Mylan CEO, Heather Bresh, called before House Oversight Committee

EpiPen maker, Mylan, called before House Oversight Committee to explain 400% price increase.

In the news recently, Mylan CEO, Heather Bresh, was called before the House Oversight Committee to discuss Mylan’s increase in prices of the EpiPen.  In case you missed it, EpiPen prices have risen about 400% with a two pack of the lifesaving injection drug at a retail cost of $600.

According to CNN, Ms. Bresh’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee will state that Mylan only makes about $50 for each $300 pen.  Money magazine also details how Mylan is trying to get EpiPen on the Preventative Medicines list, which would allow patients to receive EpiPen will little or no out-of-pocket costs, and so that insurance would have to pick up the cost.

What gets lost in the outrage over a drug price increase, is why the huge increase?  EpiPen has been around a long time, and the process to create EpiPen hasn’t changed for some time, so why the huge increase, and why is Mylan only getting $50 profit from a $300 item. 

One theory is Mylan has been increasing the demand of EpiPen through effective marketing practices.  See this Bloomberg article.  Another often not discussed aspect is transfer pricing, inversions and booking profits offshore.  As stated in the 10-K for Mylan for tax year ended (tye) December 31, 2014, Mylan inverted from a Pennsylvania Company to a Netherlands company with its principal executive offices in Potters Bar, UK. 

As previously discussed in this Blog, one of the key tools U.S. Multinational Corporations (USMNCs) utilize to lower its tax rate is to invert the corporate headquarters to a lower tax jurisdiction. 

Also as previously discussed in this Blog, a second tool used by USMNCs is transfer pricing.  In this case, as stated in this Time article, it costs Mylan about $30 to make each dose of EpiPen.  Mylan likely has the drug filled in the Netherlands or another tax favorable jurisdiction, and then re-sells the drug at the $600 price for a EpiPen 2 pack back to U.S. distributors, thereby booking the costs in the tax favorable jurisdiction. See this primer on transfer pricing.

By using this method (transfer pricing) USMNCs can claim a lower tax rate than the applicable 35% tax rate.  While I am not saying that Mylan utilizes transfer pricing, one indicator that Mylan may be utilizing transfer pricing is in its 10K, Mylan states that for 2014, Mylan only pays an effective tax rate of 4.2%.  (FYI, the statutory rate is 35% for corporations in the United States.)  Mylan also lists on is 10K that it approximately $693 million permanently reinvested in its foreign subsidiaries, which is how companies disguise on their 10K amounts they are holding offshore to avoid taxation in the U.S.

So this begs the question, why can Congress call Ms. Bresh to appear before the House Oversight Committee to discuss pricing, but the IRS can’t call Mylan to conduct an analysis of its transfer pricing or its inversion practice?

If you know of a corporation undervaluing assets in its transfer pricing models, contact our firm to discuss filing a tax whistleblower claim.  IRS will pay an award between 15-30% of collected proceeds (tax, penalties, and interest) to whistleblowers who provide substantial and credible information used by the IRS in prosecuting the alleged tax violators.

Facebook and its Transfer Pricing Issues

In addition to Google having European leaders questioning the validity of its transfer pricing models and shifting profits from France, Facebook is also having IRS inquiries about its transfer pricing practices.

As noted in this Reuters' article, the IRS is looking at whether Facebook transferred its intangibles to its Irish subsidiary at too low of a price.  As stated in the Reuter's article, by raising the transfer price of the intangible to the Irish subsidiary, Facebook could have increased taxable profits in the US. The article quotes the complaint which alleges that Facebook may have understated the intangible by billions of dollars.  Facebook was advised in the transaction by Ernst & Young.

Recent news also indicated that Facebook has hired Baker & McKenzie to fight the IRS in this transfer pricing dispute.  As you will recall, Baker & McKenzie just won a major victory against the IRS in the Medtronic case.

