{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"The International Academy of Tax Law","provider_url":"https:\/\/library.academyoftaxlaw.com","author_name":"ATL Admin","author_url":"https:\/\/library.academyoftaxlaw.com\/author\/admin\/","title":"3M Company v Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Judgment - The International Academy of Tax Law","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CPB2jSyA6X\"><a href=\"https:\/\/library.academyoftaxlaw.com\/document\/3m-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue\/\">3M Company v Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Judgment<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/library.academyoftaxlaw.com\/document\/3m-company-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue\/embed\/#?secret=CPB2jSyA6X\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;3M Company v Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Judgment&#8221; &#8212; The International Academy of Tax Law\" data-secret=\"CPB2jSyA6X\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/library.academyoftaxlaw.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"This case involved the 3M Company and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as the \u201c3M consolidated group\u201d) disputing a section 482 adjustment made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The dispute focused on the income tax treatment of intellectual property (IP) transactions between 3M's U.S. subsidiaries and its Brazilian subsidiary, 3M do Brasil Ltda (3M Brazil), for the tax year 2006."}