SUBSTANCE IS KING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER TAX EXECUTIVES INSTITUTE, INC. MARCH 1, 2018

Similar documents
A Transfer Pricing Update BEPS & U.S. Tax Reform

32nd Annual Asia Pacific Tax Conference November 2016 JW Marriott Hotel Hong Kong

The OECD s 3 Major Tax Initiatives

Practical Implications of BEPS

CPA Esther Wahome. Thursday, 16 August 2018

BEPS Country-by-Country Reporting Rules and New Documentation Requirements

Korean Tax Update BEPS Implementation

Base erosion & profit shifting (BEPS) 25 May 2016

BEPS Impact on Manufacturing

When The Dust Has Settled (Part 1)

CA T. P. OSTWAL. T. P. Ostwal & Associates LLP

OECD issues Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)

BUSINESS MODELS IN THE CURRENT BEPS ENVIRONMENT DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE? Lyndon James, Partner Pete Rhodes, Senior Manager PwC

Overview of OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)

Headline Verdana Bold International Tax matters ICPAU Tax Seminar, Hotel Africana November, 2017

Engaging title in Green Descriptive element in Blue 2 lines if needed

International trends in taxation of capital and financial products and the impact on Thai Business

Examining the impact of BEPS on the life sciences sector. Overview of select BEPS final reports and timing of implementation

Transfer pricing of intangibles

M&A OUTLOOK - POST BEPS. International Tax Refresher Course

OECD TP Guidelines July 2017 Brief synopsis

Transfer Pricing in a Post -BEPS World

IP BOX TAX REGIMES. Rod Donnelly Thursday, September 14, 2017

MANAGING TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES IN AN EVOLVING BEPS ENVIRONMENT

IBFD Course Programme Current Issues in International Tax Planning

THE FUTURE OF TAX PLANNING: TRANSPARENCY AND SUBSTANCE FOR ALL? Friday, 26 February AM PM Conrad Hotel, Hong Kong

Intellectual property in the age of BEPS

Impact of BEPS and Other International Tax Risks on the Jersey Funds Industry

VAT The submerged part of the BEPS

Functions, Assets and Risk Analysis under Transfer Pricing

The OECD report on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) and EU measures against aggressive tax planning and tax fraud

Value Chain Planning post BEPS

OECD meets with business on base erosion and profit shifting action plan

US Outbound Investment

Introduction to Transfer Pricing. Presented by Ziad Rahman APTP

IBFD Course Programme International Tax Planning after BEPS and the MLI

The new global tax environment. What the global focus on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) means for your business

Tax Obstacles in Cross Border Planning

Ten Questions on the OECD s DEMPE Concept and Its Role in Valuing Intangibles

Global FS view on BEPS latest developments for asset managers. Event Date: Thursday 22 October Event Time: 9am EDT/3pm CET

OECD releases final BEPS package

Welcome to the EFS-seminar. BEPS and transfer pricing, but what about VAT and Customs? Conference Chairman: René van der Paardt

BEPS: What does it mean for funds and asset managers?

2015 International Tax Developments December 3, 2015

Prior to joining Microsoft, Angel worked for Arthur Andersen in their New York Office.

Value chain perspectives and their increased importance under BEPS, tax policy and technological change

BEPS for telecommunications companies

A holding company belonging to an equity investor group was not considered as an equity investor

Our commentary focuses on five main issues. Supplementary comments relating to specific paragraphs or issues are provided in the appendix.

Analysis of Intellectual Property Tax Planning Strategies of Multinationals and the Impact of the BEPS Project

Transfer Pricing Implications for State & Local Tax

Do we have the wrong tax system for the digital economy? Alf Capito, Tax Policy Leader, EY Asia Pacific July 2014

Post-BEPS application of the arm s length principle: India charts a new course

Strategies for Transfer Pricing

Transfer Pricing Perspectives: The new normal: full TransParency. The post BEPS world in the automotive industry

BEPS Action Plan. September 2014

Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS)

SIFM. Annual Conference September 19, Overview of Final BEPS Report / Update on Country by Country Reporting Requirements

Tax Seminar: Transfer Pricing A Customs Perspective. Peter Caxton Kinuthia Director, Tax Services KPMG Kenya. 30 April 2015

TRANSNATIONAL TAX NETWORK 2015 HONG KONG CONFERENCE. Hong Kong 9 February David Russell QC Outer Temple Chambers London and Dubai

OECD s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan

Transfer Pricing Update

Deloitte TaxMax The 43 rd series One bold step in the right direction. Theresa Goh & Subhabrata Dasgupta l 22 November 2017 By Deloitte Tax Academy

BEPS and ATAD: Where do we stand?

