本所业务实力深厚，能够就各种情形为客户提供法律服务，包括在税务审计期间向客户提供法律意见、就审计结果寻求行政上诉以及就税务事宜在初审或上诉法院进行诉讼。凭借在各领域尤其是诉讼方面的丰富经验，我们屡屡获客户聘任：我们深谙何时诉诸法庭以及如何进行诉讼。本所税务争议及诉讼律师擅长在美国联邦法院就重大的税务案件展开诉讼：共计诉讼美国税务案件逾100例。我们在审计、行政上诉、诉讼及上诉领域拥有丰富的国际经验。

审计

本所税务争议及诉讼律师深知，有效且成功地解决税务争议往往需要在法院介入之前即投入娴熟、巧妙的代理服务。我们就大型审计向客户提供协助，包括就稽核文件通知书4564表（IDRs）作出回复、应对美国国税局（IRS）代理人以及制定整体审计策略。我们在审计中的角色取决于每个客户的需求以及个案的具体情况（包括国税局顾问的行为强度）。在某些审计中，我们应纳税人请求发挥牵头作用，实质性管理整个审计过程；在另一些审计中，我们仅担负顾问职责，无需出头与国税局直接接触。

在美国，我们就以下事宜开展审计：商品、服务及无形资产跨境移转定价；与租赁及金融产品有关的经济实质问题；负债及股权的认定；公司收购及剥离，包括收购中有形及无形资产的税收待遇；税务会计；海外领地公司转化为受控外国公司；离岸保险业务；纳税人是否从事美国贸易或业务或是否拥有与美国实际有关的收入来源；出口销售收入的来源；以Subpart F（即国内税收法F部）为目的的生产认定；外国税收的可信性及外国税收在美国的影响；以及利用外国税收抵免的交易。在当今关联方交易审查日益严格的经济环境下，于审计期间提供熟练奏效的法律意见尤其有助于迅速、有效地解决转移定价争议。在英国，我们就广泛的税务争议向公司纳税人提供法律意见，包括与英国税务当局协商和解方案，在各个级别的英国税务上诉体系亦经验丰富。此外，本所巴黎税务团队也就各类事宜协助客户进行税务审计及诉讼。
在大规模的公司审计中，成功的法律服务要求律师不仅具有丰富的税务知识，还要精通独特甚至晦涩的程序规则。

行政上诉

本所美国律师处理了多个诉诸国税局上诉办公室的案件，极为擅长与国税局上诉官员谈判以及代表纳税人进行上诉。我们参与了由国税局上诉人员担任调解员的快速通道调解过程。我们还参与了与国税局的谈判，旨在建立仲裁及调解程序，作为审判之外的替代性解决方案。

我们处理的上诉事宜范围广泛，其中若干大宗案件涉及转移定价、以顾客为基础的无形资产、员工福利及高管薪酬、负债及股权认定、租赁、强制转换、subpart F、《外国销售公司计划》（FSC）及《域外收入豁免法案》（ETI）以及同类财产交换、杠杆收购、赎回股票发生的债务利息可抵扣程度等公司事宜。我们代理的上诉案件客户来自各个行业，其中有许多全球最大的制药及科技公司。

诉讼

对多数纳税人而言，诉讼是不得已而为之的终极手段。事实上，多数争议事项无需诉讼即得以解决。但是，我们的理念是，当有诉讼需求时，如果国税局相信纳税人的法律顾问有意愿且有能力进行诉讼，往往有助于达成有利的和解方案。我们发现，具有扎实的税务背景并且接受过诉讼技巧培训的律师方能最有效地进行税务诉讼。因此，本所税务争议律师全心全力专注于税务争议事宜，确保既能在法庭上以高超的技巧展开辩护，又能就税务事宜提供成熟的法律意见。

