9 Lipin

10- LIPIN_MACRO FINAL.
DOCM 4/11/2012 1:25 PM
FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY AND THE

IMMEDIATE NEED TO REDUCE OVERBURDENING
DUPLICATIVE TAX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS∗
Ilya A. Lipin∗∗
I. Disclosure Compliance Burden on Corporate Taxpayers 120

II. Corporate Tax Reporting Requirements ........................... 124
A. Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement and
Form 8886 .................................................................. 125
B. Accuracy-Related Penalty Disclosure Statement
Forms 8275 and 8275-R ............................................ 127
C. Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation Disclosure and
Schedule M-3 ............................................................. 129
D. Uncertain Tax Positions and Schedule UTP .............. 139
III. Where Does the Duplicative Reporting Occur ................. 141
IV. Reduction of Duplicative Reporting Should Lead to the
Desired Corporate Tax Transparency and Efficiency ...... 144
A. Increased Transparency and Reduction of
Duplicative Reporting through Schedule UTP .......... 146
B. Obtaining Desired Level of Transparency and
Reduction of Duplicative Reporting
Recommendation through a New Comprehensive
Form of Disclosure .................................................... 148
V. Conclusion ........................................................................ 149
∗ This article represents the views of the author only, and does not necessarily represent the views
or professional advice of KPMG LLP. The information contained herein is of a general nature and
based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific
situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.
∗∗ Ilya A. Lipin is a tax associate at KPMG LLP in Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Lipin received his LL.M
in Trial Advocacy from Temple University School of Law in 2011, M.B.A. from Villanova School
of Business in 2010, LL.M. in Taxation from Villanova School of Law in 2008, J.D. from Thomas
M. Cooley Law School in 2006, and B.A. from Drew University in 2003. Mr. Lipin may be
reached at ilipin@kpmg.com.
119
10- LIPIN_MACRO FINAL.DOCM 4/11/2012 1:25 PM
120 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119
I. DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE BURDEN ON CORPORATE TAXPAYERS

During the last decade, there has been a clear shift in the tax
compliance mechanisms where the corporate taxpayer became
responsible for divulging its financial, tax, and technical information to
the Internal Revenue Service (“the Service”). This shift has been
justified in order to crack down on corporate tax shelters and abusive
strategies which exist due to the differences between financial and tax
accounting principles and existing corporate tax loopholes.1 The shift
has also been warranted with the promotion of tax transparency and the
Service’s goal to have more effective audits of the corporations.2 Most
notable disclosure compliance burdens on taxpayers introduced in the
last decade were the reporting of listed and non-listed reportable
transactions via Form 8886, disclosures to avoid accuracy related
penalties through Forms 8275 and 8275-R, reconciliation disclosure
between accounting for financial and tax purposes via Schedule M-3,
and disclosure of uncertain tax positions through newly released
Schedule UTP.3
The regime of compliance with disclosure requirements and
implementation of reporting mechanisms are of concern to corporate
taxpayers. To comply with these reporting requirements established by
the Service, businesses’ tax departments need additional resources to
collect information, technology, and manpower to process the collected
data, and professionals to analyze and report the data on the disclosure
tax forms.4 Reporting of proper information located throughout multiple
disclosure forms to the Service in order to protect taxpayers’ rights
during audit presents a serious concern for all tax practitioners and their
clients.5 Comprehensive overhauls with goals to increase transparency
1. See Shirley Dennis-Escoffier, New Schedule M-3 Required For Reporting Book-Tax
Differences, J. OF CORP. ACCT. & FIN., Nov/Dec 2004, at 81 (noting the purpose for enactment of
Schedule M-3).
2. Ron Singleton & Steve Smith, The Increase in Transparency Requirements for Corporate
Tax Positions, THE CPA J., Mar. 2011, at 38 (stating that “The IRS has long been concerned with
how to effectively audit corporations, and has recognized the importance of companies being open
about questionable tax positions in making the audit process more efficient.”).
3. Erica Murray & Zachary Brandmeir, The Road to Transparency, TAX ADVISER, May
2010, at 314 (stating that the “most notable changes over the past decade concern reportable
transactions, the introduction of Schedule M-3, and most recently the potential disclosure of
uncertain tax positions to be submitted with annual tax returns.”).
4. See Anonymous, 50,000 Corporations Expected To File 2005 Schedule M-3, 92
STANDARD FED. TAX REP. 28, June 30, 2005, at 4 (noting anticipation of a lively debate pertaining
to “technology costs to support Schedule M-3 filing [requirement that] are imposed on smaller
firms.”).
5. Blaise M. Sonnier, Cherie J. Hennig & Sharon S. Lassar, Protecting Work Product in IRS
2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 121
create additional work for tax practitioners, which inevitably lead to

higher costs for businesses.6 For instance, the transition to Schedule M-
3 in 2004 imposed new compliance costs that affected approximately
50,000 taxpayers.7 When Schedule M-3 was introduced, taxpayers and
tax advisers stated that compliance with the new provision would add
new expenses as its tax and corporate departments would need additional
resources and time to collect information, complete, and file the
schedule.8 The same effect is expected with full implementation of
Schedule UTP. Ambiguity and complexity of the tax law associated
with new legal responsibilities further increase costs and affect
companies’ bottom lines.9
Reporting requirements add new costs to the overall tax compliance
tab. In 2002, the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan educational
organization, estimated that businesses spent approximately $102.5
billion to comply with the federal tax code.10 Between years 2001 and
Disclosures and During the Audit After Deloitte, TAXES, Dec. 2010, at 31 (stating that “[g]iven the
extensive financial and tax disclosure requirements now required by large corporate taxpayers on
Schedule M-3, and on either Form 8275, Form 8275-R, Form 8886 or the Schedule UTP, and the
requirement to grant the Revenue Agent access to supporting documentation in the planning phase
of an IRS audit, the protection of sensitive documents from IRS scrutiny is critical.”).
6. Murray & Brandmeir, supra note 3, at 316.
7. Charles Boynton & William Wilson, A Review of Schedule M-3: The Internal Revenue
Service’s New Book-Tax Reconciliation Tool, 25 PETROLEUM ACCT. & FIN. MGMT. 1 (2006),
available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
utl/schedulem3reviewboyntonwilson_petroacctfinmgtj082306.pdf (noting the costs associated with
transition from Schedule M-1 to Schedule M-3). See Anonymous, supra note 4, at 1 (noting that
“[m]any corporations had pleaded with the IRS, to no avail, that they needed more time to prepare
databases to support the additional information required on Schedule M-3.”).
8. See John R. McGowan & David Killion, Schedule M-3: Closing the Corporate Book-Tax
Gap, TAX ADVISER, July 2005, at 409 (stating that to comply with Schedule M-3 disclosures
“[c]orporate tax departments will needed additional resources to collect information, the time
needed to file a corporate return will increase and practitioners will need to be compensated for the
additional time required.”). See id. (noting that the burden of Schedule M-3 compliance “will fall
on the taxpayers who have to provide the additional data for tax advisers to complete the form.”).
See Patricia A. Thompson, Comments on Schedule M-3 with the Objective of Reducing Burden and
Duplication, AICPA, Aug. 1, 2011, available at
http://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/tax/resources/taxmethodsperiods/advocacy/downloadabledocum
ents/aicpa_08.01.2011_sch_m3_comments.pdf (discussing current critique of Schedule M-3 and
stating that “Schedule M-3 is not achieving its stated goals”).
9. See Meg Shreve, Panelists Push for Simplification of Taxes on Individuals, TAX NOTES
TODAY, Apr. 14, 2011, at 2 (noting a comment from a tax professor from San Jose State University,
Annette Nellen, who stated that “[a] tax system should follow the principle of simplicity. . . . [t]hat
is, the tax law should be simple so the taxpayers can understand the rules and comply with them
correctly and in a cost-efficient manner.”).
10. J. Scott Moody, The Cost of Complying with the Federal Income Tax, TAX FOUND., July
1, 2002, available at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/133.html (reporting the
combined costs of individual and business tax reporting).
2006, it has been approximated that the total cost associated with
compliance was higher than the amounts provided in the form of tax
refunds.11 In 2006, an average Fortune 500 company wrote a check for
approximately $5 million dollars on expenses associated with tax law
compliance, while the largest spent over $10 million.12 Another
nonpartisan tax group, National Taxpayer Union, estimated that in 2008
the cost of compliance for corporations rose to $159.4 billion.13 It is
predicted that the cost of compliance will continue to rise steadily and by
2015 equal $482.7 billion or 20.7% of the domestic revenue.14
In contrast to other countries, the time it takes the U.S. corporate
taxpayer to comply with its tax requirements is significant. For instance,
in comparison to corporate taxpayers in the United States, who spent on
average 23 workdays on their tax returns each year, corporate taxpayers
in Ireland on average spent only 9.5 days.15 Countries including
Finland, Spain, and Sweden simplify tax return compliance by providing
taxpayers with already filled-out returns with their personalized tax
data.16 Other statistics report that, currently, businesses spend 2.94
billion hours to comply with the tax code.17
High compliance costs also affect the efficient operations of the
government. It is estimated that in 2010 the Service’s administrative
costs amounted to $12.4 billion.18 These costs are likely to continue to
rise with implementation of new tax reporting initiatives,19 unless the
11. J. Scott Moody, The Cost of Tax Compliance, TAX FOUND., July 2001, at 8, available at
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/9bd6c31673d5cc3023471165d273b6b3.pdf (noting that the
“cumulative compliance cost over the 2001-2006 period will come to almost $930 billion while the
cumulative reduction over the same period will cover little more than half the compliance costs at
$550 billion.”).
12. JOEL SLEMROD & JON BAKIJA, TAXING OURSELVES 162 (4th ed. 2008).
13. See David Keating, A Taxing Trend: The Rise in Complexity, Forms, and Paperwork
Burdens 126 (NTU Policy Paper, Apr. 15, 2009), available at http://www.ntu.org/assets/pdf/policy-
papers/pp_ntu_126_1.pdf (referencing the percentage of paperwork burden).
14. J. Scott Moody, Wendy P. Warcholik & Scott A. Hodge, The Rising Costs of Complying
with the Federal Income Tax, TAX FOUND., Dec. 2005, at 2.
15. Nicola M. White, Finance Committee Looks Abroad For Tax Administration Ideas, TAX
NOTES TODAY, Apr. 12, 2011 (reporting on Senate Finance Committee hearing dedicated to
examination of other country’s tax administration systems with the goal of simplifying and making
the United States tax system more user-friendly).
16. Id.
17. Arthur B. Laffer et al., The Economic Burden Caused by Tax Code Complexity, THE
LAFFER CENTER, Apr. 2011, at 4, available at http://www.laffercenter.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-Laffer01-ComplexityofTaxCode.pdf.
18. Id.
19. See George G. Jones & Mark A. Luscombe, IRS Regulatory Burdens Create Taxpayer
Opportunities, ACCT. TODAY, Sep. 21-Oct. 4, 2009, at 18 (noting the administrative burden
imposed on the Service).
Service is able to improve its processes and resources.20 Creating new