Update of the General Guidelines for Applying the Arm s Length Principle a New Section D in Chapter I of the Guidelines

STEP Silicon Valley Ireland: Gateway to Accessing the EU Market

The impact of transfer pricing in corporate tax planning

THE INTERSECTION OF TAX & TREASURY

Simplifying BEPS Action Plan

The new transfer pricing law and international tax update Jack Sheehan, Partner, DFDL and Steven Carey, MD, Quantera Global 20 September 2015

Gene Ferraro, Mazars USA LLP New York, NY William D. James, BKD, LLP St. Louis, MO

Skatteverket International Tax Planning 2016 CORIT

Topics in International Taxation: Partner country perspectives

IBFD Course Programme BEPS Country Implementation

BEPS Beyond Fortune 1000 October Armanino LLP amllp.com Armanino LLP amllp.com

Intercompany financing facing new challenges. EY Africa Tax Conference September 2014

Future of tax in a digital economy: Are you prepared? The Dbriefs International Tax series

A small country perspective on international taxation Ann Nolan, Second Secretary General, Ministry of Finance, Ireland Oxford University Centre for

Transfer Pricing: Theory & Practice

Answer-to-Question- 1

BEPS & transfer pricing

BASE EROSION PROFIT SHARING INITIATIVE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BAHAMAS

Intra-Group Services & Intangibles

Tax Morality and Transparency

BEPS and its impact on Mergers & Acquisitions

PwC Tax Panel 18 October 2016

Hot topics Treasury seminar

Comparison of Key Anti-Base Erosion Rules in the Tax Reform Act of 2017 and under UK Tax Law Calum Dewar, PwC Mike Williams, HM Treasury

LIVE WEBCAST UPDATE ON BEPS PROJECT. 26 May :00pm 2:00pm (CEST)

G20/OECD: BEPS, Intangibles, ICE and Transfer Pricing. Brazil October 2013

Planning for Intangible Property Migration in an Uncertain Environment. ABA Section of Taxation Mid Year Meeting January 25, 2013

Intangibles in transfer pricing: A look at the new OECD guidance and Japanese regulations

Frequently Asked Questions

Presentation by Shigeto HIKI

KPMG Trade & Customs Hot Topics. January 30th, 2018

Insurance Tax Insight The Global Tax Reset: BEPS & Insurance

THE OECD 2017 TRANSFER PRICING GUIDELINES AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Cross-border Outsourcing

New Dutch transfer pricing decree implements OECD guidelines

Analysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector

Transcription:

CPAs & ADVISORS experience direction // SUBSTANCE IS KING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER TAX EXECUTIVES INSTITUTE, INC. MARCH 1, 2018 William D. James Principal Transfer Pricing & David H. Whitmer Director Transfer Pricing

AGENDA Evolution of Substance Base Erosion Profit Shifting (BEPS) Initiative Substance Conduct over Form Value Creation Risks Intangibles People Post BEPS Considerations Case Study 2// experience direction

EVOLUTION OF SUBSTANCE Early 1990s no substance Structures often involved entities in tax havens (mostly Caribbean countries) with no personnel Cash boxes 3// experience direction

EVOLUTION OF SUBSTANCE (CONT.) Late 1990s substance outsourced Structures often still involved entities in tax havens (mostly Caribbean countries) with outsourced personnel ( man & his dog ) 4// experience direction

EVOLUTION OF SUBSTANCE (CONT.) 2000s Substance created in principal structures Swiss & Irish principal structures More substance still question of real decision-making capabilities Contract Manufacturers Swiss Principal = Sale = Payment Limited Risk Distributors 3 rd Party Customers 5// experience direction

