Container Corp. v. Comm’r, 134 T.C. No. 5 (2010)

By David Shakow

In a decision that will not simplify the convoluted taxation of financial products, the Tax Court held, in Container Corp. v. Comm’r, 134 T.C. No. 5 (2010) that guarantee fees paid by a U.S. company to its Mexican parent were properly treated as non-U.S. source income and therefore not subject to U.S. withholding taxes. (For the text of the decision, see here.) Arguing that the guarantee fees were more akin to interest paid on a loan (which would be treated as U.S.-source income), the IRS analogized the guarantee payments to acceptance and confirmation commissions like those at issue in Bank of America v. United States, 680 F.2d 142 (Ct. Cl. 1982), which treated such commissions like interest. The Tax Court rejected the analogy, however, because the Mexican company in this case was simply augmenting the credit of its U.S. subsidiary, not becoming primarily liable for the underlying debt as in Bank of America. Though recognizing that its distinction between guarantee fees and acceptance commissions might be viewed as a distinction without a difference, the court nevertheless concluded that the provision of a guarantee was more akin to a service and therefore was properly sourced outside the United States.

The difficulty faced by the Tax Court in distinguishing between guarantee fees and acceptance commissions reflects the problems courts generally face when dealing with financial products, where equivalent economic arrangements can be structured through the use of instruments that produce different tax results. (For a classic example, the “put-call parity theorem,” which demonstrates the equivalence of owning a share of stock and the right to put it, on the one hand, and an option to buy the stock along with a riskless zero-coupon bond, on the other, see the following article the following article by Professor Knoll.) The court’s discussion of interest and financial products in this case may prove useful in analyzing the tax treatment of other financial products.

Explore posts in the same categories: FDAP, Litigation, Withholding

3 Comments on “Container Corp. v. Comm’r, 134 T.C. No. 5 (2010)”


  1. [...] case of Container Corp. v. Comm’r, 134. T.C. No. 5.  (For our prior discussion of this case, see here.  For the text of the opinion, see here.)  According to Ms. Sheppard, Judge Holmes “appears [...]


  2. [...] Corp. v. Comm’r, 134 T.C. No. 5 (2010).  Our prior discussion of the Tax Court opinion is here, with additional commentary here.  It remains to be seen whether the removal of this provision [...]


  3. [...] As our readers may recall, the Tax Court held earlier this year in Container Corp. v. Comm’r, 134 T.C. No. 5 (2010), that guarantee fees paid by a U.S. company to its Mexican parent were properly treated as non-U.S. source income and therefore not subject to U.S. withholding taxes.  Because guarantee fees do not fall neatly into a specified category for sourcing, it was necessary to assess, by analogy, what sourcing rule would best apply.  According to Judge Holmes’ opinion, the guarantee fees at issue were more analogous to services than to interest and should be sourced as such – namely, as non-U.S.-source income.  (See David Shakow’s summary of the decision here.) [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers

%d bloggers like this: