Introducing a special report on IP and tax

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Introducing a special report on IP and tax

MIP-ITR special report image.jpg

Managing IP’s sister publication International Tax Review has published a special report on IP and tax – you can read it here

As Benjamin Franklin famously once observed, nothing is certain in this world except death and taxes. It’s one of those pearls of wisdom that has stood the test of time.

For many intellectual property lawyers, tax is just that – one of life’s certainties. It’s probably not something they often think about during their work hours.

The truth is, however, that IP and tax are much more closely related than many lawyers care to realise. This is particularly true when it comes to IP licensing; transfer pricing of intangible assets; and patent boxes, to give just three examples.

INTA has been following this issue for some time. In May 2022, it published a report finding that trademark and tax professionals needed to work together more closely.

But despite this and other efforts, the disconnect between IP and tax professionals remains. Often, whenever a crossover in business arises, each side thinks the other is responsible. This creates risk and uncertainty.

A year on from INTA’s report, and nearly 250 years since Franklin uttered those iconic words, Managing IP and its sister publication International Tax Review (ITR) have co-published a special report on IP and BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting), which is a core part of global tax.

Called Bridging the divide: a special report on BEPS and IP, the three-part report includes exclusive insight from heads of tax and IP directors at multinational companies and law firms. In it, readers can find out how to:

· Close the gap between tax and IP teams;

· Meet the IP challenges of BEPS; and

· Prevent costly tax disputes.

You can navigate the special report using the link above, or you can go directly to the three individual sections below:

· Part one – analysis on how multinationals can reduce barriers between teams, including comments from a former IP director at Nokia

· Part two – analysis on why companies may need to establish new internal structures for BEPS, with insight from a European IP lawyer

· Part three – opinion on why IP and tax need to be more closely aligned, from Managing IP and ITR editor-in-chief Ed Conlon

We hope you enjoy it!

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
Gift this article