EVOLUTION OF SUBSTANCE (CONT.) Pre & Post BEPS - Crackdown by foreign taxing jurisdictions 6// experience direction

EVOLUTION OF SUBSTANCE (CONT.) 2013 today - OECD s BEPS Project The aim of the (BEPS) measures is to realign taxation with economic substance & value creation, while preventing double taxation. Another stated goal, The BEPS action plan is to ensure that profits are taxed where actual business activity is performed & where value is created. The BEPS Project aims to end the use of shell companies used to stash profits offshore or unduly claim treaty protection & neutralize all schemes that artificially shift profits offshore. Though the BEPS Project is not about dictating whether countries should have a specific corporate income tax rate, it will have an impact on regimes that seek to attract foreign investors without requiring any economic substance. Treaty shopping generally refers to arrangements through which a person who is not a resident of one of the two States that concluded a tax treaty may attempt to obtain benefits that the treaty grants to residents of these States. These strategies are often implemented by establishing companies in States with desirable tax treaties that are often qualified as letterboxes, shell companies or conduits because these companies exist on paper but have no or hardly any substance in reality. (Source: Top 10 FAQs about BEPS OECD) 7// experience direction

OECD ACTION PLAN ON BASE EROSION & PROFIT SHIFTING (BEPS) Three (3) Tenets of BEPS Action Plan 1. New international standards must be designed to ensure the coherence of corporate income taxation at the international level BEPS issues may arise directly from existence of loopholes, as well as, gaps, frictions or mismatches in interaction of countries domestic tax laws 2. A realignment of taxation & relevant substance is needed to restore the intended effects & benefits of international standards, which may not have kept pace with changing business models & technological developments Involvement of shell companies in third countries with little or no substance in terms of office space, tangible assets & employees undermines preventing double-taxation through tax treaties involving two tax treaty countries 3. The actions to counter BEPS cannot succeed without further transparency, nor without certainty & predictability for business 8// experience direction

OECD ACTION PLAN ON BASE EROSION & PROFIT SHIFTING (BEPS) Coherence Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements (2) CFC Rules (3) Interest Deductions (4) Harmful Tax Practices (5) Substance Preventing Tax Treaty Abuse (6) Avoidance of PE Status (7) TP Intangibles (8) TP Risk & Capital (9) TP High Risk Transactions (10) Transparency & Certainty Measuring BEPS (11) Disclosure Rules (12) TP Documentation (13) Dispute Resolution (14) Address Challenges: Digital Economy (1) Execution: Multilateral Instrument (15) 9// experience direction

FRAMEWORK FOR SUBSTANCE People Conduct over Form Value Creation Substance Intangibles Risks People 10// experience direction

CONDUCT OVER FORM Conduct over Form Substance 11// experience direction

CONDUCT OVER FORM (CONT.) Concept that is emphasized throughout the 2017 OECD Guidelines* Not a new concept, but historically, subject to interpretation and inconsistently applied New guidance offers a framework for ensuring outcomes are aligned with value creation Meant to ensure when justifying a transfer pricing position: The actual business transactions undertaken by associated enterprises (AEs) are identified Transfer pricing is based on economic reality and not on contractual arrangements to the contrary *OECD s Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, 2017 ( 2017 OECD Guidelines ) 12// experience direction

CONDUCT OVER FORM (CONT.) Application of the arm s-length principle involves a comparability analysis, a two-step approach (2017 OECD Guidelines, 1.33): Step 1: Identify the commercial or financial relations between the associated enterprises and the conditions and economically relevant circumstances attaching to those relations in order that the controlled transaction is accurately delineated The emphasis is the accurate delineation of the actual transactions between associated enterprises The transaction is not simply delineated by what is set out in a contract Step 2: Compare the conditions and the economically relevant circumstances of the controlled transaction as accurately delineated with the conditions and the economically relevant circumstances of comparable transactions between independent enterprises OECD s Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, 2017 ( 2017 OECD Guidelines ) 13// experience direction