迄今为止，我们共计诉讼美国税务案件逾100例。本团队的重点关注领域包括：商品、服务及无形资产跨境移转定价；经济实质问题；公司重组；租赁及金融产品事宜，包括租入租出交易（LILOs）；税收优惠交易；收购中的有形及无形资产的税收待遇；税务会计；离岸保险业务；纳税人是否从事美国贸易或业务或是否拥有与美国实际有关的收入来源；出口销售收入的来源；以Subpart F为目的的生产认定；《外国销售公司计划》及《域外收入豁免法案》项下赋税优惠的权利及计算；以及银行课税，尤其是外国税收的可信性及外国税收在美国的影响。

上诉

税务上诉律师充分利用本所誉满全美的最高法院及上诉业务部的资源，提供极具价值的综合服务，即技术性的税务知识、提请上诉的广泛经验以及行之有效的一审法院税务案件庭审经验。

我们成功地代表纳税人在大宗税务案件中就下级法院所作的裁决提出上诉，并直接参与对税法的发展具有重大意义的案件的陈辩书及辩论。

United States – Litigation

• Tyco Electronics Corporation, ADT Holdings, Inc., United States Surgical Corporation (15 related U.S. Tax Court dockets). We represented several companies in defending the debt characterization of intercompany loans, implicating over $6.5 billion in tax, interest, and penalties. Settled prior to trial for 5% of the amount in dispute.
• Boston Scientific Corporation. We represented Boston Scientific and its subsidiaries in transfer pricing litigation in the US Tax Court. Settled prior to trial with favorable royalty rates, the case resolved $4 billion of transfer pricing adjustments, along with penalties and related adjustments that were before the Tax Court, and included favorable settlements in subsequent, non-docketed tax years.
• Tribune Media Company; Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC. We represented Tribune in challenging the IRS’s application of the disguised sale rules to a leveraged partnership structure through which Tribune divested a 95% interest in the Chicago Cubs. The US Tax Court’s opinion respected the leveraged partnership and the majority of the debt used to finance the transfer.
• Hyatt Hotels Corporation. We are representing Hyatt in a case concerning the treatment of Hyatt’s customer loyalty program. The trial occurred in April of 2022.
• FMR LLC (Fidelity). We achieved a rare bench opinion in favor of Cross Refined Coal LLC and its partners, Fidelity Investments, Schneider Electric and AJ Gallagher, in the US Tax Court. The case challenged the IRS’s position that a partnership established to produce refined coal should be disregarded for federal income tax purposes. In August 2022, we secured an additional win on appeal. The DC Circuit published an opinion affirming a ruling from the Tax Court determining that Cross was a bona fide partnership. To the best of our knowledge, this is only the second bench opinion issued by the Tax Court in a major corporate tax case, the first being in Mukerji, also litigated by Mayer Brown.
• Consolidated Edison. We represented Consolidated Edison in a case before the US Court of Federal Claims involving the income tax treatment of a lease-in-lease-out (LILO) transaction (reversed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The trial court victory at the Court of Federal Claims represents the only time a large corporate taxpayer prevailed in a LILO case.
• Westreco (Nestlé). We represented Nestlé in challenging the IRS’s allocation of R&D fees under Section 482. The US Tax Court held entirely in favor of Nestlé, finding that the taxpayer’s return position clearly reflected income.
• Eaton Corporation. We represented Eaton in its groundbreaking challenge to the IRS’s cancellation of two Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) and the IRS’s adjustments under section 482. The Tax Court vindicated Eaton on all allegations, determining that the IRS’s cancellation of the APAs was an abuse of discretion, giving the taxpayer a rare 100% victory in a transfer pricing dispute. In August 2022, we secured with co-counsel an additional win on appeal.
• Flextronics. We represented Flextronics before the US Tax Court and the Ninth Circuit concerning an acquisition of a North Carolina manufacturing facility completed by a subsidiary, C-MAC Holdings, prior to the time it was acquired by Flextronics. At issue was whether the assets acquired by C-MAC received a step-up in basis under sections 357(c) and 362.
• National Semiconductor and Seagate Technology. We represented National Semiconductor and Seagate Technology in mega transfer pricing cases involving their offshore manufacturing operations.
• Nestlé Holdings, Inc. We litigated several issues for this client, including valuation and amortization of intangibles and debt-equity characterization, which arose from Nestlé's $3.2 billion acquisition of the Carnation Company.
• Mukerji (Comdisco). We represented taxpayer in defending the deductibility of expenses related to computer leasing, resulting in a bench opinion rejecting IRS arguments that the leases were shams and lacked economic substance.
• Tribune Company. We represented the Tribune Company in a case presenting the question of whether substance-over-form theories permit recharacterization of a transaction that was structured to comply with the requirements of the Code and Regulations for nontaxable reorganizations. The matter was settled at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