disclosure schedules, such as Schedule UTP, causes the Service to shift
its limited resources in attempts to accomplish more.21
Compliance costs, which include disclosure requirements, also have
an impact on the domestic economy. Based on a study conducted by the
Laffer Center, it is estimated that compliance with the business tax code
costs our economy approximately $161.7 billion each year.22 When
business and individual costs are combined, it is estimated that 30% of
the total tax income collected is spent on costs associated with tax
compliance.23 Corporate expenditures of key resources, such as time
and money on tax compliance, reduce global competitiveness24 and the
productivity of American businesses and their workers.25 It is
reasonable to assume that the aforementioned costs to businesses will
continue to rise if our tax code continues to increase in its complexity
and additional burdens, such as new duplicative reporting requirements
imposed on corporate taxpayers.
Noncompliance with the disclosure requirements is also costly. For
instance, in addition to other penalties under the Code, a failure to report
a listed transaction on Form 8886 will subject a corporate taxpayer to a
penalty up to $200,000, while a failure to disclose a non-listed reportable
transaction on a Form will subject a corporate taxpayer to a penalty of
up to $50,000.26 While a failure to complete Form 8275 or 8275-R will
20. J.D. Foster, Looking into IRS Reform, TAX FOUND.’S TAX FEATURES, Oct. 1997, at 7
(noting that “[t]he central problems at the IRS derive from a badly flawed management structure.”).
21. See Alison Bennett, Congressional Tax Agenda Uncertain, Reform Awaits Presidential
Leadership, Panelists Say, BNA DAILY TAX REP., Apr. 28, 2011 (referencing comments that “new
Schedule UTP, Statement of Uncertain Tax Position, likely will lead to resource shifts by the
agency”).
22. Laffer, supra note 17, at 4 (citing that “complying with the business income tax code costs
the U.S. economy $161.7 billion.”).
23. Id. at 3 (stating that the U.S. taxpayers pay 30% premium on the taxes collected due to
compliance costs).
24. Daniel J. Mitchell, Corporate Taxes: America is Falling Behind, TAX & BUDGET BUL.,
July 2007, available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0707_48.pdf.
25. The President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, The Report on Tax Reform Options:
Simplification, Compliance, and Corporate Taxation, Aug. 2010, at 65, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/PERAB_Tax_Reform_Report.pdf (noting
that “[b]ecause of its complexity and its incentives for tax avoidance, the U.S. corporate tax system
results in high administrative and compliance costs by firms—costs estimated to exceed $40 billion
per year or more than 12 percent of the revenues collected.”).
26. 26 U.S.C. § 6707A. See Murray & Brandmeir, supra note 3, at 316 (noting that penalties
provided by § 6707A are enforced in addition to “any other penalties the IRS has in place, including
accuracy-related penalties.”). See Jeremiah Coder, IRS Looking to Improve Penalty Process,
Officials Say, TAX NOTES TODAY, May 9, 2011 (noting the Service’s change of policy regarding tax
not increase the amount of the accuracy-related penalty, their respective

filing may preclude the imposition of the penalty. Adequate compliance
with all of the Service’s requirements without causing undue prejudice
to the client taxpayer is not always a simple task, especially when the tax
code and its regulations’ length equal approximately twelve Bibles.27
The benefits to corporate taxpayers from the continuing additions to
disclosure requirements have not been obvious. Despite expenditures by
corporate taxpayers on compliance, there is evidence that the Service has
not been using all of the information it receives from additional
disclosure forms.28 Duplicative disclosures of the same or similar tax
information that lead to additional costs are of immediate concern to the
corporate taxpayer.29 The estimated corporate taxpayers’ compliance tax
burden is summarized in Appendix 1. Part II of this article describes in
detail key existing reporting requirements such as reportable transaction
disclosure statement and Form 8886, disclosure statements and Forms
8275 and 8275-R, net income (loss) reconciliation disclosure form and
Schedule M-3, and disclosure of uncertain tax positions through
Schedule UTP. Part III of this article highlights the duplicative
disclosures required by these forms and schedules and proposes means
to reduce redundant duplicative reporting. The duplicative disclosures
are thereafter summarized in Appendix 2. Part IV discusses possible
solutions to mitigation of duplicative reporting requirements and
suggests creation and implementation of a comprehensive disclosure
form that should replace the existing reporting mechanism in order to
achieve the desired transparency and efficiency. Lastly, Part V
concludes this article.
II. CORPORATE TAX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

In the last decade, the policy of corporate tax reporting has shifted
towards the increased disclosure of taxpayers’ information and positions
to the Service. The Service’s shift is seen clearly in the imposed
penalties since 2004 to “enhance voluntary compliance” and also noting a trend showing an increase
of assertion of accuracy-related penalties against corporate taxpayers).
27. Rochelle L. Hodes & Lewis J. Fernandez, Forms 8275 and 8275-R: How Much
Information Is Enough?, TAX ADVISER, July 2008, at 428. See also White, supra note 15 (citing the
opening statement of Senator Baucus noting the length of the tax code and regulations).
28. Patricia A. Thompson, Comments on Schedule M-3 with the Objective of Reducing
Burden and Duplication, AICPA, Apr. 25, 2011, available at
http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/Tax/Resources/TaxMethodsPeriods/Advocacy/DownloadableD
ocuments/AICPA_04.25.2011_Sch_M3_Comments.pdf.
29. IRS Releases Final Schedule UTP, Incorporates Changes, J. OF ACCT., Sept. 24, 2010,
available at http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Web/20103378.htm.
disclosure rules pertaining to tax shelters and positions that may not
have otherwise been provided for on the tax return on Form 8886,
imperatives designed to promote accurate reporting of tax transactions
through Forms 8275 and 8275-R, reporting necessary to identify
differences between financial and tax accounting on Schedule M-3, and
detailed identification of uncertain tax positions on Schedule UTP,
which are described in detail in this portion of the article.
A. Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement and Form 8886

Today, taxpayers are required to disclose their tax shelter reportable
transactions by attaching Form 8886 to their tax return and furnishing a
copy of Form 8886 to the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (“OTSA”).30
The purpose of Form 8886 is to “disclose information for each
reportable transaction” in which the taxpayer has participated.31 The
definition of a reportable transaction includes transactions that are listed,
confidential, contain contractual protection, Section 165 losses, and
other transactions of interest to the Service. A separate Form 8886 is
required to be filed for each reportable transaction, unless transactions
are the same or substantially similar.32 The taxpayer is obligated to file a
subsequent Form 8886 disclosure if the originally reported transaction
becomes a listed transaction.33 As demonstrated by Millennium
Marketing Group, LLC v. United States, a failure to file Form 8886
30. See Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4 (requiring taxpayers defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1),
including S-Corporations and affiliated group of corporations that joins to file a consolidated return
under 26 U.S.C. § 1501 to disclose their certain reportable transactions). See Stephen G.
Vogelsang, The Final Tax Shelter Disclosure Rules: Reporting, Registration, And List Maintenance
Requirements, 78 FLA. BAR J. 30, 32 (2004) (noting reporting requirements).
31. Instructions for Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement (Mar. 2010).
32. Id. (stating that taxpayer “may report more than one transaction on one form if the
transactions are the same or substantially similar.”). See Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(c)(4) (stating that
the term substantially similar “includes any transaction that is expected to obtain the same or similar
types of tax consequences and that is either factually similar or based on the same or similar tax
strategy. Receipt of an opinion regarding the tax consequences of the transaction is not relevant to
the determination of whether the transaction is the same as or substantially similar to another
transaction. Further, the term substantially similar must be broadly construed in favor of
disclosure.”).
33. See Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(e)(2)(i). See Vogelsang, supra note 30, at 32 (stating that “[i]f
a transaction becomes a listed transaction after the filing of the taxpayer’ original tax return for the
year in which the taxpayer participated in the transaction, the disclosure statement must be filed as
an attachment to the taxpayer’s tax return for the year in which the transaction becomes a listed
transaction.”). See David Pratt, Standards of Practice for Pension Practitioners, 39 J. MARSHALL
L. REV. 667, 669 (2006) (defining a listed transaction as “a transaction that is the same as, or
substantially similar to, one that the IRS has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction and has
identified by an IRS notice or other form of published guidance.”).
notifying the Service of participation in the listed transaction as

prescribed by § 6011 may result in the Service assessing penalties under
§ 6707A of the Code,34 which range in amount up to $200,000.35
Form 8886 consists of eight sections asking the taxpayer to provide
information about its entity and the transaction in question. The initial
portion of Form 8886 obliges the taxpayer to identify its basic
background information, relate Form 8886 to the number of the tax
return and a year to which it is related, and signify if Form 8886 is being
filed with an amended tax return.36 Thereafter, the taxpayer is required
to disclose the name of the reportable transaction, the initial year of
participation in the reportable transaction, and identify the reportable
transaction or the tax shelter by its registration number.37 Then, the form
directs the taxpayer to identify the type of the reportable transaction
involved. The taxpayer has a choice of selecting a listed, confidential,
contractual protection, loss, brief asset holding period, or transaction of
interest as its reportable transaction. Subsequently, the taxpayer must
divulge the “published guidance number for the listed transaction or
transaction of interest” and disclose the “same as or substantially
similar” transactions reported on Form 8886.38 If the participation in the
reportable transaction has occurred through the use of another entity, the
taxpayer is required to identify the type of entity that was used, its name,
its employer identification number (“EIN”), and the date of the Schedule
K-1 received from the entity. The taxpayer is also obligated to disclose
information about each paid individual or entity who “promoted,
solicited, or recommended” the taxpayer to participate in the reportable
transaction, or provided tax advice pertaining to the reported
transaction.39 The taxpayer is asked to identify the type and amount of
tax benefit received from the transaction,40 describe each step of the
transaction that relates to the tax results, tax result protections, and the
34. See Millennium Mktg. Group, LLC v. United States, No. H-06-962, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 50138 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2010).
35. See 26 U.S.C. §6707A(a)-(b).
36. See Instructions for Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement (Mar.
2010).
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. See id. (commands the taxpayer to enter the name and address of each individual or entity
to whom a fee was paid with regard to the transaction if that individual or entity promoted, solicited,
or recommended your participation in the transaction, or provided tax advice related to the
transaction).
40. See id. (allows the taxpayer to select all of the following options that apply: deductions,
capital loss, ordinary loss, exclusions from gross income, non-recognition of gain, adjustment to
basis, tax credits, deferral, absence of adjustment to basis, or any other benefit).
nature of the expected tax treatment for all affected years. Lastly, the
taxpayer is requested to identify “all tax-exempt, foreign, and related
entities and individuals involved in the transaction.”41
The Service provides for an estimated burden figure of compliance
with Form 8886. The burden of compliance with Form 8886 is
calculated through the overall time the disclosing party spends on the
recordkeeping associated with the disclosure, learning about the law or
the form, preparation, copying, assembling, and sending the form to the
Service.42 The compliance burden related to Form 8886 is substantial.
The Service estimates that the disclosing party will spend in total 22
hours and 14 minutes to comply with requirements associated with Form
8886. Specifically, the Service approximates that the disclosing party
will spend 12 hours 54 minutes on recordkeeping associated with the
disclosure, 4 hours and 28 minutes on learning about the law or the
form, and 4 hours and 52 minutes on preparing, copying, assembling,
and sending the form to the Service.43
B. Accuracy-Related Penalty Disclosure Statement Forms 8275 and

