Curious what others think about this. All for tax optimization in whatever ways the rules allow, but this rule seems silly. Transferring intangibles like IP to a "headquarters" in a low-tax territory in order to avoid domestic taxes doesn't seem right. On a first principles basis, what seems fair is to pay sales/vat taxes on revenue in whatever territory it's generated in and to pay income taxes at whatever the domestic rate is in the country you're actually headquartered in. It's silly that FB is clearly headquartered here (along with many other US-based companies that utilize this loophole) but tries to claim these substantial IPs are housed elsewhere. Alternatively, I could see a system wherein your net income is taxed proportionally in each territory where you actually have expenses. So, if 80% of your expenses (payroll, etc) are generated in the US, you'd pay US corporate income tax on 80% of your net income, and the remaining 20% could be taxed ratably in each jurisdiction where you have associated expenses.
In any case, yet another example of an overly complicated and clearly suboptimal, subjective system that ultimately costs billions in overhead and legal fights to adequately resolve.