United States – Appellate

• DC Circuit. FMR (Fidelity) (refined coal credit, won on appeal following the Tax Court’s bench opinion in favor of taxpayer); Riggs (litigated before the DC Circuit on three occasions; holding that official tax receipts of the Brazilian government were entitled to evidentiary presumption)
• Federal Circuit. Bankers Trust (reversing the Court of Federal Claims on a Brazilian "pecuniary benefit" foreign tax credit issue)
• Second Circuit. Nestlé Holdings, Inc. (I.R.C. § 482 reallocations, Carnation acquisition)
• Fourth Circuit. Volvo Group North America, Inc. (vacating a district court decision on an application of I.R.C. § 471 to inventory transfers)
• Sixth Circuit. The Limited (reversing the Tax Court's holding that CFC's purchase of CDs from an affiliated credit card bank failed to qualify as § 956(b)(2)(A) "deposits with [a] person carrying on banking business")
• Seventh Circuit. Continental Illinois Corporation (Brazilian foreign tax credits, foreign tax credits relating to net quoted loans, and recognition of income on CAP loans)
• Eighth Circuit. Norwest (Brazilian foreign tax credits)
• Ninth Circuit. Intel Corporation (allocation of income partly from sources within a foreign country under Treas. Reg. § 1.863-3(b)(2)); Flextronics (step-up in basis under Sections 357(c) and 362, upholding a taxpayer victory at the Tax Court)
• Tenth Circuit. Tele-Communications, Inc. (application of I.R.C. § 1253 to cable television franchises)
• Eleventh Circuit. United Parcel Service (vacating the Tax Court's finding on sham, assignment of income and penalties)
• US Supreme Court. Boeing (allocation of R&D costs in determination of sales income under DISC and FSC rules)

Europe – Administrative Audits and Litigation

• We represented taxpayers in contentious audits and appeals concerning triangular B reorganizations and the application of Treas. Reg. § 1.367(b)-10.
• We represented a leading telephone company established in the French West Indies in a tax audit regarding the deduction of the financial expenses it incurred acquiring of a large French operator.
• We assisted the managers of a French financial services company on a tax audit concerning their management packages for a tax reassessment of several million of euros.
• We assisted a French group specializing in business process outsourcing in an audit concerning the tax deductibility of interest expenses.
• We assisted a major French overseas group specializing in the luxury hotel sector in its discussions with the local tax authorities to settle a question concerning the application of capital gains exemption.
• We assisted managers of a French group specializing in wealth management in an audit procedure regarding the recharacterization of capital gains as salary.
• We assisted a French management company of a major investment fund in an audit regarding VAT and wage tax reassessment.
• We assisted a British corporate group in its discussions with the French tax authorities regarding the deductibility of interest of a French subsidiary operating in the hotel industry.
• We assisted a real estate investment and asset manager in its discussions with the French tax authorities regarding the deductibility of VAT expenses in the context of the sale of real estate assets.
• We assisted a French group operating camping and holiday villages in an audit concerning VAT reassessments.
• We assisted a French leading company in the field of energy saving certificates in a tax audit regarding recovery of VAT and the deduction of the payments accrued to service providers.
• We assisted the French management company of an investment fund during the entire tax audit procedure concerning VAT and payroll tax reassessments.
• We assisted a group specializing in public works in the context of a tax audit on a number of grounds, in particular the treatment of expenses incurred on the sale of equity securities in relation to corporation tax.
• We assisted various corporate groups in their discussion with the French tax authorities regarding the deductibility of the groups’ interest expenses paid to shareholders.
• We assisted in the tax audit of three companies of the same group in the translation business services in connection with a litigation regarding a withholding tax on services.
• We represented a high-net-worth individual before the Tribunal administratif de Paris in a case involving the tax characterization of gains deriving from a LBO-type "management package."
• We represented a collection agency before the German Federal Tax Court involving the determination of an arm’s length interest rate for a subordinated and unsecured intercompany loan granted in parallel to a senior secured bank financing (German Federal Tax Court Ruling of 18 May 2021. Case no. I R 62/17).

