Abstract

The roller coaster ride of the case of Xilinx Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue continues to cause consternation in tax circles, despite the decision by the Court of Appeals and the release of new temporary regulations in 2009. Following the Court of Appeals’ decision withdrawing its own earlier decision, this article looks at the implications of the decision and considers the Australian position on cost-sharing agreements.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call