INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan 13 introduced a Country-by-country Reporting (CbCR) to enhance the assessment transparency of transfer pricing and BEPS-related risks faced by tax administrations. Per the OECD, Country-by-Country Reporting, Compilation of 2025 Peer Review Reports: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13, the plan requires multinational companies with revenue over an agreed threshold to submit annual tax reports to the local authorities of the ultimate parent entity’s (UPE) jurisdiction. The objective was to ensure that compliance is more facilitative than punitive instead of simply serving as a mechanism for imposing sanctions on multinationals.1 One of the adopters of this initiative was India which incorporated the CbCR into the Finance Act, 2016 by inserting s.286 into the Income-Tax Act, 1961(“ITA, 1961”) and framed under Rule 10DB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.2 However, legal and interpretational qualms have been raised by companies and the OECD about the Indian CbCR framework not completely aligning with the minimum standards of OECD. Concerns in the 2024 report by the OECD identify ambiguities in statutory definitions, rigid procedural requirements, an indifferent penalty regime and inadequate respect for privacy.3 Furthermore, as will be discussed in this article, independent research also revealed a possible clash between s.286 of the ITA, 1961 and constitutional principles under the Constitution of India, 1950. This article argues that these unresolved legal uncertainties undermine the objective of CbCR and expose taxpayers to avoidable compliance, penal and litigation issues.
STATUTORY FAULT LINES IN INDIA’S CBCR FRAMEWORK
A. Brief overview
The CbCR mechanism in India is present through s.92D and s.286 of the ITA, 1961 with s.286 being the operative provision. The provisions mandate a wide set of reporting obligations applicable to corporates.4 They are supplemented by Rules 10DA to 10DB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 that lay down the timeline and method to meet the compliance requirements.5 Non-compliance with the obligations attracts penalties under s.271GB ITA, 1961 such as sanctions for both overall non-compliance as well as daily default penalties.6 Thus, CbCR compliance is not merely procedural but mandatory with strict penal liability upon failure to abide. The CbCR also allows for automatic exchange of information between multiple jurisdictions to effectively monitor and ensure that corporate entities are compliant across countries.7
B. Gaps in statutory provisions defining scope and income threshold calculation of financial entities and its adverse effect on reporting obligations
Since the CbCR mandates international groups to submit annual reports to the tax authorities of their UPE’s jurisdiction (and subsequently exchange information with other countries), it is important that the scope, nature and composition of this ‘international group’ be clearly laid down within the statutory provisions. However, this is not so. The ITA, 1961 provides limited guidance on what constitutes an ‘international group” or its scope.8 Most importantly, it does not meet the standards of OECD Model legislation’s definitions.9 Per the Model Legislation’s definition, to establish a ‘group’, ownership or control and consolidation must be established, then establish whether it is a multinational entity group, wherein its cross-border structure should be shown and then confirmed that it is not an excluded multinational entity group as per the revenue threshold.10 S.286(9)(g) simply reduces these steps to cover the cross-border element and omits the foundational consolidation requirements. Thus, the definition of ‘International group’ under s.286(9)(g) ITA, 1961 captures the two structural limbs of the OECD model but drops the important ‘subject to tax’ qualifier from the parent entity aspect. While it is functional, the provision does not fully replicate the definitional structure of the OECD model.11
As a result, it creates uncertainty about how permanent establishments are to be treated as compared to subsidiaries. Notably, while the statutory text does address permanent establishments, various commentaries note that practical ambiguities may arise pertaining to whether permanent establishments in the absence of separate financial statements are covered, leaving a grey area to be addressed.12When the observations in these commentaries are applied to the Indian context, it can be seen that this complicates the perception of complex multinational structures, such as investment companies or hybrid entities making compliance complicated, especially for Indian entities that are required to gather and report group-level data over which they do not have much control.13 Furthermore, it also has implications for compliance with Pillar 2 of BEPS which requires entities to report global income and effective tax rates. This can overlap with CbCR reporting requirements.14
S. 286 of ITA, 1961 also does not present a clear distinction in trigger clarity and obligations between parent entities and alternative reporting entities.15 While s.286(4) does lay down the three triggers for local filing, the operative limitations lie in their substantive underdetermination rather than their absence. For instance, the ‘systemic failure’ trigger under s.286(9)(l) is only activated upon administrative intimation rather than requiring an objective legal criterion.16 This implies that, constituent entities have to await government notifications instead of being able to self-assess (a gap that the CBDT had to patch in 2018). Similarly, the ‘not obligated to file’ trigger requires a constituent entity to independently verify the domestic CbCR obligations of a foreign parent for which no mechanism is provided under the statute. Thus, entities are dependent on private notification rather than accessible public law.17 Such issues make the triggers substantially incomplete.
