On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Tax Court finalized the outcome of the Transfer Pricing dispute between 3M Company and the IRS, which we had previously analyzed during its decisive phase. Judge Richard T. Morrison ruled that 3M owes no additional tax for fiscal year 2006 and approved the calculation determining that the company had overpaid approximately US$5.2 million, an amount that must be refunded along with the corresponding interest.
The ruling implements the judgment issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on October 1, 2025, which reversed the Tax Court’s decision and concluded that the IRS could not reattribute to 3M royalty income that its Brazilian subsidiary was legally prohibited from paying to it under applicable Brazilian restrictions. The case thus became an important precedent regarding the scope of Section 482 and the so-called blocked income rules.
From the Appellate Ruling to the Formal Conclusion of the Litigation
When the Eighth Circuit ruled in October 2025, the litigation still had to return to the Tax Court to formally determine 3M’s tax liability in accordance with the criteria established by the appellate court.
That step, which may go unnoticed given the significance of the appellate ruling, was completed on August 4, 2026. The Tax Court translated the Eighth Circuit’s legal standard into a concrete tax outcome: no additional tax owed and a refund of approximately US$5.2 million, plus accrued interest. With that, the dispute regarding the 2006 tax year was formally resolved.
The significance of the 2025 decision lies in the Eighth Circuit’s conclusion that Section 482 does not allow the IRS to attribute to a taxpayer income that the taxpayer could not legally receive. In particular, the court rejected the possibility that a Treasury regulation could broaden the scope of the law to permit the reallocation of royalties blocked by Brazilian legal restrictions.
Why do experts consider it a roadmap for other cases?
Transfer Pricing dispute experts consulted by media outlets specializing in U.S. taxation agreed that the 3M case could be remembered as one of the first major transfer pricing litigations to illustrate how the Supreme Court’s doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—which eliminated automatic judicial deference to Treasury regulations—can reshape judicial review of such disputes. The formal closure of the case, with a refund amount already determined, turns the legal precedent into a tangible outcome that other taxpayers with similar structures can cite more concretely than an appellate ruling still pending enforcement.
What does this mean for other ongoing litigations?
The 3M outcome comes at a time when the IRS is facing multiple high-profile Transfer Pricing disputes involving much larger sums: the Coca-Cola litigation, with an estimated exposure of nearly US$20 billion; the Amgen case, centered on the allocation of income between the U.S. parent company and its manufacturing subsidiary in Puerto Rico, with an IRS claim of US$10.7 billion; and more recent disputes such as the Airbnb case, involving US$1.33 billion linked to a cost-sharing agreement with its Irish affiliate. None of these cases is automatically resolved by the outcome of the 3M case, but the formal closure of the case reinforces the argument that genuine foreign legal restrictions on intercompany payments—when properly documented—can serve as an effective defense against IRS adjustments under Section 482.
At TPC Group, we closely monitor developments in U.S. Transfer Pricing litigation involving foreign legal restrictions on intercompany payments, and we work with our clients to assess how these precedents may apply to licensing structures between U.S. parent companies and subsidiaries in Latin America.
Sources: