Internal Revenue Code Section 999: The obscure international boycott tax rules every taxpayer should know

The intersection of tax and trade law has been in the news in recent months as businesses navigate changing tariff rules. We have written extensively about the cross-roads of tax law and tariffs. See here and here. All this talk about tariffs reminds us to remind you about the international boycott tax laws in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 999, which carry significant consequences for taxpayers doing business in the Middle East.

What is IRC Section 999?

IRC Section 999 denies certain tax benefits to taxpayers who participate in or cooperate with an unsanctioned international boycott. See IRC Section 999(a)(1). As background, Congress enacted IRC Section 999 in 1976 to discourage US businesses from participating in the boycott by certain countries of doing business with Israel. The U.S. Department of the Treasury periodically publishes a list of countries to which IRC Section 999 may apply. The list currently includes Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen. See List of Countries Requiring Cooperation with an International Boycott, 91 Fed. Reg. 17333 (Apr. 6, 2026).

The law broadly penalizes a wide range of behavior, and additionally requires operations in a boycotting country or with a boycotting country's government, companies, or nationals to be reported to the U.S. Department of Treasury. This includes operations in countries not on the Treasury's list if it is known, or there is reason to know, that participation in or cooperation with an international boycott is required as a condition of doing business. See IRC Section 999(a)(1)(B).

Operations is defined broadly to include all forms of commercial activities and transactions regardless of whether income is produced (e.g., selling, purchasing, leasing, licensing, banking, financing, extracting, processing, manufacturing, producing, constructing, transporting, performing services). See Treas. Reg. §7.999-1(b)(3).

Generally, IRC Section 999 impacts taxpayers who refuse to:

• do business with a boycotted country or its persons and entities;
• do business with US persons doing business with the boycotted country or its persons and entities;
• do business with companies whose ownership, management, or directors are required to be of a particular nationality, race, or religion;
• employ individuals of a particular nationality, race, or religion; or
• ship goods to the boycotting country on carriers owned, leased, etc., by persons not cooperating with the boycott.

See IRC Section 999(b)(3).

If a member of a controlled group participates in or cooperates with an international boycott, all operations of the taxpayer or group in that country and any other boycotting country are treated as boycott operations unless the taxpayer can clearly demonstrate otherwise. See IRC Section 999(b)(1). Further, if a person controls a corporation, participation by the corporation is presumed to be participation by the controlling person and vice versa. See IRC Section 999(e). That is, a single transaction by one subsidiary containing a boycott-related clause can taint the entire global group's operations in every boycotting country.

The ramifications for violating IRC Section 999 are:

• A taxpayer's foreign tax credit is reduced if it or a controlled group of which it is a member participates in or cooperates with an international boycott [see IRC Section 908];
• The subpart F income of a controlled foreign corporation is increased if it is a member of a controlled group that includes a boycott participant [see IRC § 952(a)(3)]; and
• Tax benefits granted to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC) and their shareholders are reduced if the FSC or a member of its controlled group participates in or cooperates with a boycott [see IRC § 927(e)(2)].

The amount of these penalties is generally computed by reference to the so-called international boycott factor, which is a fraction the numerator is the taxpayer's operations in boycotting countries and the denominator is its total foreign operations. See IRC Section 999(c). The details of the calculation and its nuances, however, are beyond the scope of this informational posting.

Annual Reporting Requirement

Taxpayers are required to report IRC Section 999 activities on IRS Form 5713, which is filed by a US taxpayer annually with their income tax return. Notably a report is required not just when taxpayers or members of its control group participate in activities sanctioned by IRC Section 999, but anytime taxpayers are requested to participate in or cooperate with an international boycott. See IRC Section 999(a)(2).

Penalties Can Apply

Willful failure to file required IRS Form 5713 may result in a fine of not more than $25,000, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. See IRC Section 999(f). There is no specific negligence penalty for negligent failure to properly report IRC Section 999 activities, but any increase in tax resulting from the failure to completely and correctly file IRS Form 5713 could result in accuracy-related penalties pursuant to IRC Section 6662.

Practice Point:

The international boycott tax rules are often overlooked and underappreciated, but failure to comply may have substantial, negative ramifications. Taxpayers should keep IRC Section 999 in mind as they evaluate and react to changes to the trade landscape, and consider requesting a Private Letter Ruling from the Internal Revenue Service if it is unclear whether an activity may run afoul of IRC Section 999.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}