Brazil – Administrative Audits and Litigation

• Sony Mobile Communications do Brasil Ltda. We represented Sony Mobile in an administrative proceeding resulting from a tax assessment issued by the State of São Paulo in order to disregard the ICMS (State VAT) credits appropriated by the company and impose penalties, in the amount of BRL 500 million, and we managed a significant reduction in the debt, correspondent to about 85% of the original tax assessment.
• Norsk Hydro do Brasil Ltda. We represented Norsk Hydro in two writ of mandamus, filed in Pará and in Rio de Janeiro, for the enforcement of the provisions of the Double Taxation Treaty (DTT) executed between Brazil and Norway in order to enable the cross-border remittances of services fees from Norsk to the beneficiaries in Norway without the levy of the Brazilian withholding income tax, pursuant to article 7 of the DTT and to ensure the reimbursement of the undue payments made in the past five years.
• TIM S.A. We represented TIM in several tax litigations, including a tax foreclosure filed by State of São Paulo in order to collect ICMS (State VAT) in the approximate amount of BRL 702 million, which we managed to reduce almost 50% of the tax assessment and an administrative federal proceeding charging the goodwill amortization quotas from Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and Social Contribution on Net Income ("CSLL") tax basis and involving an amount of approximately BRL 1.3 billion.
• Climazon Industrial Ltda. (Springer Carrier group). We represented Climazon in several tax litigations, including an administrative federal proceeding resulting from a tax assessment issued by federal authorities charging the payment of Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and Social Contribution on Net Profit (CSLL) due to alleged noncompliance with the transfer price (Resale Price Less Profit - method with a 20% fixed margin - "PRL 20"), in an amount totaling BRL 515 million.
• Onesubsea do Brasil Serviços Submarinos Ltda.(Schlumberger Group). We represented Onesubsea in several tax litigations of more than BRL 300MM, including an administrative federal proceeding charging the payment of taxes due upon the importation of goods suspended by the Drawback regime and two lawsuits regarding compliance with REPETRO´s requirements for purposes of cancellation of ICMS charge.
• Confidential Client. We represented a leading drilling contractor in several tax litigations, in the approximate amount of BRL 700MM, including administrative federal proceedings issued by the Brazilian Internal Revenue Service (IRS) due to the understanding that the contractual split between charter and services agreement was artificial.
• TotalEnergies Group. We represented TotalEnergies Group in several tax litigations, including judicial measures to eliminate WHT on imported services payments in view of the tax exemption established by DTT executed between Brazil and France and administrative federal tax assessments of more than BRL 200MM issued by the Brazilian IRS against TotalEnergies Petróleo charging IRPJ and CSLL due to the challenge of deductibility of expenses and calculation basis of financial revenues, which was canceled by a unanimous second-level administrative decision.
• Vibra Energia S.A. (current corporate name of Petrobras Distribuidora S.A.). We represented Vibra Energia, in lower and superior courts, in a tax foreclosure filed by State of Amapá aiming the charge of ICMS (State VAT) due to diesel sales, worth more than BRL 500 MM, which was later canceled by Amapá due to the tax debt waiver.
• Telesat Brasil Capacidade de Satélites Ltda. We represented Telesat in several administrative and judicial tax litigations, in the approximated historical amount of BRL 300MM, including filing a judicial measure in order to cancel several tax assessments filed by the State of Rio de Janeiro to charge ICMS (State VAT) due to satellite capacity leasing. The first-level decision determined the cancelation of the assessments.