In Medtronic, IRS challenged the profit split calculation paid to Medtronic's Puerto Rican subsidiary, by stating that the Puerto Rican subsidiary was nothing more than a contract manufacturer for Medtronic.  Medtronic claimed that its Puerto Rican subsidiary was instrumental in its efforts because it oversaw the quality of Medtronic's products.  The Court determined that IRS's method (valuing the Puerto Rican subsidiary as solely a contract manufacturer) was arbitrary and capricious and therefore IRS abused its discretion. However, the Court didn't stop there, it also stated that Medtronic's proposed model was a better approach (Medtronic chose a comparable transaction involving a competitor and argued that it was actually due a refund), but adjusted the model to better match Medtronic's business.  The Court ended up with the rate the parties had previously agreed to in prior settlements of their transfer pricing dispute.  See these articles: Wall Street Journal and BNA.

While it is refreshing to see that the IRS is challenging US Multinational Corporations at their use of transfer pricing, the question remains whether these challenges will be upheld.  See prior blogs regarding transfer pricing, inversions and earnings stripping.

If you know of a corporation undervaluing assets in its transfer pricing models, contact our firm to discuss filing a tax whistleblower claim.  IRS will pay an award between 15-30% of collected proceeds (tax, penalties, and interest) to whistleblowers who provide substantial and credible information used by the IRS in prosecuting the alleged tax violators.

Why the Panama Papers matter

As a primer, this blog discussed the release of documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, known as the Panama Papers, which disclose a network of shell corporations and entities established by the Panamanian law firm to assist clients in hiding funds and avoiding taxes.

In the news today, as found in this NY times article, the U.S. Justice Department (“DOJ”), through its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative (for more information about this unit see this NY times article), has begun a forfeiture action against properties in the U.S. acquired by Malaysian individuals whom allegedly embezzled funds from the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”, Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund, designed to be used for investment that would return profits to support the Malaysian people).  

The DOJ is trying to seize $1 billion in assets including the $30.6 million penthouse at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan, a $39 million mansion in the Los Angeles hills, and a $17.6 million tear down home in Beverly Hills.  The DOJ is alleging that the individuals diverted over $3 billion funds from 1MDB for their own use.  The key individuals referenced are the stepson, close friends and associates of the prime minister of Malaysia.  There are even allegations that some of the funds diverted were used to fund the film “The Wolf of Wall Street” and also to purchase paintings from Picasso and Monet. 

The DOJ’s seizure action raises two questions:

1. Why isn’t the government getting tough in preventing US Multinational Corporations (US MNCs) from shifting their profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxes; and
2. Why are US banks allowing individuals to hide money in the U.S.

As previously discussed in this Blog, US MNCs have utilized transfer pricing, earnings stripping and inversions to shift profits from the U.S. to low tax jurisdictions to lower the effective tax rates paid by the US MNCs.  This recent news story (DOJ seizure) raises the question why isn’t the government utilizing more aggressive techniques to stop the US MNCs from shifting this income when the government is seizing asset allegedly begotten from embezzled funds of other nations.  Shouldn’t we first stop US tax income from flowing to low tax jurisdictions, then worry about US assets acquired by other nations’ stolen funds?

The Second question goes to the nature of the Panama papers and the uses of shell corporations to mask the identity of the owners of the shell corporations.  There is now an effort by the government to require banks to know the owners of the shell corporations.  See this NY Times article.  According to the article, the US Treasury is requiring US branches of foreign banks to know whom the beneficial owners of the shell corporations.  While the US Treasury’s plans have not actually translated to actual rules requiring banks to obtain the identities of the owners of the shell corporations it appears as if it is likely to get legislation passed through Congress to enact the more stringent requirements on banks. 

If you have specific and credible information about a U.S. MNC shifting its profits offshore using transfer pricing, inversions or earning stripping, or anyone not paying their taxes by using shell corporations through banks, contact our firm to discuss filling a tax whistleblower claim.  As a reminder, the IRS pays between 15-30% of the collected proceeds (tax, penalties, interest, and other amounts collected) based on the information provided and used by the IRS to stop tax violators.