Per the 2021 Notification No.31/2021, the current threshold under Rule 10DB is INR 6,400 crore.18 However, there is limited guidance on how this figure is to be calculated. Different jurisdictions apply different accounting standards with currency conversion also playing a key role that results in divergent interpretation. Any mismatch between a group’s global accounting calculation and its Indian counterpart will create trigger penalties.19 This lack of clarity will be further compounded in the context of BEPS pillar 2 which will overlap with CbCR reporting requirements and the resulting ambiguities in threshold calculation and group definition may expose Indian entities to heightened compliance challenges.
Thus, the absence of explicit statutory clarification or judicial interpretation of these provisions increases interpretational risk and exposes taxpayers to potential disputes and penalties under s.271GB ITA, 1961.
C. Statutory provisions fail to consider delay constraints and create procedural barriers
S.286 of ITA, 1961 mandates a rigid filing timeline. It states that the CbCR report must be furnished within a rigid twelve-month deadline from the end of the previous relevant accounting year.20 The exception under s. 273B does provide for a ‘reasonable cause’ to justify extension, it however fails to define or provide guidance on what constitutes ‘reasonable cause’, in the context of CbCR.21 By way of general jurisprudence on penalty imposition in tax cases through decisions such as Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa22 and Union of India v Dharmendra Textiles Processors23, a standard for penalty imposition can be made out, however, the judiciary has not yet directly addressed CbCR specific circumstances. This creates unpredictability. Furthermore, since s.271GB imposes an automatic and daily accruing penalty from the moment of default, the penalty will keep accruing while the taxpayers come up with a defence.24
The CbCR obligations in India follow a tri-level documentation system requiring entities to provide a master file, a local file and a CbCR report that often can result in duplicative effort, delays and increased compliance risk.25 Similarly, where parent entities reside in countries that do not automatically exchange information with India or where the domestic laws require alternative filing requirements, Indian entities will face dual filing obligations or risk penalties despite good-faith compliance.26 These are just some of the possible unforeseen delays that s.286 ITA, 1961 has not considered.
