When foreign nations erect barriers to export of money, they’d better make it public. And when multinationals attack the Section 482 regs, they’d better aim at the current version. It takes the argute Tax Court bench 346 (count ’em, and I haven’t, so that’s why I’m asking you, 346) pages to say that, in 3M Company & Subsidiaries, 160 T. C. 3, filed 2/9/23.

3M, the Post-It note guys, weren’t collecting royalties from their Brazilian sub, claiming a couple Brazilian gov’t letters said they couldn’t. Judge Morrison does a factor-trudge through Reg. 1.482-1(h)(2) (2006) starting at page 222, and sinks that one.

Chevron testing gets a workout, with a heavy APA overlay, to knock out the reg. Ever since Oakbrook, the APA has featured on every menu when regulations are the flavor du jour.

Check out Judge Elizabeth A (“Tex”) Copeland’s concurrence, beginning at p. 281.

Of course, there’s a scholarly dissent by Judge Ronald L (“Ingenuity”) Buch, in which join JJ.  Patrick J (“Scholar Pat”) Urda, Courtney D (“CD”) Jones, Travis A (“Tag”) Greaves, and Christian N (“Speedy”) Weiler.

For sure they’ll be an appeal, as there’s enough Reals on the table. If 3M wins, it’ll be on the APA notice-and-comment issue.

Why don’t I say more? Because the trade press and the blogosphere will be all over this one, no need to go granular.