8275-R
Forms 8275 and 8275-R are disclosure statements filed with the
original tax return44 that are used by taxpayers such as individuals,
corporations, pass-through entities, and tax return preparers to disclose
items or positions that are “not otherwise adequately disclosed on a tax
return to avoid certain penalties.”45 The disclosure on Form 8275 allows
taxpayers to avoid accuracy related penalties due to “disregard of rules
or to a substantial understatement of income tax for non-tax shelter items
if the return position has reasonable basis.”46 Similarly, the preparers
may avoid similar penalties by disclosing “understatements due to
41. See id. (allowing the taxpayer to identify either as tax-exempt, foreign, or related by
identifying number, provide names, identifying numbers, addresses, and brief description of the
involvement. For each foreign entity, the taxpayer is required to identify its country of
incorporation or existence. The taxpayer is required to explain how each related parted party is
related).
42. See id.
43. See id.
44. Forms 8275 and 8275-R may also be filed with the amended tax return.
45. Instructions for Form 8275 (2011). See Kadillak v. Comm’r, 127 T.C. 184, 189 (T.C.
2006) (stating that Form 8275 “is filed to avoid an accuracy-related penalty due to disregard of rules
or regulations or due to a substantial understatement of income tax for non-tax-shelter items if the
return position has a reasonable basis.”).
46. Id. See also Campbell v. Comm’r, 134 T.C. 20, 31 (T.C. 2010) (noting that “[d]isclosure
generally must be made on Form 8275 unless otherwise permitted by applicable revenue
procedure.”).
unreasonable positions or disregard of rules and the economic substance

penalty.”47 Form 8275-R is the equivalent used by taxpayers and tax
return preparers to disclose positions asserted on the tax return that are
contrary to Treasury regulations.48 When dealing with pass-through
entities, for a disclosure to be considered adequate, a separate Form
8275 or 8275-R has to be filed for items reported for each entity.49 As
demonstrated by Gran v. United States, a failure to attach Form 8275 to
the tax return may result in assessment of accuracy-related penalties.50
Accuracy-related penalties cannot be avoided despite the disclosure
on Forms 8275 or 8275-R if misconduct is associated with:
negligence, disregard of rules, disregard of regulations, any substantial
understatement of income tax, any substantial valuation misstatement
under chapter 1, any substantial overstatement of pension liabilities,
any substantial estate or gift tax valuation understatements, any claim
of tax benefits from a transaction lacking economic substance within
the meaning of Section 7701(o) or failing to meet the requirement of
any similar rule of law, [or] any otherwise undisclosed foreign
financial asset understatement.51
Both Forms 8275 and 8275-R consist of four parts: (I) general
information; (II) detailed information; (III) information about pass-
through entity; and (IV) explanations continued from Parts I and/or II.52
Part I of both forms requires the disclosure of the rule to which the
asserted tax position is contrary, identification of the contrary item or
group of items by name, detailed description of the contrary items,
identification of associated form or schedule, line number, and the
amount. Both forms in Part II ask for a statement that includes a
“description of the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment of the item.”
To satisfy this requirement, the preparer must “include information that
reasonably can be expected to apprise the IRS of the identity of the item,
47. Id.
48. Instructions for Form 8275-R (2011).
49. Instructions for Form 8275 (2011). See also Instructions for Form 8275-R.
50. Gran v. United States, No. 04-4605 SC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39810 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
26, 2005) (holding that the Service was justified in its decision to impose an accuracy-related
penalty on the taxpayer pursuant to Section 6662(a) of the Code where “(1) the Form 8275 was not
attached to the original Amended Return produced by the IRS as evidence in this case; (2) the Form
8275 was not attached to [Taxpayers’] copy of their Amended Return submitted as evidence in
support of their original motion for partial summary judgment; and (3) [Taxpayers’] have not been
able to produce any evidence demonstrating that the Form 8275 was actually sent or received [by
the Service].”).
51. Instructions for Form 8275. See also Instructions for Form 8275-R.
52. Id.
its amount, and the nature of the controversy or potential controversy.”53

Part II of Form 8275-R additionally requires a statement from the
disclosing party as to why it believes the regulation is invalid. Both
forms in Part II provide for a disclosure of information about the pass-
through entity,54 which must be completed by partners, shareholders,
beneficiaries, or residual interest holders. The disclosure should include
the name, address, and zip code of the pass-through entity, the pass-
through entity’s identifying number, its tax year, and the Service Center
where the pass-through entity files its tax return.55 Lastly, both forms in
Part IV request the disclosing party to offer any further explanations
associated with Parts I and/or II.56
The Service provides estimation figures associated with compliance
with Forms 8275 and 8275-R. With these forms, the burden is
calculated by adding the overall time the disclosing party spends on
recordkeeping, learning about the law or the form, and preparation and
sending the form to the Service. The burden associated with compliance
and filing of Form 8275 is approximately 5 hours and 41 minutes. The
Service estimates that the disclosing party spends approximately 3 hours
and 35 minutes on recordkeeping, 1 hour on learning about the law or
the form, and 1 hour and 6 minutes on preparation and sending the form
to the Service.57 The burden associated with compliance and filing of
Form 8275-R is estimated to total approximately 5 hours and 27
minutes. The Service determined that the disclosing party spends
approximately 3 hours and 35 minutes on recordkeeping, 53 minutes on
learning about the law or the form, and 59 minutes on preparation and
sending the form to the Service.58
C. Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation Disclosure and Schedule M-3

Financial income and taxable income serve two completely
different purposes: providing “informational input to investors” and
“determining current-year tax liability.”59 Thus, it is not surprising that
53. Id. (noting that “information concerning the nature of the controversy can include a
description of the legal issues presented by the facts.”).
54. Id. (noting that a partnership, S Corporation, estate, trust, regulated investment company
(RIC) , real estate investment trust (REIT), or real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) are
considered to be pass-through entities).
55. See id.
56. See id.
57. See Instructions for Form 8275 (2011).
58. See Instructions for Form 8275-R (2011).
59. Daniel Shaviro, The Optimal Relationship Between Taxable Income and Financial
Accounting Income: Analysis and a Proposal, 97 GEO. L.J. 423, 483-84 (2009) (stating that
corporate taxpayers have different motives during preparation of

financial statements and tax returns. When preparing financial
statements, corporations attempt to maximize their income in accordance
with existing Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).60
Conversely, in tax law compliance, corporations seek legal minimization
of income to reduce their overall bill.61 The timing difference as to
when income has to be recognized also often varies between financial
accounting and tax rules. As a result, disparities between financial and
tax income occur.
1. Early Attempts to Adequately Demonstrate the Differences

between Financial and Tax Accounting for Income through
Schedule M and M-1
For years, the Service has been attempting to provide for adequate
reconciliation between financial and tax accounting. Prior to 1964, the
Service used Schedule M, Reconciliation of Taxable Income and
Analysis of Earned Surplus and Undivided Profits, which required
reconciliation between beginning and ending earned surpluses.62
Thereafter, in 1964, the Service implemented Schedule M-1,
Reconciliation of Income (Loss) per Books with Income per Return,
which provided for additional reconciliations to the differences between
the taxpayer’s methods of accounting and financial reporting.63
“[t]axable income and financial accounting income, while using a shared concept, serve very
different purposes—determining current-year tax liability on the one hand, and providing a
particular informational input to investors on the other. It is not surprising, therefore, that the two
measures both ideally and actually have differences.”).
60. See Karthik Balakrishnan, Jennifer Blouin & Wayne Guay, Does Tax Aggressiveness
Reduce Financial Reporting Transparency? (U. Penn. Working Paper Series, 2011), available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1792783 (stating that “[w]hile managers often desire to report high levels
of income to investors, they simultaneously desire to report low levels of income to tax authorities.
In the U.S., as in many other countries, tax reporting rules differ from financial reporting rules,
allowing firms to report disparate levels of income to tax authorities and investors.”).
61. See Alex Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment in Taxation: Deceit, Deterrence, and the
Self-Adjusting Penalty, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 569, 585 (2006) (stating that “[t]he government
recognized that the two accounting systems create opposite incentives: Taxpayers would prefer to
have more income for financial reporting purposes, but less income for tax purposes.”). See also
Rachael Hinkley, Common Schedule M-1 Adjustments, TAX ADVISER, Oct. 2005, at 586-88
(providing examples how accrued compensation and benefits, tax accrual, capital losses, meals and
entertainment expenses, club dues, spousal travel expenses, employee-shareholder loans, prepaid
expenses, and life insurance premiums may result in book-tax differences).
62. See Daniel L. Slaton, Solving Stock Option Compensation: Why Book-Tax Conformity
May Not Be The Answer, 9 HOUS. BUS. & TAX L.J. 175, 184 (2008).
63. See Hinkley, supra note 61, at 586 (noting that “Schedule M-1 adjustments are based on
the taxpayer’s method of accounting.”).
The current version of Schedule M-1 is used by corporations whose