This failure to provide a uniform statutory framework that considered possibilities of delays due to unforeseen or uncontrollable factors exposes taxpayers to higher penalty risk while also highlighting the Indian CbCR framework’s conflict with the principle of certainty and predictability in international tax law and its intended objective of the framework to be facilitative rather than punitive.27
D. Gaps in the statutory provisions create a disproportional penalty regime violative of Art.14 of the Indian Constitution
S. 271GB ITA, 1961 provides for daily penalties for non-filing, that accumulate until the entity finishes its compliance requirements, leading to enhanced financial liability. The provision creates a strict liability for penalty imposition. The statute also allows such penalties to be escalated for prolonged defaults and will be imposed regardless of whether the company engaged in any actual tax evasion practices or loss of revenue.28 This would imply that even procedural lapses can trigger sanctions.29 However, while this strict compliance mandates timely filing, it also raises questions pertaining to proportionality and fairness where delays are beyond the control of the Indian entity. The provisions apply the same standard of penalty determination to all kinds of defaults and regardless of whether they are caused by parent entities or by third party entities such as subsidiaries.30 Furthermore, the statute provides limited scope for the entity to defend themselves by showing ‘reasonable cause’ and places the burden on the one being assessed.31 Furthermore, entities can only seek relief through a general exemption under s.273B of ITA, 1961.32 This creates a disproportionate treatment, where minor or unavoidable lapses can attract the same penalty as non-compliance and as a result, potentially undermine the principles of fairness and equity, both of which are present in Indian tax jurisprudence and international tax law.33
From the perspective of the Indian Constitution, this framework of penalty will first attract scrutiny under Art.14 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 which guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrary action. The court in E P Royappa observed that state action lacking rational basis are arbitrary and going by that analogy, the absence of grading criteria for penalties or the failure to distinguish between unintentional procedural lapses and deliberate non-compliance can render the regime arbitrary.34
When applying this test to s.271 GB, the penalties framework fails on three counts, firstly, the rational nexus is weak, wherein the penalties are triggered regardless of whether the default was caused by factors beyond the taxpayer’s control. Second, the penalties are disproportionate since they escalate quickly and can accumulate to an amount far exceeding the gravity of the procedural lapse, wherein even minor inadvertent delays will have the same effect as that of deliberate non-compliance. Thirdly, the regime is arbitrary in application, wherein it offers no grading, discretion or consideration of circumstances that could justify a delay and uniformly applies the penalties to all taxpayers. Taken together, the punitive framework under s.271GB exemplifies a punitive rather than a facilitative approach. This clearly violates OECD’s expectations of a penalty imposition which insist state members to adopt penalty frameworks that are proportionate, non-arbitrary, and commensurate with the nature of non-compliance.35
E. Failure to consider confidentiality concerns from misuse of CbCR data is violative of the Constitution
The OECD emphasizes the protection and vetting of CbCR data purely for risk assessment purposes to prevent misuse of taxpayer’s commercially sensitive information, however, the provisions in India do not live up to this expectation.36 S.280 of ITA, 1961 penalises unwarranted disclosure by public servants but does not contain CbCR-specific restrictions on how the data ought to be used especially when used for transfer pricing adjustments.37 This creates uncertainties around the permissible boundaries of enforcement and introduces risks pertaining to unauthorized access or misuse of commercially sensitive data.38 Furthermore, taxpayers do not have any exclusive remedies but would have to rather seek general breach of confidentiality remedies under the ITA, 1961 if their information is mishandled. Their only recourse would be to file appeals to challenge the resulting improper tax assessment. 39
As observed by the court in Puttaswamy v. Union of India40, personal information relating to an individual is protected information, disclosure of which may potentially violate Art.21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.41 The provisions thus, raises potential concerns under Art 21 in cases of unauthorised use or misuse of data.
THE WAY FORWARD
Addressing the legal and interpretational challenges in India’s CbCR framework through statutory clarification is important to protect Indian tax paying entities. Key terms such as ‘international group’, ‘UPE’ must be defined as to their scope and nature to delineate the specific triggers for filing obligations and ensure uniform compliance. Australia’s recent public CbCR regime Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and other measures) Act, 2024 introduced reporting periods that requires multinational companies with consolidated global income of AUD 1 billion or more to publicly disclose detailed tax and financial information to the Australian Taxation office (ATO) within 12 months.42 S.3D, 3DA and 3DB of the Taxation Administration Act (Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Treasury Laws Amendment Act, 2024) establishes the Australian CbCR reporting framework. S. 3D defines ‘CBC reporting group’ as a group of entities for which a CBC reporting parent is responsible for preparing consolidated financial statements (Per Income Tax Assessment Act, 1997), while 3DA and 3DB list the reporting obligations, corrections and exceptions.43 The Commissioner of Taxation is also bestowed with discretionary power to grant exemptions under certain grounds.44 Thus, unlike India’s punitive and automatic penalty forward regime, the Australian framework provides a broader scope for considering justifications for non-compliance and statutory avenues for mitigation.
