Yes, the IRS can challenge prices assigned to transactions between related companies after those transactions occur, but these cases do not establish a general power to replace an old price with whatever later results show. The Meta case produced a Tax Court valuation of transferred intellectual property, with tax computations still to follow. In Perrigo, a district court discussed periodic adjustments while emphasizing that the arm’s-length standard remains controlling. The transactions, legal issues, and procedural postures differ.
What “repricing” means in these disputes
Multinational companies may transfer intellectual property, services, products, or contract rights among related entities. Transfer-pricing rules determine the terms those entities should use for tax purposes. The central benchmark is generally the arm’s-length standard: what independent parties would have agreed to in comparable circumstances.
A later examination can scrutinize the price or value used for an earlier transaction. For some transfers of intangible property, regulations also provide for periodic adjustments tied to income attributable to the intangible. That does not make every disappointing or unexpectedly successful outcome proof that the original price was wrong. The relevant law, transaction, and information available when the parties set the terms all matter.
Bloomberg Law’s October 9, 2026 search-result excerpt framed the issue as whether the IRS can “reach back and change the value of intracompany transactions years after they’re done.” That is a useful question, but neither case answers it with an unlimited yes-or-no rule.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
What happened in the Meta case
The 2010 transaction and Tax Court valuation
Facebook, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. No. 9, concerns a platform contribution transaction connected to a cost-sharing arrangement between Facebook US and its Irish subsidiary. In its May 22, 2025 opinion, the Tax Court analyzed the value of the contributions and the application of the income method under the relevant cost-sharing regulations.
Meta’s 2026 Form 10-K says the court valued the transferred intellectual property at $7.79 billion, $1.48 billion more than Meta had reported. That is the court’s valuation of the property in the 2010 case—not a final determination of the tax owed. Meta said the court would review tax computations submitted by both sides and determine tax due in a subsequent decision. After entry of that decision, either party could appeal to the Ninth Circuit, according to the filing.
Other Meta tax years are separate disputes
Meta’s filing describes a separate notice covering 2011–2013. It concerns the same transfer-pricing position as the 2010 case, as well as additional transfer-pricing and tax-credit issues; it should not be merged into the 2010 valuation proceeding.
For 2017–2019, Meta disclosed that the IRS asserted $15.89 billion in additional tax, plus interest and penalties. The filing says the largest issue involved the underlying transfer-pricing transaction litigated in the 2010 case. Meta said it petitioned the Tax Court in December 2025 and that the asserted adjustments were not a final determination and omitted specified offsets. The $15.89 billion is therefore an IRS assertion as reported by Meta, not an adjudicated liability or final tax bill.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Rank #3
The same filing said issues for 2014–2016 were before IRS Appeals; U.S. tax years 2020 and later remained open to examination; and Irish Revenue could examine 2021 and later years. Those are filing-date disclosures, not assurances about the status of those matters today.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened in the Perrigo case
A refund suit involving omeprazole and ANDA-related rights
Perrigo Co. v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-00737, is a tax refund case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Perrigo’s filing describes IRS transfer-pricing disputes involving U.S. distribution of store-brand over-the-counter products, including generic omeprazole, and arrangements involving ANDA-related matters. The district court’s September 25, 2025 opinion predominantly sided with Perrigo on the omeprazole and ANDA issues, according to the company.
The amounts associated with the dispute describe different things. Perrigo’s 2026 Form 10-K says it sought approximately $113.3 million in cumulative deferred charges in the litigation, reflecting its described concession on a 5.24% royalty for omeprazole sales. That is the company’s stated claim, not an amount the court necessarily awarded. Bloomberg Tax characterized the district-court result as producing an approximately $162 million refund. Because that is a secondary description and the precise final judgment or refund computation is not established by the cited company disclosure, the two figures should not be treated as interchangeable.
Periodic adjustments remain bounded by arm’s-length pricing
The Perrigo opinion discusses Treasury regulations that permit certain periodic adjustments for intangible transfers, including the requirement that income be “commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.” But the court also explains that the arm’s-length standard applies alongside that requirement. In context, it states: “The latter still controls.” The antecedent is the arm’s-length standard, not a broad permission to ignore actual later income or to rewrite any historic transaction at will.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallBest Value
The practical point is that later income may be relevant under rules governing a particular intangible transfer, but it does not displace the need to apply the controlling arm’s-length standard to the transaction and facts at issue. The Perrigo court’s discussion should not be converted into a universal rule for every related-party price.
The district-court ruling is under appeal
Perrigo reported that final, appealable judgment was entered on January 27, 2026. The Department of Justice appealed on March 26, 2026, and Perrigo cross-appealed on April 6, 2026. The company’s filing records those appeal milestones; the cited materials do not establish an appellate disposition. The district court’s result therefore should not be described as the last word.
Quick Recap
How the cases differ
| Question | Meta | Perrigo |
|---|---|---|
| Transaction | Platform contribution transaction linked to a cost-sharing arrangement between Facebook US and its Irish subsidiary. | Related-party arrangements involving U.S. distribution of generic omeprazole and ANDA-related matters. |
| Court and kind of case | Tax Court deficiency litigation concerning the 2010 tax year and transfer pricing. | District-court tax refund action, No. 1:17-cv-00737, in the Western District of Michigan. |
| Central issues in the cited decision | Valuation of platform contributions and application of the income method under cost-sharing regulations. | Issues involving economic substance and section 482, with discussion of periodic adjustments and the arm’s-length standard. |
| What the reported result establishes | A court value for the transferred intellectual property; tax computations remained to be determined. | A district-court ruling predominantly favoring Perrigo on the omeprazole and ANDA issues, followed by reported appeals. |
| Status of prominent figure | Meta reported the $7.79 billion value and $1.48 billion difference from its reported figure; the separate $15.89 billion amount is an IRS assertion for 2017–2019, not a final liability. | Approximately $113.3 million is Perrigo’s stated amount sought; approximately $162 million is Bloomberg Tax’s description of the refund result. They are not equivalent measures. |
What to take from the comparison
- Later scrutiny is possible, but the governing rule depends on the transaction. Meta’s cited decision concerns platform contributions under cost-sharing regulations; Perrigo discusses intangible-related periodic adjustments in a different dispute.
- Later results do not automatically establish the correct original price. Periodic-adjustment rules may make income attributable to an intangible relevant, while arm’s-length pricing remains a constraint.
- Keep valuation, asserted tax, and refund claims distinct. The Meta valuation is not the final tax computation; the IRS’s 2017–2019 notice amount is not an adjudicated liability; Perrigo’s claim and reported refund are separate figures with different sources and meanings.
- Procedural status matters. Meta’s 2010 computations were still pending in the company’s account, and Perrigo reported appeals from its district-court judgment. The cited materials do not establish later appellate outcomes or the latest docket status.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