assets are below the threshold amount of $10 million.64 Schedule M-1
consists of ten line item questions with subparts and requires the
taxpayer to identify its total income (loss) per books, federal income tax
per books, the excess of capital losses over gains, and income subject to
tax which was not recorded on books.65 Further, Schedule M-1 requires
the taxpayer to report the expenses it recorded on books but not deducted
on the return, which includes depreciation, charitable contributions,
travel and entertainment, and other categories.66 The taxpayer is then
required to disclose information about income recorded on books for the
year that is not included on the tax return, itemizing the tax-exempt
interest and other items.67 Lastly, the taxpayer is required to disclose
deductions that were not charged against book income itemizing
depreciation, charitable deductions, and other items.68
In the last decade, a sizable income gap has occurred due to the
differences between financial and tax accounting.69 In 2004, as a
64. See Schedule M-1, Reconciliation of Income (Loss) and Analysis of Unappropriated
Retained Earnings Per Books (2010).
65. See Matthew J. Barrett, Opportunities for Obtaining and Using Litigation Reserves and
Disclosures, 63 OHIO ST. L.J. 1017, 1077 (2002/2003) (noting that line items on Schedule M-1
explain “the differences between financial accounting net income and tax accounting net income,
listing such things as income included on the return, but not recorded on the books this year;
expenses, such as travel and entertainment, recorded on the books this year, but not included on the
return; income, such as tax-exempt interest, recorded on the books this year, but not included on the
return; and deductions, such as depreciation, included on the tax return, but not charged against
book income this year.”).
66. See id. (noting that other travel and entertainment expenses may include any of the
following items: (1) meal and entertainment expenses not deductible under Section 274(n); (2)
expenses for the use of an entertainment facility; (3) the part of business gifts over $25; (4) expenses
of an individual over $2,000 that are allocable to conventions on cruise ships; (5) employee
achievement awards over $400; (6) the cost of entertainment tickets over face value (also subject to
the 50% limit under Section 274(n); (7) the cost of skyboxes over the face value of non-luxury box
seat tickets; (8) the part of luxury water travel expenses not deductible under Section 274(m); (9)
expenses for travel as a form of education; and (10) other nondeductible travel and entertainment
expenses).
67. See id. (noting that this line item applies to “any tax-exempt interest received or accrued,
including any exempt-interest dividends received as a shareholder in a mutual fund or other
regulated investment company.”).
68. See id.
69. See Stephen Joyce, Senate Hearing May Discuss Legislation About Stock Option Book,
Tax Differences, BNA DAILY TAX REP., June 5, 2007, at G-3 (noting that based on Schedule M-3
reporting from December 31, 2004 to June 30, 2005, a $43 billion gap existed between reporting for
stock option expenses for book purposes and stock option deductions for tax purposes). See also
George A. Plesko & Nina L. Shumofsky, Reconciling Corporation Book and Tax Net Income, Tax
Years 1995-2001, STATISTICS OF INCOME, Winter 2004-2005, at 103, 105 (discussing data showing
book-tax difference). See also Charles Boynton, Portia DeFilippes & Ellen Legel, Preclude to
response to the differences between financial and tax accounting that had
revenue raising implications, general discontent with a 40-year old
Schedule M-1,70 and desire to “increase the transparency of corporate tax
return filings,” the Treasury Department and the Service created
disclosure form Schedule M-3.71 While helpful, Schedule M-1 simply
did not contain the necessary detail.72 The Service found Schedule M-1
to be of limited use because it failed to adequately show significant
differences between book and tax accounting “due both to the lack of
uniform definitions and terminology, and the business’s ability to
aggregate and net differences.”73 In its news release IR-2004-14, the
Service announced that for taxable years ending on or after December
31, 2004, corporations with total assets of $10 million or more must file
a Schedule M-3 form with its timely-filed original tax return.74 A
Schedule M-3: Schedule M-1 Corporate Book-Tax Difference Data, NAT. TAX ASS’N.–TAX INST.
OF AMERICA, 2005, at 131 (reporting additional data showing book-tax difference).
70. Michael W. McLoughlin, William M. Backstrom, Jr. & Mark T. Hennen, Recent
Developments: Administrative Law to Taxation, 51 LA BAR J. 436, 446 (2004) (stating that the
“shortcomings of the current Schedule M-1, according to the IRS and Treasury, are that it does not
provide for a uniform reporting requirement for book income and it does not provide uniform
disclosure requirements for reporting differences between book and tax income.”).
71. See IR-2004-91, Treasury and IRS Issue Revised Tax Form for Corporate Tax Returns,
July 7, 2004. See McGowan & Killion, supra note 8, at 409 (stating that “Schedule M-3 was
developed in response to concern over differences between book and taxable income, declines in
corporate tax revenues and dissatisfaction with Schedule M-1.”). See also Boynton, DeFilippes &
Legel, supra note 69, at 945 (stating that “Schedule M-3’s introduction of detailed reporting
requirements for permanent and timing differences is another significant improvement over
Schedule M-1, as well as being an important enhancement to overall transparency.”).
72. Raskolnikov, supra note 61, at 591 (noting that Schedule M-1 “was helpful, but not
detailed enough.”).
73. See Singleton & Smith, supra note 2, at 40. See also McGowan & Killion, supra note 8,
at 409 (noting that Schedule M-1 had two major deficiencies: (1) it did not “provide a uniform
reporting requirement for net income per books;” and (2) it did not “promote uniform disclosure
requirements for reporting differences between financial accounting net income and taxable
income.”). See also Charles Boynton, Portia DeFilippes & Ellen Legel, A First Look at 2004
Schedule M-3 Reporting by Large Corporations, TAX NOTES, Sept. 11, 2006, at 944 (noting
dissatisfaction with Schedule M-1 and “difficulty in interpreting Schedule M-1 book-tax difference
data,” and stating that “[w]hen examining Schedule M-1, the character of a particular book-tax
difference usually was not determinable without further investigation . . . [which] often required
contacting the taxpayer, resulting in some degree of burden to both the taxpayers and the IRS.”).
See also Boynton & Wilson, supra note 7 (noting that “Schedule M-1 disclosures became
increasingly aggregated and more difficult and time consuming to examine. In the case of large
corporations, this aggregation by taxpayers and the lack of specific detail required by instructions of
Schedule M-1 rendered the schedule nearly useless as an analytical tool for the purposes of
determining audit risk.”).
74. See IR-2004-14. See Instructions for Schedule M-3 (Form 1120) (2005) (stating that
“[a]ny domestic corporation (including a U.S. consolidated tax group consisting of a U.S. parent
corporation and additional includible corporation listed on Form 851, Affiliations Schedule)
required to file Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, that reports on Schedule L of
domestic corporate taxpayer that is not required to file Schedule M-3

may voluntarily file it instead of Schedule M-1.75
2. Schedule M-3
Schedule M-3 provides for reconciliation of net income or loss for
corporations with total assets that equal or exceed $10 million,76 which
significantly enlarges required disclosure of book-tax differences77 and
provides the Service with a new tool to gather information and
investigate corporate taxpayers.78 Schedule M-3 expanded taxpayers’
reporting requirements from ten lines previously required by Schedule
M-1 to sixty-eight,79 with “an emphasis on making a distinction between
temporary and permanent book/tax differences.”80 The increased
disclosure allowed by Schedule M-3 gave the Service “greater precision
in identifying aggressive transactions and determining which returns
need to be audited, as well as narrowing the issues examined on returns
selected for audit.”81 Arguably, Schedule M-3 requires corporate
taxpayers “to reveal [their] more aggressive transactions.”82 The data
collected from Schedule M-3 filings allowed the Service to determine
which tax returns to audit,83 what issues will be examined on the selected
Form 1120 total consolidated assets at the end of the corporations’ tax year that equal or exceed $10
million must complete and filed Schedule M-3 in lieu of Schedule M-1”).
75. Instructions for Schedule M-3 (Form 1120) (2005).
76. Rev. Proc. 2004-45. See IR-2004-91 (stating that “Schedule M-3 is effective for any
taxable year ending on or after Dec. 31, 2004, and, in general, must be filed by a corporation
required to file Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, that reports on Form 1120 at the
end of the corporation’s taxable year total assets that equal or exceed $10 million.”).
77. Tracy A. Kaye, Regulation of Corporate Tax Evasion: The Regulation of Corporate Tax
Shelters in the United States, 58 AM. J. COMP. L. 585, 599 (2010) (noting that “[t]he new Schedule
M-3 increases the number of book-tax differences subject to required disclosure from eight to sixty-
seven.”).
78. Dennis J. Ventry, Jr., Cooperative Tax Regulation, 41 CONN. L. REV. 431, 478 (2008)
(stating that “the IRS has rolled out new Schedule M-3 as part of the corporate tax return to help the
IRS find relevant information (assuming all cash is accounted for properly on the return) by
reconciling a corporation's financial accounting income (i.e., ‘book income’) with its taxable income
(i.e., ‘tax income’).”).
79. Comparing Schedule M-1 to the current Schedule M-3, which has 68 line items in Part II
and Part III.
80. George G. Jones & Mark A. Luscombe, M-3: Evaluating One Round While Rolling Out
The Next, ACCOUNTING TODAY, Sept. 2006, at 10.
81. Kaye, supra note 77, at 599.
82. Scott E. Vincent, Taxes in Your Practice, Hot List of 2004 Tax Law Changes to Plan for
in 2005, 61 J. MO. B. 50, Jan.-Feb. 2005.
83. See Crystal Tandon, More Than 200 Returns Targeted on Basis of Schedule M-3 Data,
IRS Official Says, 2006 TNT 133-4 (July 12, 2006) (noting that based on Schedule M-3 disclosures
the Service will examine more than 200 tax returns).
returns,84 and reduced time spent on auditing.85 Schedule M-3 was

predicted to reduce time the Service spends to examine corporate tax
returns and identify those book-tax differences that require further
inspection.86 The Commissioner of the Service’s Large and Mid-Size
Business Division, Deborah Nolan, stated that Schedule M-3 would
“‘provide important tax accounting information at time of filing that
previously required extensive time to develop during a tax
examination.’”87 At the time it was implemented, it was estimated that
for most companies, Schedule M-3 would reveal most book-tax
differences that matter during the corporate return audit88 as well as any
aggressive positions.89
Schedule M-3 is divided into three parts: (1) Financial Information
and Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation, (2) Reconciliation of Net Income
(Loss) per Income Statement of Includible Corporations With Taxable
Income per Return, and (3) Reconciliation of Net Income (Loss) per
Income Statement of Includible Corporations With Taxable Income per
Return—Expense/Deductions Items. Corporations that are required to
file Schedule M-3 “must complete the form in its entirety,” meaning all
questions on Part I must be answered and all columns on Parts II and III
must be finalized.90 Further, any other schedule necessary to support a
line item on Schedule M-3 must be attached at the time of the filing and
provide all necessary information for that line item.91
Part I of the Schedule M-3 requests the corporate taxpayer to
provide information about its financial statements and “reconciles
84. See Boynton, DeFilippes & Legel, supra note 73, at 944.
85. John Ledbetter & Lucinda Van Alst, Schedule M-3 Update for 2007, TAXES, Dec. 2007,
at 48 (noting that “[a]ccording to the IRS, the additional information, in fact, provides about 20
percent of the on-site audit work the IRS would otherwise have to perform, reducing the on-site
audit time by as much as 20 percent.”).
86. See McGowan & Killion, supra note 8, at 408 (noting comments by Treasury’s Acting
Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Greg Jenner, who stated that “Schedule M-3 will enable the IRS
to identify quickly those differences [in financial book accounting and tax accounting] that warrant
additional scrutiny.”).
87. 50,000 Corporations Expected To File 2005 Schedule M-3, STANDARD FEDERAL TAX
REPORTS, June 30, 2005, at 1.
88. See McGowan & Killion, supra note 8, at 408 (noting the comments of the Service’s
Senior Industry Advisor for the Large and Midsize Business Division, Robert Adams, that “it is
estimated that the M-3 should reveal between 75 to 90 percent of the book-tax difference for most
companies.”).
89. Vincent, supra note 82 (noting that “[a] new Schedule M-3 requires corporations to reveal
more aggressive transactions.”).
90. Instructions for Schedule M-3 (Form 1120) (2005) (noting exception for Part I for
consolidated tax groups, where the parent corporation needs to complete Part I only once).
91. Instructions for Schedule M-3 (Form 1120).
financial statement net income (loss) for the consolidated financial