The Indian regime can adopt some of these definitions to help entities obtain clarity on their position and associated obligations.
Similarly, when introducing penal consequences to non-compliance with CbCR mechanisms, the United Kingdom has adopted a more calibrated, notice-based approach in comparison to the Indian automatic and escalating penalties system, by providing taxpayers with a chance to present a ‘reasonable excuse’ for their non-compliance and permits capping of penalties and even removes liability entirely if the reason is justified.45 In UK, The Taxes (Base Erosion and Profit shifting) CbCR Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/237) is the domestic tax legislation that mirrors the OECD BEPS Action 13 framework wherein the penalty structure incorporates a ‘reasonable excuse’ defence.46 The HMRC’s guidance on CbCR states that, if an entity fails to provide its CbCR report on time, it will only face penalties if it fails to do so without a ‘reasonable excuse’ or knowingly supplies incorrect information. Thus, reasonable delays attributable to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control will be exempt from penalty if properly justified.47 Authorities are thereby provided a degree of flexibility and fairness that contrasts with the automatic, cumulative penalty framework of India.
Along the same lines, the Indian penalty regime for non-compliance must also be broken down to distinguish various types of procedural failures and defaults to ensure that enforcement is proportionate and fair.
Lastly, there must be clear statutory safeguards on how CbCR data must be handled in accordance with the Indian Constitutional principles of confidentiality and privacy. In the United States, the CbCR is required under the Treasury Regulations § 1.6038‑4 which is implemented by the IRS and obliges the US multinational parent companies earning a revenue of $850 million in consolidated revenue to file an annual CbCR report (Form 8975) along with their federal income tax return.48 This aligns the regime with OECD BEPS framework, while also emphasising on confidentiality, since CbCR data will be treated as tax return information whose disclosure is protected under 26 US Code § 6103 that prohibits unauthorised inspection of disclosure or taxpayer ‘return of information’. This regime significantly limits the permissible use and dissemination of CbCR data and ensures the use of such data only for authorised purposes.49
The incorporation of such mechanisms will greatly help protect and shield Indian taxpayers against arbitrary misuse of sensitive financial information.
CONCLUSION
The discussion above demonstrates, that CbCR incorporation into the Indian tax paying regime is plagued with serious statutory anomalies. From limited definitions and scope of terms like ‘international group’ and ‘parent entities’, absence of guidance on determining ‘revenue threshold’ and a disproportionate penalty regime that is both inflexible and escalatory, the very compliance regime in itself undermines the objective it sought to achieve. These issues are further compounded by the lack of confidentiality safeguards and effective remedies against arbitrary use of financial data or imposition of penalties required by both the Indian Constitution, 1950 (Art.14 and Art.21) and OECD. However, these issues do not have to persist and comparative analysis with other countries (with CbCR mechanisms) such as Australia, UK and US illustrate that effective implementation need not come at the cost of massive structural changes, but simply by incorporating or amending existing provisions to match the principles of fairness. Targeted statutory reforms and introduction of clearer provisions would make the Indian framework more facilitative than punitive and uphold the objective of enhanced tax-paying clarity it sought to achieve.
*****
Footnotes
1. OECD, ‘Country-by-Country Reporting for Tax Purposes’ (OECD) <https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/country-by-country-reporting-for-tax-purposes.html> accessed 06 May 2026.; OECD, Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of 2025 Peer Review Reports: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13 (OECD Publishing 23 September 2025)
2. Income-Tax Act, 1961 s.286; Income-tax Rules, 1962 Rule 10DB; ‘CbC Report in India’ (CbC Reporting, 24 March 2023) <https://cbc.report/2023/03/24/cbc-report-in-india/> accessed 06 May 2026.
3. OECD, Country-by-Country Reporting – Compilation of 2024 Peer Review Reports: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 13 (OECD Publishing, 16 September 2024) <https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/country-by-country-reporting-compilation-of-2024-peer-review-reports_f3d3f36f-en/full-report/india_f3cfa40d.html >accessed 06 May 2026.; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Taxation and Investment in India (OECD Publishing 2017) <https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/06/taxation-and-investment-in-india_cb26fabe/4258e11a-en.pdf> accessed 06 May 2026.; David Ernick and Kristina Novak, ‘Navigating change: Steer your company through the effects of country-by-country reporting’ (PwC, 23 August 2024) <https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/tax/library/country-by-country-reporting-cbcr-navigation.html> accessed 06 May 2026.
4. Income Tax Act, 1961 s.92D & s.286
5. Income Tax Rules, 1962 Rules 10DA – 10DB
6. Income Tax Act, 1961 s. 271GB
7. Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) Regulation in India: A Comprehensive Guide (CbC Reporting, 17 June 2024) <https://cbc.report/2024/06/17/country-by-country-reporting-cbcr-regulation-in-india-a-comprehensive-guide/> accessed 06 May 2026.
8. Country by Country Reporting in India – Action Plan 13 of OECD BEPS (ASC Group, 27 December 2022) <https://www.ascgroup.in/country-by-country-reporting-in-india-action-plan-13-of-oecd-beps/> accessed 06 May 2026.; Punit Bhandari, ‘Form 3CEAD – Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) under Section 286’ (Fintrac Advisors, 17 October 2025) <https://fintracadvisors.com/form-3cead-country-by-country-report-cbcr/> accessed 06 May 2026.
9. OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project Action 13: Country-by-Country Reporting Implementation Package, 2015Art. 1, paragraphs 1–3
10. Ibid
11. Income Tax Act, s.286(9)(g)
12. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Safe Harbours and Penalty Relief: Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules (Pillar Two) (OECD 2022) <https://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps/safe-harbours-and-penalty-relief-global-anti-base-erosion-rules-pillar-two.pdf> accessed 15 May 2026; Financial Transparency Coalition and others, ‘Joint Response to OECD Public Consultation Document on the Review of Country-by-Country Reporting (BEPS Action 13)’ (Submission Letter, 6 March 2020) <https://financialtransparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Submission-letter-OECD-consultation-on-CBCR.pdf> accessed 06 May 2026.
13. Country by Country Reporting in India – Action Plan 13 of OECD BEPS (ASC Group, 27 December 2022) <https://www.ascgroup.in/country-by-country-reporting-in-india-action-plan-13-of-oecd-beps/> accessed 06 May 2026.; Punit Bhandari, ‘Form 3CEAD – Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) under Section 286’ (Fintrac Advisors, 17 October 2025) <https://fintracadvisors.com/form-3cead-country-by-country-report-cbcr/> accessed 06 May 2026.
14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two): Inclusive Framework on BEPS (OECD Publishing 2021) <https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-theeconomy-global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.htm> accessed 06 May 2026.
15. Punit Bhandari, ‘Form 3CEAD – Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) under Section 286’ (Fintrac Advisors, 17 October 2025) <https://fintracadvisors.com/form-3cead-country-by-country-report-cbcr/> accessed 06 May 2026.; Income Tax Act, 1961 s.286
16. Income Tax Act, 1961 s. s.286(4) & s.286(9)(l)
17. Punit Bhandari, ‘Form 3CEAD – Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) under Section 286’ (Fintrac Advisors, 17 October 2025) <https://fintracadvisors.com/form-3cead-country-by-country-report-cbcr/> accessed 06 May 2026.; Ernst & Young LLP, OECD Issues Implementation Package for Country-by-Country Reporting under BEPS Action 13 (Global Tax Alert, 23 June 2015) <https://taxnews.ey.com/news/2015-1191-oecd-issues-implementation-package-for-country-by-country-reporting-under-beps-action-13> accessed 06 May 2026.
18. Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Direct Taxes, ‘Income-tax (9th Amendment) Rules, 2021’ (Notification No 31/2021, F No 370142/19/2019-TPL, 5 April 2021) amending Income-tax Rules 1962 (India) r 10DB(6).
19. Country by Country Reporting in India – Action Plan 13 of OECD BEPS (ASC Group, 27 December 2022) <https://www.ascgroup.in/country-by-country-reporting-in-india-action-plan-13-of-oecd-beps/> accessed 06 May 2026.
20. Income Tax Act, 1961 s.286
21. Income Tax Act, 1961 s.273B
22. Hindustan Steel Ltd v State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC)
23. Union of India v Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277
24. Income Tax Act, 1961 s.271 GB
25. Income Tax Rules, 1962, Rule10DA & 10DB; Country by Country Reporting in India – Action Plan 13 of OECD BEPS (ASC Group, 27 December 2022) <https://www.ascgroup.in/country-by-country-reporting-in-india-action-plan-13-of-oecd-beps/> accessed 06 May 2026.
26. Ibid
27. Alexander V Demin, ‘Certainty and Uncertainty in Tax Law: Do Opposites Attract?’ (2020) 9 Laws 30, 1–2.
28. Income Tax Act, 1961 s.271GB
29. Country by Country Reporting in India – Action Plan 13 of OECD BEPS (ASC Group, 27 December 2022) <https://www.ascgroup.in/country-by-country-reporting-in-india-action-plan-13-of-oecd-beps/> accessed 06 May 2026.
30. Ibid
31. The Chavakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No F.9991 v Income Tax Officer ITA No 9 of 2023, 2024:KER:87634 (Ker HC, 22 November 2024)
32. Income Tax Act 1961 (India) s 273B.
33. Hindustan Steel Ltd v State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC).
34. Constitution of India, 1950 Art.14; E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
35. OECD, Country-by-Country Reporting: Handbook on Effective Implementation (OECD Publishing, 29 September 2017) 33 <https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/cbcr/country-by-country-reporting-handbook-on-effective-implementation.pdf> accessed 06 May 2026.
36. BEPS Action 13 on Country-by-Country Reporting – Guidance on the Appropriate Use of Information Contained in Country-by-Country Reports (OECD Publishing 2017) 5-6 <https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-13-on-country-by-country-reporting-appropriate-use-of-information-in-CbC-reports.pdf> accessed 06 May 2026.
37. Ibid; Income Tax Act, 1961 s.280
38. Ibid
39. Income Tax Act, 1961 s.246A
40. Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161
41. Constitution of India 1950, Art. 21
42. Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Act 2024 (Cth), No 138 of 2024, Schedule 4
43. Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ss 3D, 3DA, 3DB; Australian Parliament, Explanatory Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, paras 4.32, 4.38 <https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22legislation/ems/r7199_ems_68bf69be%22> accessed 06 May 2026.
44. Ibid
45. HM Revenue & Customs, Compliance checks: country-by-country reporting — penalties (CCFS59) (GOV.UK, 29 March 2017) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compliance-checks-country-by-country-reporting-penalties-ccfs59/compliance-checks-country-by-country-reporting-penalties-ccfs59> accessed 06 May 2026.
46. The Taxes (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/237) (UK), reg 15
47. HM Revenue & Customs, ‘Country-by-Country Reporting: Penalties’ (HMRC International Exchange of Information Manual, IEIM300036) <https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-exchange-of-information/ieim300036> accessed 06 May 2026.
48. Internal Revenue Service, Country-by-Country Reporting: Frequently Asked Questions (IRS) <https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/frequently-asked-questions-faqs-country-by-country-reporting> accessed 06 May 2026.; Treasury Regulations § 1.6038-4 (TD 9773).
49. Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2016-14 (Internal Revenue Service, 4 April 2016) <https://www.irs.gov/irb/2016-14_IRB> accessed 06 May 2026; 26 USC § 6103