Menu +

Category: Cost Contribution Arrangements

A Cost Contribution Arrangement (CCA) is a framework agreed among business enterprises to share the costs and risks of developing, producing or obtaining assets, services, or rights, and to determine the nature and extent of the interests of each participant in those assets, services, or rights.

A CCA is a contractual arrangement rather than necessarily a distinct juridical entity or permanent establishment of the participants. In a CCA, each participant’s proportionate share of the overall contributions to the arrangement will be consistent with the participant’s proportionate share of the overall expected benefits to be received under the arrangement.

While Cost Contribution Arrangements for research and development of intangible property are perhaps most interesting, CCAs need not be limited to such activities. CCAs could exist for any joint funding or sharing of costs and risks, for developing or acquiring property or for obtaining services.

See on this issue TPG 2017, Chapter VIII

US vs Medtronic, August 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals, Case No: 17-1866

In this case the IRS was of the opinion, that Medtronic erred in allocating the profit earned from its devises and leads between its businesses located in the United States and its device manufacturer in Puerto Rico. To determine the arm’s length price for Medtronic’s intercompany licensing agreements the comparable profits method was therefor applied by the IRS, rather than the comparable uncontrolled transaction (CUT) used by Medtronic. Medtronic brought the case to the Tax […]

US vs Altera Corp, July 2018, US Court of Appeal, Nos 16-704996

In this case, the US Court of Appeal reversed a decision from the Tax Court that 26 C.F.R. § 1.482-7A(d)(2), under which related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment, was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had not gone beyond the authority […]

US vs Microsoft, May 2017, US District Court

In an ongoing transfer pricing battle between Microsoft and the IRS related to Microsofts’ use of a IP subsidiary in Puerto Rico to shift income and reduce taxes, the District Court of Washington has now ordered Microsoft to provide a number of documents as requested by the IRS. In a prior decision from November 2015 the District Court ruled, that the IRS’ use of an external representative was not in conflict with US regulations. Microsoft […]

US vs. Amazon, March 2017, US Tax Court

In 2005 Amazon US entered into a cost sharing arrangement (CSA) with its Luxembourg subsidiary, Amazon Lux. Pursuant to entering the CSA, Amazon US granted Amazon Lux the right to use certain pre-existing intangible assets in Europe, including the intangibles required to operate Amazon’s European website business. This arrangement required Amazon Lux to make an upfront “buy-in payment” to compensate Amazon US for the value of the intangible assets that were to be transferred to Amazon Lux. As consideration for the transfer of pre-existing intangibles, Amazon Lux […]

US vs Altera. February 2016, Appeal

On July 27, 2015 the United States Tax Court issued its ruling regarding the petition filed by Altera Corporation and its subsidiaries against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The court found in favor of Altera, and concluded that on an arm’s length basis employee profit sharing should not be included in compensation between related parties under Qualified Cost Sharing Agreements. The case was appealed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenueon February 23, 2016. In the appeal […]

Canada vs. Skechers USA Canada Inc. March 2015, Federal Court of Appeal

In this case the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in which the tribunal upheld seven decisions – one for each of the years 2005 through 2011 – of the Canada Border Services Agency under subsection 60(4) of Canada’s Customs Act. Skechers Canada, a subsidiary of Skechers USA, purchases footwear to sell in Canada from its parent at a price equal to the price paid by Skechers US to its manufacturers, the […]

Italy vs Alfa Gomma SUD s.r.l. July 2014, Supreme Court 16480

This case was about tax deductibility of service costs charged to an Italien company by an European Cost Centre within the group. The Supreme Court stated that it is necessary to give evidence that the Italian company have actually received a service and that this service is objectively definable and documented. The Court ruled in favor of the tax administration. Click here for translation Share:

US vs. Veritas Software Corporation, December 2009

The issue in the VERITAS case involved the calculation of the buy-in payment under VERITAS’ cost sharing arrangement with its Irish affiliate. VERITAS US assigned all of its existing European sales agreements to VERITAS Ireland. Similarly,VERITAS Ireland was given the rights to use the covered intangibles and to use VERITAS US’s trademarks, trade names and service marks in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and in Asia-Pacific and Japan. In return, VERITAS Ireland agreed to pay royalties […]

US vs Xilinx Inc, May 27, 2009, Court of Appeal

In a decision the IRS determined that Xilinx should have allocated stock option costs for foreign subsidiary research and development employees as part of its Section 482-7 cost-sharing agreement calculation. The United States Tax Court overruled the IRS, finding that in an arm’s-length situation, unrelated parties would not allocate employee stock option costs in the way determined by the IRS. The Court of Appeals later in 2009 overruled the opinion of the tax court, and […]

US vs. Xilinex Inc, August 2005

In a decision the IRS found that Xilinx should have allocated stock option costs for foreign subsidiary research and development employees as part of its Section 482-7 cost-sharing agreement calculation. In this decision, the United States Tax Court overruled the IRS, finding that in an arm’s-length situation, unrelated parties would not allocate employee stock option costs in the way determined by the IRS. The US Court of Appeals later in 2009 overturned the opinion of […]

Next Page »