statement group to income (loss) per the income statement for the U.S.
consolidated tax group.”92 Due to the mandates prescribed in the
Schedule M-3’s Part I, for the first time in corporate tax history,
taxpayers were required to provide the identifiable measurement point of
the book-tax reconciliation.93
Part II and III of Schedule M-3 have four columns that identify and
distinguish the book-tax differences as well as permanent and temporary
differences of each line item.94 Part II permits the taxpayer to report in
column (a) income (loss) per financial statement income, and in column
(d) to report income (loss) as reported in the tax return. Part III uses
column (a) to allow taxpayers to report expense taken per income
statement and column (d) for reporting of deductions on the tax return.
Both Part II and Part III dedicate their columns (b) and (c) to
demonstrate the temporary and permanent differences.
One of the key benefits of Schedule M-3’s Parts II and III is the
determination of temporary and permanent differences. Temporary
differences occur due to the difference in timing between financial and
tax reporting of income and deductions95 and are separated into two
types: taxable or deductible.96 There are four general categories of
temporary differences:
(1) income recognized in financial statements before it is taxable; (2)
income reported as taxable before it is recognized in financial
statements; (3) expenses recognized in financial statements before they
are deducted on the tax return; and (4) expenses deductible on the tax
return before they are recognized on financial statements.97
One of the most common examples of a temporary difference is

depreciation.98 Conversely, permanent differences are adjustments that
92. Id. See Boynton, DeFilippes & Legel, supra note 73, at 944 (stating that “Part I reconciles
worldwide consolidated financial statement income with income per income statement of includable
corporations (members of the tax return consolidation group listed on Form 851).”).
93. Id. at 952 (noting the importance of Schedule M-3’s Part I).
94. See id. at 945 (generally describing Parts II and III of Schedule M-3).
95. See Yoram Keinan, Book Tax Conformity for Financial Instruments, 6 FLA. TAX REV.
676, 694 (2004) (noting that “temporary differences arise when items of income and deductions are
includable in income or deductible as expenses for tax and financial reporting purposes at different
times.”).
96. See Anne L. Leahey, A Worksheet For Accounting For Deferred Taxes, J. OF ACCT., Sept.
1995, at 87 (stating that “temporary differences are separated into two types: taxable and
deductible.”).
97. Boynton, DeFilippes & Legel, supra note 73, at 945.
98. See Terry Shevlin, Corporate Tax Shelters and Book-Tax Difference, 55 TAX L. REV. 427,
429 (2002). See also Henry J Louie, A First Look at the Book-Tax Differences in the Foreign-
will not reverse over time,99 occur due to the differences between the
financial and tax accounting rules, and directly impact the effective tax
rate.100 A common example of permanent differences is the reporting of
stock options as employee compensation.101 Because of their influence
on the corporation’s net income, the permanent differences have a
greater risk of audit than temporary differences.102
3. Additional Disclosure Requirements Associated with Schedule

M-3
After its initial final Schedule M-3 form, the Service added
additional requirements for corporate taxpayers such as Form 8916,
Form 8916-A, and Schedule B.103 Starting in 2006, certain corporate
taxpayers that are part of the mixed group that files Forms 1120, 1120-L,
or 1120-PC became required to complete Form 8916, known as
Reconciliation of Schedule M-3 Taxable Income with Tax Return
Taxable Income for Mixed Groups.104 The Service defined a mixed
group to mean:
a consolidated tax group that (1) includes both a corporation that is an
insurance company and a corporation that is not an insurance
company, (2) includes both a life insurance company and a property
and casualty insurance company, or (3) includes a life insurance
Source Income of U.S. Multinational Companies, NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION—TAX INSTITUTE

OF AMERICA PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON TAXATION, 2005, at 138 (noting that
a “commonly cited example of a temporary difference is the disparity between depreciation rules for
tax and financial accounting purposes. If a company depreciates an asset under an accelerated
method when determining taxable income, while depreciating that same asset under a straight-line
method on it financial statements, book income will exceed taxable income in the early years of the
asset's life, while the reverse would be true in the later years.”).
99. See Mitchell L. Engler, Corporate Tax Shelters and Narrowing the Book/Tax “GAAP”,
01 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 539, 582-83 (2001) (stating that “permanent difference is one that will not
reverse itself over time.”).
100. Boynton, DeFilippes & Legel, supra note 73, at 945 (noting that permanent differences
may substantially affect the reported earnings per share computations and stock prices).
101. See Louie, supra note 98, at 139 (noting that “the commonly cited example relates to the
different rules that govern the reporting of stock options as employee compensation.”).
102. Boynton, DeFilippes & Legel, supra note 73, at 945.
103. Although this article pertains only to corporate taxpayers, it is important to note that in
2006, Schedule M-3 reporting requirements were extended to partnerships, S-Corporations, and
insurance companies that met the $10 million threshold in assets.
104. Form 8916, Reconciliation of Schedule M-3 Taxable Income with Tax Return Taxable
Income for Mixed Groups (2008) (providing specific instructions on how to file Form 8916).
company, a property and casualty insurance company, and a

corporation that is not an insurance company.105
The purpose of Form 8916 was to “reconcile Schedule M-3 taxable

income to tax return taxable income for a mixed group.”106 Form 8916
requires the taxpayer to disclose the tax reconciliation amount from
Schedule M-3, information pertaining to the life/non-life loss limitation
amount from the supporting workpapers, any other adjustments that
reconcile taxable income on the consolidated tax return from the
supporting workpapers, and thereafter compute the total taxable
income.107 The Paperwork Reduction Act Notice states that it would
take the taxpayer, in total, 6 hours and 45 minutes to comply with Form
8916, where 6 hours and 27 minutes would be spent on record keeping,
6 minutes on learning about the law or the form, and 12 minutes on
preparing, copying, assembling, and sending the form to the Service.108
Also starting in 2006, corporate taxpayers are required to complete
and file Form 8916-A, Reconciliation of Cost of Goods Sold Reported
on Schedule M-3, along with their tax return.109 Currently, this form is
known as the Supplemental Attachment to Schedule M-3 Form 8916-
A.110 The purpose of Form 8916-A is to “provide a detailed schedule of
the amounts reported on the applicable Schedule M-3 for cost of goods
sold, interest income and interest expense.”111 Form 8916-A consists of
three parts: (1) costs of goods sold; (2) interest income; and (3) interest
expense. Like Schedule M-3, Form 8916-A has four columns allowing
the taxpayer to disclose expenses asserted per income statement,
temporary and permanent differences, and deductions taken per tax
105. Id.
106. Id.
107. Id.
108. Id.
109. Alison Bennett, IRS Releases Final Drafts of Schedules M-3, Extends Reporting Deadline
for Big Partners, BNA DAILY TAX REP., Jul. 21, 2006 (stating that Form 8916-A “is meant to
provide a uniform and consistent manner for taxpayers to reconcile cost of goods sold that they
report in Part II of Schedule M-3 for Forms 1120, 1120S and 1065.”).
110. Form 8916-A, Supplemental Attachment to Schedule M-3 (2010) (noting that the Form
8916-A “must be filed for each separate entity required to file a Schedule M-3 for Form 1120, Form
1065, Form 1065-B, Form 1120-L, Form 1120-PC, or Form1120S.”). See also IRS Updates
Requirements for E-Filing Mixed Returns, Related Schedules M-3, BNA DAILY TAX REP., Feb. 1,
2010 (stating that “IRS said a Form 8916-A, Supplemental Attachment to Schedule M-3, is required
to be filed for each return, including subsidiary returns, for those entities that report any amounts for
the cost of goods sold, interest income, or interest expense on their returns.”).
111. Form 8916-A, Supplemental Attachment to Schedule M-3.
return.112 Part I requires the taxpayer to disclose amounts attributable to

cost flow assumptions, stock option expense, other equity based
compensation, meals and entertainment, parachute payments,
compensation with Section 162(m) limitation, pension and profit
sharing, other post-retirement benefits, deferred compensation, Section
198 environmental remediation costs, amortization, depletion,
depreciation, corporate owned life insurance premiums, other Section
263A costs, inventory shrinkage accruals, excess inventory and
obsolescence reserves, cost or market write-downs, other items with
differences, and other items without differences.113 Part II asks the
taxpayer to disclose the tax-exempt interest income, interest income
from hybrid securities, sale/lease interest income, intercompany interest
income, and any other income associated with interest.114 Lastly, Part III
mandates the taxpayer to provide information about interest expense
from hybrid securities, lease/purchase interest expense, intercompany
interest expenses paid to outside and affiliated groups, and any other
interest expense.115
The burden associated with Form 8916-A supplemental attachment
is substantial. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, it will
take the corporate taxpayer in total 32 hours and 22 minutes to comply
with Form 8916-A reporting requirements, where the estimated time
spent on record keeping is 30 hours and 51 minutes, learning about the
law or the form takes 30 minutes, preparing, copying, assembling, and
sending the form to the Service is 1 hour and 1 minute.116
For tax years starting in 2009, corporate taxpayers filing Schedule
M-3 are also required to complete new Schedule B, entitled Additional
Information for Schedule M-3 Filers.117 Schedule B has ten line items
requiring the corporate taxpayer to answer eleven yes or no questions.118
The purpose of the Schedule B is to provide “answers to additional
questions” pertaining to partnership allocations, transfers of intangible
112. See id. (noting that not all of the columns have to be completed. For instance, “[a]
corporation is not required to complete columns (a) and (d) if the corporation is not required to
complete these columns on Schedule M-3.”). See id. (also noting that “[c]olumns (b) and (c) must
be completed for any tax year for which the corporation files Form 8916-A.”).
113. See id.
114. See id.
115. See id.
116. See id.
117. Kaye, supra note 77, at 599.
118. See Form 1120, Schedule B. Entities filing Form 1065 are required to use Schedule C.
See Sarah Staudenraus & George Spaeth, Ethics and Tax Procedure Corner, J. OF PASSTHROUGH
ENT., Mar/Apr 2009, at 39 (providing additional information on Schedule C).
property, cost-sharing agreements with foreign parties, changes to

accounting principles, changes in method of accounting, voluntary
employees’ beneficiary association trusts, indirect costs, and mixed
service costs.119 No burden estimates have been provided for
compliance with Schedule B.
As with Forms 8886, 8275, and 8275-R, the Service estimated how
much of a burden would be imposed on taxpayers to comply with the
new Schedule M-3. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act Notice,
the compliance cost associated with the Schedule M-3 totals 85 hours
and are as follows: 76 hours for recordkeeping, 4 hours to learn the
schedule, and 5 hours for preparation and filing.120 In comparison to
Schedule M-1, which sometimes remains a part that needs to be
calculated,121 Schedule M-3 imposes an additional compliance burden of
81.2 hours.122 When considering the possibility that a corporate
taxpayer may have to file Forms 8916, Form 8916-A, and Schedule B in
addition to Schedule M-3, the overall burden of compliance may amount
to as much as 124 hours and 7 minutes.
D. Uncertain Tax Positions and Schedule UTP

Schedule UTP presents the broadest form of corporate tax
disclosure yet.123 Schedule UTP was created in part because disclosures
for accounting purposes under FIN 48 did not provide the Service with
the “road map” to understanding taxpayers’ positions, and additional
information was necessary to ensure that taxpayers complied with the
tax law.124 In Announcement 2010-75, the Service mandated filing of
119. See Staudenraus & Spaeth, supra note 118. Starting 2006, the Service extended the
requirements of filing Schedule M-3 on partnerships, S-corporations, and insurance companies. See
IRS Explains Adequate Disclosure To Reduce Accuracy-Related Penalty, PRACTICAL TAX
STRATEGIES, Mar. 2010, at 172 (stating that “[t]axpayers that file the Schedule M-3 (Form 1065)
must complete a Schedule C, Additional Information for Schedule M-3 Filers.”).
120. See Walter G. Antognini, New Schedule M-3 Expands Reporting for Large Corporations,
THE CPA J., Aug. 2005, at 49 (citing Paperwork Reduction Act Notice calculation).
121. For instance, the California Franchise Income Return Form 100 requires calculation of
Schedule M-1 regardless if the taxpayer prepares and files Schedule M-3.
122. See Moody, Warcholik & Hodge, supra note 14, at 8 (noting the difference between
Schedule M-1, which is approximated to complete 3.8 hours, and Schedule M-3, which is
approximated to complete 85 hours).
123. See Martin J. McMahon, Jr., Ira B. Shepard & Daniel L. Simmons, Recent Developments
in Federal Income Taxation: The Year 2010, 10 FLA. TAX REV. 565, 663 (2011) (stating that The
Treasury has published proposed amendments to Reg. § 1.6012-2 to require corporations to attach a
Schedule UTP, Uncertain Tax Position Statement (or any successor form) to their income tax
returns in accordance with forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance provided by the IRS.”).
124. Beth Kern & Suzanne Luttman, Uncertain State Tax Position Financial Statement
Disclosures under FIN 48 and the New Internal Revenue Service Schedule UTP, J. OF STATE TAX.,
Schedule UTP on corporations with a specified threshold amount of

assets that issue or are included in the audited financial statements and
that file a domestic, foreign, life insurance, or casualty insurance tax
return.125 The corporate taxpayer is required to report its declared
federal income positions on the U.S. federal tax return on Schedule UTP
if the corporation or a related party records a reserve in its audited
financial statements, or if the reserve was not recorded due to an
expectation to litigate the position.126 The purpose of Schedule UTP is
to obtain taxpayer information about “tax positions that affect the U.S.
federal tax liabilities of certain corporations that issue or are included in
audited financial statements and have assets that equal or exceed”—a
specified threshold amount which will decrease during the
implementation period.127 The threshold of assets amount in 2010 was
$100 million, which, in 2012, will be reduced to $50 million and, in
2014, to $10 million.128
Schedule UTP consists of three parts: (1) Uncertain Tax Positions
for the Current Year, (2) Uncertain Tax Positions for Prior Years, and
(3) Concise Descriptions of UTPs.129 Part I of Schedule UTP requires
the taxpayer to complete the following six columns: (a) list UTP by
number, (b) provide for the primary section of the Code pertaining to
uncertainty, (c) check mark whether the timing difference associated
with the UTP is temporary or permanent, (d) identify the EIN of a pass-
through entity, (e) check mark if the position disclosed is a major tax
Jan/Feb 2011, at 54 (noting that “[w]e now have over three years of disclosures under FIN 48 with
the “road map” not being as clear as some taxing authorities had hoped.”).
125. See Ann. 2010-75. See Instructions for Schedule UTP (2010), noting a corporation must
file Schedule UTP with its income tax return if:
1. The Corporation files Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation; Form 1120-
L, U.S. Life Insurance Company Income Tax Return; or Form 1120-PC, U.S.
Property and Casualty Insurance Company Income Tax Return;
2. The corporation has assets that equal or exceed $100 million;
3. The corporation or a related party issued audited financial statements
reporting all or a portion of the corporation’s operations for all or a portion of
the corporation’s tax year; and
4. The corporation has one or more tax positions that must be reported on
Schedule UTP.
126. Instructions for Schedule UTP (2010) (noting that a “tax position for which a reserve was
recorded (or for which no reserve was recorded due an expectation to litigate) must be reported
regardless of whether the audited financial statements are prepared based on U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP), International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), or other
country-specific accounting standards, including a modified version of any of the above.”).
127. Id.
128. Ann. 2010-75.
129. Schedule UTP, Uncertain Tax Positions Statement (2010).
position, and (f) rank the tax position.130 The Part II requirement
becomes effective in 2011 and will mandate the taxpayer to provide the
information for the same six columns as in Part I.131 Part III of the
Schedule UTP provides for ample space for a taxpayer to provide a
concise description of each UTP previously identified in Part I.132 As
with previous forms and schedules, Schedule UTP is to be filed and
attached to the corporation’s income tax return.133
The Service has provided the following estimated times for
completing the Schedule UTP: 2 hours 48 minutes for recordkeeping,
36 minutes for learning about the law or the schedule, and 34 minutes
for preparing the schedule.134 The requirements of the Schedule UTP
are expected to put an additional burden on the tax department, board of
directors, C-Suite, and operational business units.135 As the phase-in
occurs, the costly effects of compliance will trickle down to small
businesses that do not have sophisticated tax departments and often do
not issue financial statements. The same will occur if states adopt the
federal version of Schedule UTP or enact their own requirements for
UTP reporting.136
III. WHERE DOES THE DUPLICATIVE REPORTING OCCUR

Promulgation of multiple reporting forms and schedules have
created a reality where taxpayers carry a large compliance and disclosure
burden as displayed in Appendix 1, while being subjected to
unnecessary duplicative reporting of the same information summarized
in Appendix 2.137 Taxpayers’ compliance burden and associated costs
130. Id. See Stephen Blough, Sean Foley & Prita Subramanian, Transfer Pricing and Schedule
UTP: Questions, Answers, and Examples, 61 TAX NOTES INT’L 371 (2011) (for extensive examples
of how to complete Schedule UTP).
131. Id.
132. Id.
133. Instructions for Schedule UTP (2010).
134. See Instructions for Form 1120 (2010).
135. Schedule UTP: The Next Step in Tax Governance and Transparency, DELOITTE, 2010, at
5, available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-
UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/Tax/
us_tax_UTP3_121310.pdf (noting the burden and cost of compliance with Schedule UTP).
136. Douglas M. Sayuk et. al., The Proposed Federal Schedule UTP and State Conformity:
Implications for Taxpayers if States Require Similar Disclosure, ACCT. POL’Y & PRAC. REP., June
11, 2010, at 395 (noting that “various states may follow their federal counterpart and develop a
Schedule UTP of their own further requiring disclosure of state specific uncertain tax positions such
as nexus, apportionment, and filing methodologies.”).
137. See Jorina Fontelera, Society Comments on Proposed UTP Schedule, NEW YORK STATE
SOC’Y OF CPAS, June 17, 2010, available at
http://www.nysscpa.org/ezine/ETPArticles/61710/print/JF61710.htm
can be significantly reduced through the study of Forms 8886, 8275,

8275-R, and Schedules M-3 and UTP, all of which contain portions that
require corporate taxpayers to repeat previously disclosed information
on another form and can be managed more effectively while providing
the same result.
Information provided on Form 8886 will have to be disclosed by
the taxpayer who files Schedule M-3. Specifically, Part II, Line 12 of
Schedule M-3 requires the taxpayer to disclose all items related to the
reportable transactions, including income (loss) per income statement,
the amount of temporary and permanent difference, and income (loss)
per tax return.138 This information must be disclosed “even if there is no
difference between the financial amounts and the taxable amounts.”139
Form 8886 contains similar disclosure requirements as Forms 8275 and
8275-R. For instance, these forms require the taxpayer to disclose types
of entities involved, a description of the transaction or assertion that will
lead to the desired tax benefit, and additional explanations of relevant
facts supporting the taxpayers’ position. Lastly, Schedule UTP may
disclose all of the information currently contained on Form 8886.
Forms 8275 and 8275-R are virtually identical and have the same
purpose of disclosure of taxpayers’ positions in order to avoid accuracy-
related penalties prescribed by the Code, as all four parts of forms 8275
and 8275-R, requests for general information, detailed explanation,
information about pass-through entity, and explanation mirror each
other. As previously noted, duplicative disclosures are present between
Forms 8275, 8275-R, and Form 8886.
Schedule M-3 also contains some of the duplicative disclosures.
Specifically, column (d) of Schedule M-3’s Part II, which reveals
deduction asserted per tax return, “adds to the workload because it
duplicates information found in other parts of the return.”140 The
information found on column (a) may be found from the taxpayer’s
general ledger income or expense accounts.141 Additional duplicity is
present in Schedule M-3’s Part II and III line items pertaining to income
(stating that “Form 8275, Form 8275-R, Form 1120, Schedule M-3 and Form 8886–currently
required for filing–already disclose many of the same items the IRS would require to be disclosed
on Schedule UTP.”).
138. See Instructions for Schedule M-3 (2010) (stating that filing of a Form 8886 for any
reportable transaction would require the taxpayer to report that reportable transaction on Schedule
M-3, Part II, line 12).
139. Id.
140. See AICPA Urges IRS to Eliminate Form 8916-A, Ease Schedule M-3 Reporting
Requirements, BNA DAILY TAX REP., Apr. 28, 2011.
141. Id.
and expense,142 research and development, and reportable transactions

which could potentially be reported on the Schedule UTP.143
In addition to duplicative reporting, there is a large amount of
dependence, support, and interaction between the forms. Instructions to
the forms and schedules often state that compliance with one form or
schedule will satisfy the compliance with another. For instance, Forms
8886, 8275, and 8275-R support Schedule M-3.144 The introduction of
Schedule M-3 affected the reporting of the significant differences
between financial and tax reporting145 that used to be disclosed on Form
8886.146 Similarly, disclosure on Schedule M-3 with an attached
schedule will satisfy the requirements for reporting of a listed
transaction.147 However, this requirement does not necessarily relieve
the taxpayer from compliance associated with Form 8886 disclosures.
Interaction between Forms 8275 and 8275-R and Schedule UTP presents
another example, where the Instructions for Schedule UTP state that if a
taxpayer provides “a complete and accurate disclosure of a tax position”
on Schedule UTP for the appropriate tax year, this disclosure will be
treated as if the corporation filed Forms 8275 or 8275-R.148
142. Id. (noting how Parts II and III of Schedule M-3 address income items and expense items
which now can be obtained through the new Schedule UTP).
143. Thompson, supra note 28 (suggesting elimination of certain items on Schedule M-3).
144. See Singleton & Smith, supra note 2, at 40 (noting that “unlike items that are combined on
the M-1 or M-3, additional disclosure must be provided on Form 8275 to satisfy the adequate
disclosure requirements to avoid the IRC section 6662 accuracy-related penalty.”).
145. Alistair M. Nevius, IRS Increases Disclosure Requirements, J. OF ACCT., May 2010, at 76
(noting that “prior to 2006, significant book-tax differences were included as a category of
reportable transactions. This went away partially due to the introduction of Schedule M-3 in
2004.”).
146. See Instructions for Schedule M-3 (2010) (stating that “a corporation will be considered
to have separately and adequately disclosed a reportable transaction if the corporation attaches a
supporting schedule that provides the following information for each reportable transaction: (1) a
description of the reportable transaction disclosed on Form 8886 for which amounts are reported on
Part II, line 12; (2) the name and tax shelter registration number, if applicable, as reported on lines
1a and 1b, respectively, of Form 8886; and (3) the type of reportable transaction (that is, listed
transaction, confidential transaction, transaction with contraction protection, etc.) as reported on line
2 of Form 8886.”). See Antognini, supra note 120, at 47-48 (for the difference in treatment
pertaining to the listed transactions, where “if a transaction is a reportable transaction both because
it gives rise to a significant book-tax difference and because it is covered by another category under
the regulations, Schedule M-3 will not by itself prove sufficient disclosure” and the taxpayer will
have to complete Form 8886).
147. See Instructions for Schedule M-3 (noting the requirements for reporting a listed
transaction, which include description provided on Form 8886’s line 3 and in the event partnership
is involved disclosure of the name and EIN of the involved entity reported on Form 8886’s line 5).
148. Instructions for Schedule UTP (2010) (stating that “[a] complete and accurate disclosure
of a taxpayers position on the appropriate year’s Schedule UTP will be treated as if the corporation
filed a Form 8275, Disclosure Statement, or Form 8275-R, Regulation Disclosure Statement,
Additional methods for compliance are also provided through the

