In Uncategorized on 02/14/2023 at 15:21

Or, How Much is a Brazilian?

Reg. Section 1.482-1(h)(2) is on the menu, in the crosshairs, and generally tearing up the peapatch at the Glasshouse on Second Street just now. Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber has a helping thereof with his order in Coca-Cola Company & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 31183-15, filed 2/14/23. The things-go-better types claim either the Reg is invalid (Chevron, y’know), or else their Brazilian sub, wherewith they parked their IP, qualifies so they can’t get royalties therefrom. Brazil conveniently blocks royalties.

My astute readers will doubtless exclaim, “Holy Post-It Notes, Batman! Didn’t we just have this with 3M?” Of course, they’re right. See my blogpost “Block That Income,” 2/9/23.

So Judge Scholar Al wants the Cokes and IRS to brief supplementarily the impact of 3M; and what would happen if certain dividends from Brazilian sub were deemed to be royalties despite 6 Cir shooting IRS down before Reg. Section 1.482-1(h)(2) was adopted on a like argument in Proctor & Gamble; and, if Reg. Section 1.482-1(h)(2) were held to be invalid,  how 11 Cir, whence Coca Cola is Golsenized, would play with this. Reply briefs are also OK.

Conundrums, conundrums. Btw, how much is a Brazilian?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: