence when 
the return is filed. The district director may, in his discretion, 
excuse a minor or inadvertent failure to provide required documents, 
but only if the taxpayer has made a good faith effort to comply, and 
the taxpayer promptly remedies the failure when it becomes known. The 
required documentation is divided into two categories, principal and 
background documents, as described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) (B) and 
(C) of this section.
    (B) Principal documents. The principal documents should accurately 
and completely describe the basic transfer pricing analysis conducted 
by the taxpayer. The documentation must include the following--
    (1) An overview of the taxpayer's business, including an analysis 
of the economic and legal factors that affect the pricing of its 
property or services;
    (2) A description of the taxpayer's organizational structure 
(including an organization chart) covering all related parties engaged 
in transactions potentially relevant under section 482, including 
foreign affiliates whose transactions directly or indirectly affect the 
pricing of property or services in the United States;
    (3) Any documentation explicitly required by the regulations under 
section 482;
    (4) A description of the specified method selected and an 
explanation of why that method was selected;
    (5) A description of the unspecified methods that were considered 
and an explanation of why they were not selected;
    (6) A description of the controlled transactions (including the 
terms of sale) and any internal data used to analyze those 
transactions;
    (7) A description of the comparables that were used, how 
comparability was evaluated, and what (if any) adjustments were made;
    (8) An explanation of the economic analysis and projections relied 
upon in developing the method; and
    (9) A general index of the principal and background documents and a 
description of the recordkeeping system used for cataloging and 
accessing those documents.
    (C) Background documents. The assumptions, conclusions, and 
positions contained in principal documents ordinarily will be based on, 
and supported by, additional background documents. Documents that 
support the principal documentation may include the documents listed in 
Sec. 1.6038A-3(c) that are not otherwise described in paragraph 
(d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. Every document listed in those 
regulations may not be relevant to pricing determinations under the 
taxpayer's specific facts and circumstances and, therefore, each of 
those documents need not be maintained in all circumstances. Moreover, 
other documents not listed in those regulations may be necessary to 
establish that the taxpayer's method was selected and applied in the 
way that provided the most accurate measure of an arm's length result 
under the principles of the best method rule in Sec. 1.482-
1T(b)(2)(iii). Background documents need not be provided to the 
Internal Revenue Service in response to a request for principal 
documents. If the Internal Revenue Service subsequently requests 
background documents, a taxpayer must provide that documentation to the 
Internal Revenue Service within 30 days of the request. However, the 
district director may, in his discretion, extend the period for 
producing the background documentation.
    (3) Application of an unspecified method--(i) In general. An 
adjustment is excluded from the calculation of a net section 482 
adjustment if the taxpayer establishes that both the unspecified method 
and documentation requirements of this paragraph (d)(3) are met with 
respect to that amount.
    (ii) Unspecified method requirement--(A) In general. If a method 
other than a specified method was applied, the unspecified method 
requirement is met if the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) (B) or 
(C), as appropriate, are met.
    (B) Specified method potentially applicable. If the transaction is 
of a type for which methods are specified in the regulations under 
section 482, then a taxpayer will be considered to have met the 
unspecified method requirement if the taxpayer reasonably concludes 
that, given the available data, none of the specified methods was 
likely to provide an accurate measure of an arm's length result, and 
that it selected and applied an unspecified method in a way that would 
likely provide an accurate measure of an arm's length result, given the 
available data. This conclusion must be based on all the facts and 
circumstances. The factors relevant to this conclusion include those 
set forth in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (C) No specified method applicable. If the transaction is of a type 
for which no methods are specified in the regulations under section 
482, then a taxpayer will be considered to have met the unspecified 
method requirement if it selected and applied an unspecified method in 
a reasonable manner. For purposes of this paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C), a 
taxpayer's selection and application is reasonable if the taxpayer 
reasonably concludes that the method (and its application of that 
method) provided the most accurate measure of an arm's length result 
under the principles of the best method rule in Sec. 1.482-
1T(b)(2)(iii). This conclusion must be based on all the facts and 
circumstances. The factors relevant to this conclusion include those 
set forth in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) Documentation requirement--(A) In general. The documentation 
requirement of this paragraph (d)(3) is met if the taxpayer maintains 
sufficient documentation to establish that the unspecified method 
requirement of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section is met and provides 
that documentation to the Internal Revenue Service within 30 days of a 
request for it. That documentation must be in existence when the return 
is filed. The district director may, in his discretion, excuse a minor 
or inadvertent failure to provide required documents, but only if the 
taxpayer has made a good faith effort to comply, and the taxpayer 
promptly remedies the failure when it becomes known.
    (B) Principal and background documents. See paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) 
(B) and (C) of this section for rules regarding these two categories of 
required documentation.
    (4) Certain foreign to foreign transactions. For purposes of 
calculating a net section 482 adjustment, any increase in taxable 
income resulting from an allocation under section 482 that is 
attributable to any controlled transaction solely between foreign 
corporations will be excluded unless the treatment of that transaction 
affects the determination of either corporation's income from sources 
within the United States or taxable income effectively connected with 
the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
    (5) Special rule. If the regular tax (as defined in section 55(c)) 
imposed on the taxpayer is determined by reference to an amount other 
than taxable income, that amount shall be treated as the taxable income 
of the taxpayer for purposes of section 6662(e)(3). Accordingly, for 
taxpayers whose regular tax is determined by reference to an amount 
other than taxable income, the increase in that amount resulting from 
section 482 allocations is the taxpayer's net section 482 adjustment.