Service’s revenue procedures and announcements, which lead to
uncertainty about which disclosures should be made where, when, and to
what extent. For instance, in Revenue Procedure 2010-15, the Service
has issued guidance when disclosure on a tax return will be deemed
adequate for the purposes of Forms 8275 and 8275-R.149 In
Announcement 2010-75, the Service stated that disclosure on the
Schedule UTP can be sufficient for reporting required on Forms 8275
and 8275-R. However, none of these alternate methods of reporting
provide precise guidance as to what the Service wants to see from
taxpayers and the outlook of the final tax deliverable. With lack of
necessary guidance, taxpayers are often left with an uncomfortable
choice: duplicating their disclosure in a substantially similar form, or
attempting to make a general disclosure that may or may not meet the
Service’s standard. The duplicative reporting that is required of
corporations and the relationship between forms is summarized in
Appendix 2.
IV. REDUCTION OF DUPLICATIVE REPORTING SHOULD LEAD TO THE

DESIRED CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY
One of the solutions to reduction of compliance costs summarized
in Appendix 1 for the overburdened corporate taxpayer is through
improved management and use of the existing disclosure forms. This
approach makes sense as it has been estimated that 90% of the overall
paperwork burden comes from the Service’s tax forms.150 The
elimination or consolidation of some of the existing forms and schedules
described in this article would provide for substantial reduction in
compliance burden for taxpayers. For instance, based on the estimates
provided by the Service, an elimination of Form 8886 through merger
with Schedule UTP or Schedule M-3 would eliminate an estimated
burden of twenty-two hours associated with compliance, record keeping,
regarding the tax position. A separate Form 8275 or Form 8275-R need not be filed to avoid
accuracy related penalties with respect to that tax position.”).
149. IRS Describes Adequate Disclosure For 2009 Returns; Provides Guidance For Schedule
M-3 Filers, STANDARD FED. TAX REP., Feb 4, 2010, at 5. See Rev. Proc. 2010-15, I.R.B. 2010-7,
Feb. 16, 2010 (noting that even if the taxpayer meets the disclosure requirements provided by Rev.
Proc. 2010-15, protection from accuracy related penalty under Section 6662 will not be provided if
the assertion on the return does not have a reasonable basis, is attributable to a tax shelter, or is not
properly substantiated by adequate records. Similarly, the disclosure will not protect tax preparers
from penalty if assertion on the tax return is a tax shelter or a reportable transaction).
150. See Keating, supra note 13.
and filing requirements. Consolidation of Forms 8275 and 8275-R into

one would shorten the taxpayers’ compliance burden by at least five
hours. When eliminated through consolidation with Form 8886,
Schedule M-3, or Schedule UTP, the reduction in compliance burden is
likely to be even higher. Reduction of Parts II and III of Schedule M-3,
a requirement that only one Schedule M-3 form is filed for all taxpayers,
or consolidation between Schedule M-3 and Schedule UTP would also
reduce the compliance burden.
The Service has made a positive step towards reducing the burden
on corporate taxpayers by reviewing whether the existing disclosure
requirements function in the manner they were intended151 and by
announcing that it is studying ways to reduce duplicate reporting.152 In
its Notice 2011-39, the Service stated that in reviewing the comments
from the public about the items that should be included on the 2011-
2012 Guidance Priority List, it will consider whether some of its prior
guidance and regulations are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or
excessively burdensome and that should be modified, streamlined,
expanded, or repealed.”153 Additional requests for comments to reduce
duplicative reporting may also be found on the Service’s website,154 as
well as an initiative to create frequently asked questions web pages in
order to address taxpayer’s reporting needs.155 Some of the most
progressive changes to reduction of duplicative disclosure reporting may
come either through Schedule UTP or creation of a single new all-
comprehensive reporting form for corporate taxpayers.
151. See Alison Bennett, IRS to Look at Corporate Governance Of Tax Risk and Transparency
Issues, ACCT. POL’Y & PRAC. REP., Oct. 2, 2009, at 916 (noting comments of the IRS Large and
Mid-Size Business Division Commissioner, Steven Miller, who stated that the IRS will continue to
“examine such issues as whether existing accounting rules and existing tax forms, such as Schedule
M-3, provide an adequate view into the tax risk process.”).
152. See Announcement 2075-10, I. R. B. 2010-41, Oct. 12, 2010. See Heather M. Rothman,
IRS Could Issue Further Guidance by Year’s End on Uncertain Tax Positions, Officials Say, BNA
DAILY TAX REP., Nov. 5, 2010 (noting comments of the IRS Special Counsel, Kathryn Zuba, “[t]he
IRS is very concerned about there being an overlap of disclosure with other requirements within the
law”).
153. Internal Revenue Notice 2011-39, available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-
39.pdf.
154. See Schedule M-3 for Large Business & International (LB&I), available at
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=119992,00.html (listing stakeholder groups
interested in helping the Service to work on reducing duplicative reporting requirements associated
with the Schedule M-3).
155. See Paul, O’Connor, TEI Requests Additional Guidance on Reporting Uncertain Tax
Positions, TAX NOTES TODAY, Apr. 27, 2011 (commanding the Service for creating FAQ page for
UTP disclosures and suggesting further development of FAQ-type guidance).
A. Increased Transparency and Reduction of Duplicative Reporting

through Schedule UTP
Practitioners believe that in some circumstances the newly
introduced Schedule UTP can be used in lieu of existing disclosure
forms to report information to the Service.156 It has been suggested by
some commentators that the Service should allow corporations to
disclose their reportable transactions on Schedule UTP, instead of filing
Form 8886, Form 8275, or Form 8275-R.157 This position is reasonable
as the Service has agreed to treat a complete and accurate disclosure of a
tax position on Schedule UTP to satisfy reporting requirements
mandated by Form 8275 or Form 8275-R (disclosure pertaining to
positions taken contrary to Treasury regulations) regarding a tax position
and its associated accuracy-related penalties.158 This view is also
rational due to the revenue procedures in the annually published Internal
Revenue Bulletin that consider a disclosure on the tax return adequate
for the purposes of substantial understatement of the accuracy-related
penalty and understatements due to unreasonable positions of the
preparer’s penalty.159
Some tax professionals have suggested that with the introduction of
Schedule UTP the Service “should eliminate Schedule M-3 because it
156. Eli J. Dicker, Statement of Eli J. Dicker, Chief Tax Counsel, TAX EXECUTIVES INST., INC.,
Oct. 18, 2010, at 7, available at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/Schedule%20UTP%20-
%20Testimony%20-%20Final%20Notes%201018%20-%20Mary%20Lou%20Fahey.pdf (noting
that Tax Executive Institute “recommends expanding the mandate of the M-3 working group to
include considerations of duplication related to Forms 8275, 8275-R, and 8886, which all seek
information that will be disclosed on Schedule UTP.”). See also Letter to Commissioner Douglas
H. Shulman, American Institute of CPAs, Dec. 2, 2010, available at
http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/Tax/Resources/IRSPracticeProcedure/Advocacy/
DownloadableDocuments/AICPA%2012.02.2010%20UTP%20letter.pdf (recommending that “the
IRS seek ways to alleviate the need for disclosure of the same information on Schedule UTP that is
required to be disclosed on other forms and schedules.”).
157. Neil D. Traubenberg, Comments of Tax Executives Institute, Inc. on Announcements
2010-9, 2010-17, and 2010-30 relating to Uncertain Tax Positions and the Policy of Restraint
submitted to The Internal Revenue Service, May 28, 2010, at 32, available at
http://www.tei.org/Documents/Advocacy/TEI%20Comments%20on%20Ann%
202010-9%20(final).pdf (stating that “Forms 8886 and 8275 already provide the IRS with
significant information about specific transactions or items. To the extent an item is already
disclosed in those forms . . . . [Schedule UTP] will yield little or no additional information for an
examiner.”).
158. See Instructions For Schedule UTP: Uncertain Tax Position Statement (2010). See also
Instructions For Form 8275: Disclosure Statement (2011) (noting that if the taxpayer has filed a
Schedule UTP, the taxpayer “may not need to file Form 8275 to satisfy the disclosure requirements
of section 6662(i).”). See also Instructions for Form 8275-R: Regulation Disclosure Statement
(2011) (noting the same).
159. See Instructions for Form 8275: Disclosure Statement.
will be duplicative.”160 However, other tax experts believe that

eliminating Schedule M-3 in its entirety and relying exclusively on
Schedule UTP “would be a serious mistake”161 and suggest reduction of
duplicative reporting where appropriate.162 While Parts II and III of
Schedule M-3 may be substantially reduced or eliminated,163 Part I
provides the Service with essential information about permanent and
timing differences and reconciliation between worldwide accounting
income and taxable income.164 As of the date of this article, the Service
expressed the desire to keep Schedule M-3 but revise it to eliminate any
duplicative reporting in light of the new Schedule UTP.165
Although the use of Schedule UTP as an all-purpose form may help
to reduce duplicative reporting, in its current state, it is unlikely to be the
most effective compliance and information gathering tool. It is
uncertain how the Service will be able to effectively process all of the
information taxpayers currently disclose through Forms 8886, 8275,
160. Neil D.Traubenberg, Tax Executive Institute Comments on Proposed Schedule, Draft
Instructions for Disclosure of Uncertain Tax Positions, TAX NOTES TODAY, June 1, 2010 (stating
that “[i]f Schedule UTP is ultimately retained, the IRS should eliminate Schedule M3 because it will
be duplicative. Taxpayers currently required to file Schedule M-3 would then revert to completing
Schedule M-1 to reconcile from financial to taxable income.”). See Alison Bennett, Broad
Spectrum of Stakeholders Criticize Uncertain Tax Positions Reporting Proposal, BNA DAILY TAX
REP., June 3, 2010 (stating that “duplicative filing requirements-such as the Schedule M-3 and the
Form 8886-should be eliminated.”).
161. J. Richard (Dick) Harvey, Jr., Schedule UTP: An Insider’s Summary of the Background,
Key Concepts, and Major Issues, 10 DEPAUL BUS. & COM. L. J. 349 (2011), available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1782951.
162. See Dicker, supra note 156. See also Neil D. Traubenberg, Comments of Tax Executives
Institute, Inc. on Announcements 2010-9, 2010-17, and 2010-30 relating to Uncertain Tax Positions
and the Policy of Restraint submitted to The Internal Revenue Service, May 28, 2010, at 32 (stating
that “[t]o eliminate duplicate reporting, we recommend eliminating the disclosure of items on
Schedule UTP for items subject to Schedule M-3 reporting. Alternatively, taxpayers should be
permitted to incorporate such items by cross-reference to the Schedule M-3 or the requirement to
file Schedule M-3 should be eliminated for taxpayers subject to Schedule UTP.”).
163. Harvey, supra note 161 (stating that Part II and Part III of Schedule M-3 “that combined
have approximately 70 line items to categorize various income and deduction amounts” could be
modified as all of these line items may not be really necessary). See Thompson, supra note 8, at 2-3
(providing in depth suggestion of which items may be eliminated or significantly reduced from the
present Schedule M-3).
164. Harvey, supra note 161 (suggesting that “the two most important components of Schedule
M-3 are (i) the reconciliation between worldwide financial accounting income and taxable income,
and (ii) the identification of permanent and timing differences” should be retained).
165. Alison Bennett, IRS Working on More NOL Guidance Under Uncertain Positions
Initiative, Wilkins Says, BNA DAILY TAX REP., Apr. 1, 2011 (referencing comments of IRS Chief
Counsel William Wilkins who said that “although IRS has a task force in place to look at the
Schedule M-3 in light of the new requirement on uncertain positions, the agency has no plans to
abandon that schedule altogether. . . . [while] stressing that IRS is working to evolve the form ‘so
there isn’t duplicative reporting.’”).
8275-R, and Schedule M-3. Without significantly amending Schedule