CONDUCT OVER FORM (CONT.) Comparability factors that need to be identified in commercial and financial relations to accurately delineate actual transactions (Id., 1.36): The contractual terms of the transaction The functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed by each of the parties to the transaction and how the functions relate to value generation by the group (i.e., functional / value chain analysis) The characteristics of property transferred or services provided The economic circumstances of the parties and of the market in which the parties operate The business strategies pursued by the parties 14// experience direction

CONDUCT OVER FORM (CONT.) Contractual Terms: Written agreements (if available) provide the starting point for delineating transactions Outline intended responsibilities, obligations and rights, assumption of risks, and pricing arrangements May also look to other forms of documentation other than written contracts Compare with evidence from the other four comparability factors If conduct is inconsistent with the terms of the written agreement, then must look further into actual conduct (i.e., functional analysis) Where there is inconsistency, actual conduct will determine substance Is a contract still important? Provides evidence for intended risk assumption when risk has not yet materialized 15// experience direction

VALUE CREATION Value Creation Substance 16// experience direction

VALUE CREATION (CONT.) Comparability factors that need to be identified in commercial and financial relations to accurately delineate actual transactions (Id., 1.36): The contractual terms of the transaction The functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed by each of the parties to the transaction and how the functions relate to value generation by the group (i.e., functional / value chain analysis) The characteristics of property transferred or services provided The economic circumstances of the parties and of the market in which the parties operate The business strategies pursued by the parties 17// experience direction

VALUE CREATION (CONT.) Functional Analysis An important process to delineate the controlled transactions Identify the functions performed by AEs and the assets used and risks assumed in performing those functions Focus on actual activities of the AEs and the capabilities they provide Decision-making functions regarding strategy and risk Assets used (i.e., intangibles, PP&E, financial assets) Value Creation Structure and organization of the group How the group generates value (i.e., supply chain / value chain analysis) The contributions of the individual AEs to that value creation 18// experience direction

RISKS Substance Risks 19// experience direction

RISKS (CONT.) Contractual risk allocations are respected only when they are supported by actual decision-making and financial capacity to assume the risk Process to Analyze Risks (Id., 1.6): 1. Identify the economically significant risks 2. Determine how these risks are contractually assumed by the AEs 3. Determine (via functional analysis) how AEs operate with respect to the economically significant risks. In particular, which AEs perform control and risk mitigation functions and have the financial capacity to assume the risk. 4. Determine if the AE that contractually assumes the risk also performs functions to control the risk and has the financial capacity to assume the risk 5. If there is an inconsistency identified in Step 4, allocate the risk to the entity that controls the risk and has the financial capacity to assume the risk 6. Price the transaction with the appropriate allocation of assumed risks 20// experience direction

RISKS (CONT.) Let s drill down on the terms: Risk Assumption ( 1.63): Taking on the upside and downside consequences of the risk, including the financial consequences if the risk materializes Risk Management ( 1.61): Function of assessing and responding to risk. Capability and actual performance of functions relating to decisions to take on, lay off, or decline risk-bearing opportunities Capability and actual performance of functions relating to decisions on whether and how to respond to risks associated with opportunities Capability and actual performance of functions to mitigate risk (i.e., perform functions to affect risk outcomes) Control Over Risk ( 1.65): Comprised of first two items under risk management above Day-to-day risk mitigation activities may be outsourced Financial Capacity to Assume Risk ( 1.64): Access to funding to take on / lay off risk, pay for risk mitigation activities, and to bear the consequences if the risk materializes 21// experience direction

INTANGIBLES Substance Intangibles 22// experience direction

INTANGIBLES (CONT.) Legal ownership does not entitle an AE to intangible returns from exploitation AE s should be appropriately compensated for functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed with respect to development, enhancement, maintenance, production, and exploitation (DEMPE) of intangibles Entitlement to profits from exploitation of an intangible requires: Important functions related to DEMPE of intangibles Examples (Id., 6.56): Design and control of R&D and marketing programs Direction and establishing priorities for creative undertakings Strategic decisions regarding development programs Management and control of budgets Decisions regarding defense and protection of intangibles Quality control over functions by other AEs that could affect value of intangible Other DEMPE related functions may be outsourced Control functions related to economically significant risks Financial capacity to assume such risks 23// experience direction

