The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Neither case settles whether the IRS can reprice intercompany transactions years after they close. What the two disputes show is how the question is being fought. In Meta’s case, the U.S. Tax Court valued intellectual property transferred to an Irish subsidiary at $7.79 billion, but that valuation is not yet a final tax bill. In Perrigo’s case, a federal district court in Michigan predominantly sided with the company on its omeprazole arrangements, while explaining that periodic adjustments exist for certain intangible transfers and that the arm’s-length standard still controls. Both matters are still moving through the courts.
Bloomberg Law’s October 9, 2026 coverage frames the broader issue as whether the IRS “can reach back and change the value of intracompany transactions years after they’re done,” and calls the relevant mechanism “periodic adjustments.” That framing is a useful lens, but these two cases answer it only in part.
The two cases side by side
The disputes share a theme, retrospective scrutiny of related-party pricing, but they differ in transaction, forum, and posture.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →| Dimension | Meta / Facebook | Perrigo |
|---|---|---|
| Transaction | Platform contribution tied to a cost-sharing arrangement between Facebook US and its Irish subsidiary | Related-party arrangements for the U.S. distribution of store-brand over-the-counter products, including a generic omeprazole product and ANDA-related contract rights |
| Court and remedy | U.S. Tax Court; deficiency proceedings | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan; tax refund action, No. 1:17-cv-00737 |
| Core legal questions | Valuation of the transferred intellectual property under the income method of the cost-sharing regulations | Economic substance, section 482, and periodic adjustments for pricing intangible assets, along with the omeprazole and ANDA issues |
| Key ruling | Court valued the transferred IP at $7.79 billion in a May 22, 2025 opinion (164 T.C. No. 9) | September 25, 2025 opinion predominantly sided with Perrigo on the omeprazole and ANDA issues |
| Procedural status | Tax computations and a final decision on tax due were still to come, per Meta’s 2025 Form 10-K (filed 2026); either party may appeal to the Ninth Circuit after entry of that decision | Final, appealable judgment entered January 27, 2026; Department of Justice appeal filed March 26, 2026; Perrigo cross-appeal filed April 6, 2026; no appellate decision reported |
How later results fit into transfer pricing
A transfer price is set when the parties enter the arrangement, using what they knew or reasonably projected at that time. Tax law then tests that price against the standards below.
- Arm’s-length standard. Intercompany prices are measured against what unrelated parties would have agreed to under comparable circumstances. This is the baseline the other rules build on.
- Commensurate-with-income requirement. For transfers of intangibles, the payment is expected to be commensurate with the income the intangible generates. This is the point where later results can enter the analysis.
- Periodic adjustments. Where the regulations allow, the IRS may adjust the price in later years by reference to actual results rather than only the original projections. Exceptions and conditions apply, so this is a rule for particular transactions and facts, not a general power to reopen any old price.
Meta / Facebook
Facebook, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. No. 9, decided May 22, 2025, concerns a platform contribution connected with a cost-sharing arrangement between Facebook US and its Irish subsidiary. The opinion analyzes how the contributed intellectual property should be valued and how the income method under the cost-sharing regulations applies.
The Tax Court’s valuation
The court valued the transferred intellectual property at $7.79 billion, which Meta’s disclosure describes as $1.48 billion more than the figure it had reported. Subtracting the gap implies a reported value of about $6.31 billion. The $7.79 billion is a valuation. It is not the tax the court determined to be due.
Rank #2
What remained after the valuation
Meta’s 2025 Form 10-K says the court would review tax computations submitted by both sides and then determine tax due in a forthcoming decision. Either party could appeal to the Ninth Circuit after that decision is entered. Those are the steps the company described in 2026. Later docket activity is not reflected in this article, so readers should check the Tax Court docket for current status.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsSeparate notices for 2011–2013 and 2017–2019
Meta’s disclosure covers several matters that should not be merged with the 2010 valuation:
- 2011–2013. Meta reports a notice that covers the same transfer-pricing position, along with additional transfer-pricing and tax-credit issues. This article reports no separate dollar figure for that notice.
- 2017–2019. In September 2025, Meta received a notice asserting $15.89 billion in additional tax for those years, plus interest and penalties. The largest issue involves the same underlying transaction litigated in the 2010 case. Meta petitioned the Tax Court in December 2025. The company says the asserted adjustments are not final and do not reflect specified offsets.
The $15.89 billion is the IRS’s assertion. It is not a court finding, and the company disputes it.
Other years still open
Meta’s filing also reports unresolved 2014–2016 issues before IRS Appeals, and says 2020 and later U.S. tax years remain open to examination. Its Irish tax years from 2021 onward remain open to examination by Irish Revenue. These are disclosures as of the filing date and can change.
Rank #4
Perrigo
The omeprazole and ANDA dispute
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 2025 Form 10-K describes IRS transfer-pricing disputes over the U.S. distribution of store-brand over-the-counter products, including omeprazole. The contested arrangements involve related-party contract rights tied to a generic omeprazole product and to ANDA matters. An ANDA, or abbreviated new drug application, is the FDA pathway for approving a generic drug by reference to an approved product.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Perrigo’s filing describes the September 25, 2025 opinion as predominantly siding with the company on the omeprazole and ANDA issues.
Best Value
What the court said about later results
The opinion’s periodic-adjustment discussion is the part most relevant to repricing. It explains that Treasury regulations provide for periodic adjustments tied to pricing intangible assets, and it connects that rule to the commensurate-with-income requirement. It also explains that the arm’s-length standard remains controlling. The sentence most often quoted from the opinion is “The latter still controls.” In context, “the latter” refers to the arm’s-length standard, which the court described as applying alongside the commensurate-with-income requirement.
That context sets the limit on the argument. Later income can matter under the commensurate-with-income requirement, and a periodic adjustment can change the payment for later years. The opinion does not support the broader claim that actual results replace a reasonable price set at the time of the transaction in every case. Its reasoning is tied to the facts and regulations before it, and its discussion also touches economic-substance and section 482 questions.
Judgment and appeals
Perrigo reports that the court entered a final, appealable judgment on January 27, 2026. The Department of Justice appealed on March 26, 2026, and Perrigo cross-appealed on April 6, 2026. No appellate disposition is reported in these filings, so the district court’s ruling is not the final word. A refund case from a federal district court goes to the court of appeals for that circuit, which for Michigan is the Sixth Circuit.
Reading the dollar figures
Each amount answers a different question, so the table keeps the categories apart.
Quick Recap
| Figure | Amount | Status category | Source and date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meta, transferred IP value (2010 case) | $7.79 billion | Court valuation | Tax Court opinion, 164 T.C. No. 9 (May 22, 2025); Meta 2025 Form 10-K (filed 2026) |
| Meta, reported value of the same IP (implied by the disclosed gap) | About $6.31 billion | Company-reported figure | Meta 2025 Form 10-K (filed 2026) |
| Meta, 2017–2019 notice | $15.89 billion in additional tax, plus interest and penalties | IRS assertion; not final; excludes specified offsets | Meta 2025 Form 10-K (filed 2026) |
| Perrigo, refund result (tax years not stated in the filings cited) | Approximately $162 million | Refund reported as the outcome of the district-court decision; secondary reporting, not verified against the judgment | Bloomberg Tax, 2025 |
| Perrigo, cumulative deferred charge sought (tax years not stated in the filings cited) | Approximately $113.3 million | Amount Perrigo seeks in the litigation; not a court award; tied to Perrigo’s described concession on a 5.24% royalty for omeprazole sales | Perrigo 2025 Form 10-K (filed 2026) |
What the comparison does and does not establish
- Later results are a tool in some transactions, not a universal reset. Meta’s valuation and Perrigo’s periodic-adjustment discussion both operate within transaction-specific rules.
- The transactions differ. Meta concerns the valuation of a platform contribution under cost-sharing rules. Perrigo concerns distribution arrangements and generic-drug contract rights, with an economic-substance question in the mix. A ruling in one should not be mapped onto the other without checking the transaction type.
- The procedural routes differ. Meta’s matters are Tax Court proceedings with a Ninth Circuit appeal route. Perrigo’s refund action is on appeal from both sides in a district-court posture.
- Status changes quickly. The company filings cited here date from 2026. Activity after those filings, including any Tax Court decision in Meta’s case or any Sixth Circuit ruling in Perrigo’s, is not reflected in this article. Check the court dockets before relying on a current 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.