    (6) Examples. The principles of this paragraph (d) are 
illustrated by the following examples.
    Example 1. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments for the taxable year:


(1)........................................................   $9,000,000
(2) Not a 200 percent or 400 percent adjustment............    2,000,000
(3)........................................................    9,000,000
                                                            ------------
    Total section 482 adjustments..........................   20,000,000
                                                                        

    (ii) The taxpayer has gross receipts of seventy-five million 
dollars after all section 482 adjustments. The taxpayer establishes 
that for adjustments number one and three, it applied a transfer 
pricing method specified in section 482, the selection and 
application of the method was reasonable, it documented the pricing 
analysis, and turned that documentation over to the IRS within 30 
days of a request. Accordingly, eighteen million dollars is excluded 
from the calculation of the net section 482 adjustment. Because the 
net section 482 adjustment is two million dollars, there is no 
substantial valuation misstatement.
    Example 2. (i) The Internal Revenue Service makes the following 
section 482 adjustments for the taxable year: 

(1).........................................................  $9,000,000
(2) Attributable to an adjustment that is 200 percent or                
 more of the correct section 482 price......................   2,000,000
(3).........................................................   9,000,000
                                                             -----------
    Total section 482 adjustments...........................  20,000,000
                                                                        

    (ii) The taxpayer has gross receipts of seventy-five million 
dollars after all section 482 adjustments. The taxpayer establishes 
that for adjustments number one and three it applied a transfer 
pricing method specified in section 482, the selection and 
application of the method was reasonable, it documented that 
analysis, and turned the documentation over to the IRS within 30 
days. Accordingly, eighteen million dollars is excluded from the 
calculation of the section 482 transfer pricing adjustments for 
purposes of applying the five million dollar or 10% of gross 
receipts test. Because the net section 482 adjustment is only two 
million dollars, the taxpayer is not subject to the net adjustment 
penalty. However, the taxpayer may be subject to the transactional 
penalty on the underpayment of tax attributable to the two million 
dollar adjustment.
    Example 3. CFC1 and CFC2 are controlled foreign corporations 
within the meaning of section 957. Applying section 482, the IRS 
disallows a deduction for twenty five million dollars of the 
interest that CFCI paid to CFC2, which results in CFC1's U.S. 
shareholder having a subpart F inclusion in excess of five million 
dollars. No other adjustments under section 482 are made with 
respect to the controlled taxpayers. However, the increase has no 
effect upon the determination of CFC1's or CFC2's income from 
sources within the United States or taxable income effectively 
connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United 
States. Accordingly, there is no substantial valuation misstatement.