INTANGIBLES (CONT.) Process for Analyzing Intangible Transactions (Id., 6.34): 1. Identify intangibles used or transferred and economically significant risks associated with the DEMPE of intangibles 2. Identify the full contractual arrangements, including legal ownership, rights, obligations, and assumption of risks 3. Identify (via functional analysis) the parties performing functions, using assets, and managing risks related to the DEMPE of intangibles, as well as the parties that control outsourced functions and control risks 4. Confirm consistency between the terms of the contractual arrangements and the conduct of the parties. Determine if the AE that contractually assumes the risk also performs functions to control the risk and has the financial capacity to assume the risk related to the DEMPE of the intangibles. 5. If there is an inconsistency identified in Step 4, delineate the actual controlled transaction(s) and allocate risk to the entity that controls and has the financial capacity to assume the risk 6. Price the transactions according to each AE s contributions to functions, assets, and risks 24// experience direction

INTANGIBLES (CONT.) Use of Assets (Id., 6.56): Particular focus is on entities that provide funding for intangibles development, but do not perform functions or bear risks related to the funded activity If the AE does assume financial risk, it should earn a risk-adjusted return Must have control of this risk Return would need to consider riskiness of the investment If the AE does not assume financial risk, it should earn a risk-free return This also applies to physical assets (see example from 1.85) 25// experience direction

PEOPLE People Substance People 26// experience direction

PEOPLE (CONT.) Level of Substance - no set number of employees or level of management established by the OECD to definitively create an appropriate level of substance in a taxing jurisdiction Must satisfy the control requirement as outlined in Chapters I and VI: Capability and actual performance of decision making functions related to risk and outsourcing of DEMPE functions Decision-makers should have competence and relevant experience This will vary by case Consideration to background, education, and experience What does not qualify for control? (Id., 1,66) Formalizing the outcome of key decisions in other locations Setting of the policy environment relevant for the risk Headcount - quality versus quantity? What functions to perform or outsource? Maintain evidence to demonstrate control 27// experience direction

FRAMEWORK FOR SUBSTANCE REVISITED People Conduct over Form: Economic reality vs. legal reality Delineate actual contributions Value Creation: Identify value drivers Functions, assets, and risks Intangibles: DEMPE functions Important functions vs. other functions Appropriate allocation of risks Attribute benefits according to contributions to value creation Funding receives risk-adjusted return Substance People Risks: Economic reality vs. legal reality Performance of control functions Financial capacity to assume the risk Allocate risk and price accordingly 28// experience direction

FRAMEWORK FOR SUBSTANCE REVISITED (CONT.) Tax authorities may disregard transactions when circumstances of commercial irrationality apply People Conduct over Form: Economic reality vs. legal reality Delineate actual contributions Value Creation: Identify value drivers Functions, assets, and risks Intangibles: DEMPE functions Important functions vs. other functions Appropriate allocation of risks Attribute benefits according to contributions to value creation Funding receives risk-adjusted return Substance People Risks: Economic reality vs. legal reality Performance of control functions Financial capacity to assume the risk Allocate risk and price accordingly 29// experience direction

IMPORTANCE OF ALIGNMENT Intercompany Contracts Transfer Pricing Documentation Actual Conduct Alignment 30// experience direction

POST BEPS: WHAT IS AT RISK? Commissionaire Structures Principal Structures Cash Box Structures IP Structures CV/BV Structures Creation of Permanent Establishments (PEs) Treaty Shopping 31// experience direction

POST BEPS: WHAT TO DO? Determine if the actual conduct of the parties matches the intercompany contracts and functional analysis Are substance and risk-taking aligned with contractual terms? Need to perform functional analysis interviews Determine if ample decision-making and performance of valuable functions occurs in the entity aligned to earn the residual profits Is there a need to bolster substance in entrepreneurial entity? May be a need to hire or move senior level executives into entrepreneurial entity Monitor and audit the structure on an annual basis 32// experience direction