UTP, certain tax professionals could choose to strategically bury the
most vulnerable disclosures somewhere in the schedule. Uncertainty in
the guidance could lead to the elimination of the desired level of
transparency within our tax system. Lack of well-defined enforcement
mechanisms provides uncertainty as to how and to what extent taxpayers
will comply with disclosure requirements of Schedule UTP.
Accordingly, before Schedule UTP is considered to be implemented as
an all-inclusive disclosure form, the Service should consider addressing
how it can effectively receive all of the desired information and the
possibilities of how the new Schedule UTP reporting may be avoided by
taxpayers.
B. Obtaining Desired Level of Transparency and Reduction of

Duplicative Reporting Recommendation through a New
Comprehensive Form of Disclosure
The intent of disclosure forms and schedules is the same: to
provide the Service with information about the taxpayers’ positions and
to increase transparency. This desired effect can be achieved and
implemented through creation of a comprehensive form. Tax
practitioners generally believe that there are five general types of tax
positions that lead to recordation of tax reserves in accordance with FIN
48 and that the Service will continue to carefully examine regardless of
whether the item was disclosed: (1) items reported on Forms 8275,
8275-R, or 8886; (2) financial and tax accounting differences subject to
disclosure and reconciliation on Schedule M-3; (3) transfer pricing; (4)
“tiered issues” and industry specific issues; and (5) significant corporate
transactions such as reorganizations, liquidations, or changes of
accounting methods.166
Creation of a single schedule that covers five of these reporting
situations would provide the Service with the majority of the information
it seeks to ensure compliance with the U.S. tax laws and regulations.
Simultaneously, the new all-inclusive schedule may potentially eliminate
much of the duplicative reporting, promote uniformity, and lead to the
transparency the Service is seeking from corporate taxpayers’
disclosures. To avoid the problems noted in this article, drafters of the
new schedule should not only concentrate on the content of information
that the Service wants taxpayers to provide, but also on the most
166. See Traubenberg, supra note 160.

effective way the requested information can be delivered. Thus, to help

successful implementation of this new schedule, the Service could take
into consideration the taxpayers’ cost of compliance and legal rights
from disclosing legally protected confidential information.
To ensure compliance, the Service should consider implementing
proper enforcement mechanisms, which may include financial penalties,
extending the statute of limitations, or removal of the policy of restraint
during litigation.167 The model for penalties can be adopted from
already existing laws and regulations with appropriate modifications
where necessary. These rules are likely to be enforced by the courts.
For instance, a court in Deutsche Bank AG v. United States ruled that a
corporate tax return that failed to attach and include associated
mandatory forms could not be processed.168
A new, all-inclusive schedule that reduces compliance costs,
protects privileged information, and creates desired transparency is
achievable. To accomplish this objective, the Service and taxpayers
need to work together, exchange ideas about implementation, be
reasonable, and stay focused on the overall goal of transparency.
Continuous, open communication as during the creation and
formalization of Schedule UTP should allow for creation of a disclosure
form that provides the Service with the information it needs to enforce
tax laws and regulation, while managing corporate taxpayers’
compliance costs by reducing unnecessary duplicative disclosures.
V. CONCLUSION
Prior to promulgating any new disclosure rules, it would prove
beneficial for the Service to research and compare its existing reporting
requirements to determine that any new issues are not duplicative of
prior forms. Undoubtedly some of the above-mentioned duplicity,
compliance awkwardness, and significant burden summarized in
Appendix 1 could be avoided. Reduction of duplicity present in the tax
forms summarized in Appendix 2 would be consistent with the Service’s
objectives of “certainty, consistency, and efficiency;” facilitate
identification of important tax issues for compliance; streamline audits;
167. J. Richard Harvey, Jr., Schedule UTP Guidance – Initial Observations, TAX NOTES, Oct.
4, 2010, at 117 (suggesting that Service’s self-imposed policy of restraint should apply only to
corporations that accurately and adequately complete Schedule UTP).
168. Deutsche Bank AG v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 423 (Fed. Cl. 2010). See Thomas Cryan,
John Keenan & Gretchen Woods, Failure to Attach Forms Rendered Return Non-Processible and
Not Timely Filed, PRACTICAL TAX STRATEGIES, Feb. 2011, at 80 (describing the court’s ruling in
detail).
and, reduce the burden on all parties involved.169 It would not be

necessary for the Service to mandate new disclosures if desired
information could be obtained from other existing forms or sources.
While aggressively engaging in increasing revenue and enforcing
compliance with tax laws, the Service also considers how their actions
affect the corporate taxpayer in its attempts to comply with the existing
laws and regulations.170 By creating an open communication forum
through Form 13285-A, the Service has taken an affirmative step
towards reducing complexity of the tax code.171 Time will tell whether
the U.S. corporate tax regime and its duplicative reporting requirements
will continue to impose heavy disclosure burdens on corporate
taxpayers, or whether the Service will adopt taxpayers’ practical
suggestions to reduce compliance burdens and associated costs.
169. See Singleton & Smith, supra note 2, at 39 (referencing the objectives of the Service).
170. Meg Shreve, Honeywell CEO Says Tax Reform essential to Fiscal Recovery, TAX NOTES
TODAY, Apr. 12, 2011 (noting comments of David M. Cote, CEO of Honeywell International Inc.,
who stated that the U.S. corporate tax system “needs to be the mosquito extracting blood from the
host–irritating but very survivable–and not the vampire killing the host in the process.”).
171. See Form 13285-A, Reducing Tax Burden on America’s Taxpayers (Referral Form for
Use by the Public), available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13285a.pdf.
Appendix 1
Form Estimated Taxpayers’ Compliance Burden
Form 8886 • 22 hours and 14 minutes
Form 8275 • 5 hours and 41 minutes
Form 8275-R • 5 hours and 27 minutes
Schedule M-3 • At least 85 hours. Estimates on compliance
with Schedule B associated with Schedule M-3
have not been provided.
• If Form 8916 is used, add additional 6 hours and
45 minutes.
• If Form 8916-A is used, add additional 30 hours
and 51 minutes.
Schedule • Compliance estimates have not been provided.
UTP
Appendix 2
Form Unnecessary Duplicative Reporting Burden
Form 8886 • Can be reported on Schedule M-3, Part II, line
12, where the taxpayer is required to report all
items related to the reportable transactions,
including income (loss) per income statement,
the amount of temporary and permanent
difference, and income (loss) per tax return.
The taxpayer is also required to attach details
pertaining to this disclosure along with Schedule
M-3.
• Contains similar disclosure information as
Forms 8275 and 8275-R.
• Schedule UTP may disclose all of the
information contained on Form 8886.
Form 8275 • Identical in all parts to Form 8275-R.
• Contains similar disclosure information as Form
8886.
• Taxpayers may disclose information contained
on this form on Schedule UTP.
Form 8275-R • Identical in all parts to Form 8275.
• Contains similar disclosure information as Form
8886.
• Taxpayers may disclose information contained
on this form on Schedule UTP.
Schedule M-3 • Can report all of the information contained on
Form 8886, 8275, and 8275-R.
Schedule • May include all of the information contained on
UTP Forms 8886, 8275, and 8275-R and some
information contained on Schedule M-3.

9 Lipin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Lipin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9 Lipin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10- LIPIN_MACRO FINAL.

DOCM 4/11/2012 1:25 PM

FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY AND THE

I. Disclosure Compliance Burden on Corporate Taxpayers 120

120 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

I. DISCLOSURE COMPLIANCE BURDEN ON CORPORATE TAXPAYERS

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 121

create additional work for tax practitioners, which inevitably lead to

122 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 123

Service is able to improve its processes and resources.20 Creating new

124 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

not increase the amount of the accuracy-related penalty, their respective

II. CORPORATE TAX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 125

A. Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement and Form 8886

126 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

notifying the Service of participation in the listed transaction as

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 127

B. Accuracy-Related Penalty Disclosure Statement Forms 8275 and

128 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

unreasonable positions or disregard of rules and the economic substance

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 129

its amount, and the nature of the controversy or potential controversy.”53

C. Net Income (Loss) Reconciliation Disclosure and Schedule M-3

130 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

corporate taxpayers have different motives during preparation of

1. Early Attempts to Adequately Demonstrate the Differences

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 131

The current version of Schedule M-1 is used by corporations whose

132 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 133

domestic corporate taxpayer that is not required to file Schedule M-3

134 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

returns,84 and reduced time spent on auditing.85 Schedule M-3 was

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 135

financial statement net income (loss) for the consolidated financial

One of the most common examples of a temporary difference is

136 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

3. Additional Disclosure Requirements Associated with Schedule

Source Income of U.S. Multinational Companies, NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION—TAX INSTITUTE

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 137

company, a property and casualty insurance company, and a

The purpose of Form 8916 was to “reconcile Schedule M-3 taxable

138 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

return.112 Part I requires the taxpayer to disclose amounts attributable to

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 139

property, cost-sharing agreements with foreign parties, changes to

D. Uncertain Tax Positions and Schedule UTP

140 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

Schedule UTP on corporations with a specified threshold amount of

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 141

III. WHERE DOES THE DUPLICATIVE REPORTING OCCUR

142 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119

can be significantly reduced through the study of Forms 8886, 8275,

2012] FAILING CORPORATE TAX TRANSPARENCY 143

and expense,142 research and development, and reportable transactions

144 AKRON TAX JOURNAL [27:119