    (e) Special rules in the case of carrybacks and carryovers. If 
there is a substantial or gross valuation misstatement for a taxable 
year that gives rise to a loss, deduction or credit that is carried to 
another taxable year, the transactional penalty and the net adjustment 
penalty will be imposed on any resulting underpayment of tax in that 
other taxable year. In determining whether there is a substantial or 
gross valuation misstatement for a taxable year, no amount carried from 
another taxable year shall be included. The following example 
illustrates the principle of this paragraph (e).


    Example. The Internal Revenue Service makes a section 482 
adjustment of six million dollars in taxable year 1, no portion of 
which is excluded under paragraph (d) of this section. The 
taxpayer's income tax return for year 1 reported a loss of three 
million dollars, which was carried to taxpayer's year 2 year income 
tax return and used to reduce income taxes otherwise due with 
respect to year 2. A determination is made that the six million 
dollar allocation constitutes a substantial valuation misstatement, 
and a penalty is imposed on the underpayment of tax in year 1 
attributable to the substantial valuation misstatement and on the 
underpayment of tax in year 2 attributable to the disallowance of 
the net operating loss in year 2. For purposes of determining 
whether there is a substantial or gross valuation misstatement for 
year 2, the three million dollar reduction of the net operating loss 
will not be added to any section 482 adjustments made with respect 
to year 2.


    (f) Rules for coordinating between the transactional penalty and 
the net adjustment penalty--(1) Coordination of a net section 482 
adjustment subject to the net adjustment penalty and a gross valuation 
misstatement subject to the transactional penalty. In determining 
whether a net section 482 adjustment exceeds five million dollars or 10 
percent of gross receipts, an adjustment attributable to a substantial 
or gross valuation misstatement that is subject to the transactional 
penalty will be taken into account. If the net section 482 adjustment 
exceeds five million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts, any 
portion of such amount that is attributable to a gross valuation 
misstatement will be subject to the transactional penalty at the forty 
percent rate, but will not also be subject to net adjustment penalty at 
a twenty percent rate. The remaining amount is subject to the net 
adjustment penalty at the twenty percent rate, even if such amount is 
less than the lesser of five million dollars or ten percent of gross 
receipts.

    (2) Coordination of net section 482 adjustment subject to the net 
adjustment penalty and substantial valuation misstatements subject to 
the transactional penalty. If the net section 482 adjustment exceeds 
twenty million dollars or 20 percent of gross receipts, the entire 
amount of the adjustment is subject to the net adjustment penalty at a 
forty percent rate. No portion of the adjustment is subject to the 
transactional penalty at a twenty percent rate.

    (3) Examples. The following examples illustrate the principles 
of this paragraph (f).

    Example 1. (i) Applying section 482, the Internal Revenue 
Service makes the following adjustments for the taxable year:


(1) Attributable to an adjustment that is 400 percent or                
 more of the correct section 482 arm's length result........  $2,000,000
(2) Not a 200 or 400 percent adjustment.....................   2,500,000
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................   4,500,000
                                                                        


    (ii) The taxpayer has gross receipts of 75 million dollars after 
all section 482 adjustments. None of the adjustments is excluded 
under paragraph (d) (Amounts excluded from net section 482 
adjustments) of this section, in determining the five million dollar 
or 10% of gross receipts test under section 6662(e)(1)(B)(ii). The 
net section 482 adjustment (4.5 million dollars) is less than the 
lesser of five million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts ($75 
million  x  10% = $7.5 million). Thus, there is no substantial 
valuation misstatement. However, the two million dollar adjustment 
is attributable to a gross valuation misstatement. Accordingly, the 
taxpayer may be subject to a penalty, under section 6662(h), equal 
to 40 percent of the underpayment of tax attributable to the gross 
valuation misstatement of two million dollars. The 2.5 million 
dollar adjustment is not subject to a penalty under section 
6662(b)(3).

    Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except the 
taxpayer has gross receipts of 40 million dollars. The net section 
482 adjustment ($4.5 million) is greater than the lesser of five 
million dollars or ten percent of gross receipts ($40 million  x  
10% = $4 million). Thus, the five million dollar or 10% of gross 
receipts test has been met. The two million dollar adjustment is 
attributable to a gross valuation misstatement. Accordingly, the 
taxpayer is subject to a penalty, under section 6662(h), equal to 40 
percent of the underpayment of tax attributable to the gross 
valuation misstatement of two million dollars. The 2.5 million 
dollar adjustment is subject to a penalty under sections 6662(a) and 
6662(b)(3), equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax 
attributable to the substantial valuation misstatement.

    Example 3. (i) Applying section 482, the Internal Revenue 
Service makes the following transfer pricing adjustments for the 
taxable year:


(1) Attributable to an adjustment that is 400 percent or                
 more of the correct section 482 arm's length result........  $6,000,000
(2) Not a 200 or 400 percent adjustment.....................  15,000,000
                                                             -----------
    Total...................................................  21,000,000
                                                                        

    (ii) None of the adjustments are excluded under paragraph (d) 
(Amounts excluded from net section 482 adjustments) in determining 
the twenty million dollar or 20% of gross receipts test under 
section 6662(h). The net section 482 adjustment (21 million dollars) 
is greater than twenty million dollars and thus constitutes a gross 
valuation misstatement. Accordingly, the total adjustment is subject 
to the net adjustment penalty equal to 40 percent of the 
underpayment of tax attributable to the 21 million dollar gross 
valuation misstatement. The six million dollar adjustment will not 
be separately included for purposes of any additional penalty under 
section 6662.

    (g) Effective date. This section applies to taxable years beginning 
after December 31, 1993.
    Par. 5. Section 1.6664-O is amended by adding an entry for 
Sec. 1.6664-4T to read as follows:


Sec. 1.6664-O  Table of contents.

* * * * *

Sec. 1.6664-4T Reasonable cause and good faith exception to section 
6662 penalties

    (a) through (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Transactions between persons described in section 482 and 
net section 482 transfer price adjustments.

    Par. 6. Section 1.6664-4T is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1.6664-4T  Reasonable cause and good faith exception to section 
6662 penalties.

    (a) through (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Transactions between persons described in section 482 and net 
section 482 transfer price adjustments. For purposes of applying the 
reasonable cause and good faith exception of section 6664(c) to net 
section 482 adjustments, the rules of Sec. 1.6662-6T(d) of the 
regulations apply. A taxpayer that does not satisfy the rules of 
Sec. 1.6662-T(d) for a net section 482 adjustment cannot satisfy the 
reasonable cause and good faith exception under section 6664(c). The 
rules of this section apply to underpayments subject to the 
transactional penalty in Sec. 1.6662-6T(b). If the standards of the net 
section 482 penalty exclusion provisions under Sec. 1.6662-6T(d) are 
met with respect to such underpayments, then the taxpayer will be 
considered to have acted with reasonable cause and good faith for 
purposes of this section.
    Par. 7. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.

    Par. 7. Section 602.101(c) is amended by adding an entry in 
numerical order to the table to read as follows:


Sec. 602.101  OMB Control numbers.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Current OMB
    CFR part or section where identified and described       control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
1.6662-6T.................................................     1545-1365
                                                                        
                                 *****                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

    Approved:

Leslie B. Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 94-2078 Filed 1-27-94; 11:10 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U