CASE STUDY: OVERVIEW Taxpayer is a large U.S. retail company that sells a variety of branded and private-label goods in retail stores, catalogs, and online For its private-label business, it has established an Asian entity ( AsiaCo ) to manage the supply chain for identifying, selecting, monitoring and purchasing from third-party manufacturers located in Asia Reflects the overall trend in the business and industry to sourcing manufactured goods from Asian vendors AsiaCo acts as the key risk-taking entrepreneur in the structure while the US entity ( USCo ) acts as a limited-risk retail entity that markets and sells the products to third-party customers Since its inception, AsiaCo has been very profitable (approx. 25% of consolidated operating profit), as the private label business has grown significantly 33// experience direction

Low-Tax Asian Entity AsiaCo Third-Party Asian Manufacturers U.S. Entity USCo Third-Party Customers 34// experience direction

AsiaCo manages the identification, selection, training, and monitoring of third-party vendors that manufacture the privatelabel products AsiaCo Arm s Length Price Goods Third-Party Asian Manufacturers USCo Third-Party Customers 35// experience direction

AsiaCo Third-Party Asian Manufacturers Transfer Price Goods USCo Third-Party Customers 36// experience direction

AsiaCo Third-Party Asian Manufacturers USCo Retail Price Goods Third-Party Customers 37// experience direction

AsiaCo Third-Party Asian Manufacturers Transfer Price is set such that USCo receives a fixed operating margin on its sales of private label products to third-party retail customers Transfer Price USCo Goods Retail Price Goods Third-Party Customers 38// experience direction

AsiaCo Third-Party Asian Manufacturers AsiaCo pays a royalty based on its purchases of goods from 3P manufacturers USCo USCo licenses IP for trademarks and product designs to AsiaCo Third-Party Customers 39// experience direction

AsiaCo pays a service fee, either cost-plus or cost only AsiaCo USCo Third-Party Asian Manufacturers USCo provides procurement, supply chain management, and management/ administrative services Includes sourcing and vendor compliance services Third-Party Customers 40// experience direction

AsiaCo Arm s Length Price Goods Third-Party Asian Manufacturers Royalty Service fees Transfer Price Goods Trademark / design IP Procurement/supply chain/administrative services USCo Retail Price Goods Third-Party Customers After payment of the transfer prices, AsiaCo retains the residual profit as the risk-taking entrepreneur 41// experience direction

KEY EMPLOYEES IN EACH LOCATION AsiaCo General manager Vendor compliance personnel Quality assurance personnel Fabric evaluation team USCo Executive management Merchandising function / retail buyers Designers Global sourcing/procurement Marketing Planning and inventory Global IT systems, including electronic data interchange (EDI) 42// experience direction

ISSUES RAISED IN TRANSFER PRICING EXAMINATION Which entity maintains ultimate control and authority of the key decisions necessary for the private label business? Not only are the functions important but where those functions are performed is also important (even if paid by AsiaCo) Detailed questions on the functions performed by each entity Requesting specific details on the policies, procedures, and documentation developed by AsiaCo vs. USCo that is used in the private-label business Information on the IT systems used by AsiaCo that may be owned by USCo Value of the license agreement between USCo and AsiaCo Additional questions on the costs of further development of the intangibles Costs incurred by AsiaCo related to the business risks it undertakes 43// experience direction

SUBSTANCE IS KING Thank you, thank you very much 44// experience direction

QUESTIONS 45// experience direction

CONTACT DETAILS Will James Transfer Pricing Principal St. Louis, MO (314) 802-1556 wdjames@bkd.com David Whitmer Transfer Pricing Director Houston, TX (281) 501-4946 dwhitmer@bkd.com 46// experience direction

Tax professionals that practice before the IRS are required to adhere to certain professional standards prescribed by the Department of Treasury and the IRS. These standards require us to include the following statement in certain written federal tax advice: This advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed. These discussions and conclusions are based on the facts as stated and existing authorities as of the date of this letter. Our advice could change as a result of changes in the applicable laws and regulations. We are under no obligation to update this letter if such changes occur. Our advice is based on your unique facts and circumstances as you communicated them to us and should not be used or relied on by anyone else. 47// experience direction

THANK YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION // For a complete list of our offices and subsidiaries, visit bkd.com or contact: William D. James // Principal wdjames@bkd.com // 314.802.1556 David Whitmer // Director dwhitmer@bkd.com // 281.501.4946