Under the transactional profit split method, the relevant profits are to be split between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement made at arm’s length. In general, the determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should be: consistent with the functional analysis of the controlled trans- action under review, and in particular reflect the assumption of the economically significant risks by the parties, and capable of being measured in a reliable manner ... Continue to full case

These Guidelines do not seek to provide an exhaustive catalogue of ways in which the transactional profit split method may be applied. Application of the method will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the information available, but the overriding objective should be to approximate as closely as possible the split of profits that would have been realised had the parties been independent enterprises ... Continue to full case

This section has described certain characteristics of the transactional profit split method and provided a number of potential indicators as to when it may be found to be the most appropriate method, as well as a number of factors which may point in the opposite direction. The guidance in this regard does not seek to be comprehensive, nor is it prescriptive. The presence or absence of one or more of the indicators described in this section will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transactional profit split will (or will not) be the most appropriate method in a particular case. Each case needs to be analysed on its own facts, and it will be important to consider the relative merits and shortcomings of available transfer pricing methods ... Continue to full case

While the transactional profit split method can be applied in cases where there are no uncontrolled comparables, information from transactions between independent parties may still be relevant to the application of the method, for example to guide the splitting of relevant profits (see Section C.3.1.1), or where a residual analysis approach is used (see Section C.3.1.2) ... Continue to full case

In general, it will tend to be the case that the presence of factors indicating that a transactional profit split is the most appropriate method will correspond to an absence of factors indicating that an alternative transfer pricing method – one which relies entirely on comparables – is the most appropriate method, determined in accordance with paragraph 2.2 of these Guidelines. Put another way, if information on reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions is available to price the transaction in its entirety, it is less likely that the transactional profit split method will be the most appropriate method. However, a lack of comparables alone is insufficient to warrant the use of a transactional profit split. See paragraph 2.128 ... Continue to full case

If each party shares the assumption of economically significant risks or separately assumes inter-related, economically significant risks, and a transactional profit split is considered to be the most appropriate method, it is likely that a split of actual profits, rather than anticipated profits, will be warranted since those actual profits, i.e. the actual relevant profits to be split, will reflect the playing out of the risks of each party. Conversely, a profit split of anticipated profits will tend to concentrate the playing out of economically significant risks on one party. That is, the transfer pricing outcome – a sharing of actual or anticipated profits – should align with the accurate delineation of the transaction. See Section C.4.1 below on splits of actual and anticipated profits ... Continue to full case

The relevance of this factor as an indicator for the transactional profit split method will depend in large measure on the extent to which the risks concerned are economically significant such that a share of relevant profits would be warranted for each party. The economic significance of the risks should be analysed in relation to their importance to the actual or anticipated relevant profits from the controlled transaction(s), rather than in respect of their importance to any one of the associated enterprises whose business operations may extend beyond those covered by the relevant profits ... Continue to full case

A transactional profit split may also be found to be the most appropriate method where, according to the accurately delineated transaction, the various economically significant risks in relation to the transaction are separately assumed by the parties, but those risks are so closely inter-related and/or correlated that the playing out of the risks of each party cannot reliably be isolated. See Example 10 in Annex II to Chapter II ... Continue to full case

A transactional profit split may be found to be the most appropriate method where, according to the accurately delineated transaction, each party to the controlled transaction shares the assumption of one or more of the economically significant risks in relation to that transaction (see paragraph 1.95) ... Continue to full case

Where the contributions are highly inter-related or inter-dependent upon each other, the evaluation of the respective contributions of the parties may need to be done holistically. That is, a high degree of integration may also affect whether contributions by the enterprises are considered to be unique and valuable. For instance, a unique contribution by one party may have a significantly greater value when considered in combination with the particular unique contribution of the other party. Paragraphs 6.93-6.94 discuss this issue in relation to the combination of intangibles. See also Example 9 in Annex II to Chapter II ... Continue to full case

Where a party contributes to the control of economically significant risk, but that risk is assumed by the other party to the transaction, this may, in some cases, demonstrate that it is appropriate for the first party to share in the potential upside and downside associated with that risk, commensurate with its contribution to control. See paragraph 1.105. However, the mere fact that an entity performs control functions in relation to a risk will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transactional profit split is the most appropriate method in the case ... Continue to full case

Where business operations are highly integrated, the extent to which the parties share the assumption of the same economically significant risks or separately assume closely related economically significant risks will be relevant to the determination of the most appropriate method and, if a transactional profit split is considered the most appropriate method, how it should be applied; in particular whether a split of actual profits or of anticipated profits should be used. See Section C.4.1 ... Continue to full case

Another example may be where the integration between the parties takes the form of a high degree of inter-dependency. For instance, profit split approaches may be used by independent enterprises engaged in long-term arrangements where each party has made a significant contribution (e.g. of an asset) whose value depends on the counterparty to the arrangement. In these kinds of cases, where each party makes such a contribution, and is dependent on the other party (or where the value of the contribution(s) of one party depends to a significant degree on the contribution(s) of the other party), some form of flexible pricing that takes into account, and varies with, the outcome of the risks assumed by each party arising from its dependence on the other party may be observed ... Continue to full case

In some cases the parties may perform functions jointly, use assets jointly and/or share assumption of risks to such an extent that it is impossible to evaluate their respective contributions in isolation from those of others. As an example, the transactional profit split method can be applied to the global trading of financial instruments by associated enterprises. See in Part III, Section C of the Report on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. See Report on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (OECD, 2010) ... Continue to full case

Although most MNE groups are integrated to some extent, a particularly high degree of integration in certain business operations is an indicator for the consideration of the transactional profit split method. A high degree of integration means that the way in which one party to the transaction performs functions, uses assets and assumes risks is interlinked with, and cannot reliably be evaluated in isolation from, the way in which another party to the transaction performs functions, uses assets and assumes risks. In contrast, many instances of integration within an MNE result in situations in which the contribution of at least one party to the transaction can in fact be reliably evaluated by reference to comparable uncontrolled transactions. For example, where complementary but discrete activities are undertaken by the entities, it may be the case that it is possible to find reliable comparables since the functions, ... Continue to full case

As set out in paragraphs 6.148 to 6.149 and 6.152, in some cases, the transactional profit split method may be the most appropriate method for a transfer of fully developed intangibles (including rights in intangibles) where it is not possible to identify reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions. The transactional profit split method may also be appropriate for transfers of partially developed intangibles. Example 5 in Annex II to Chapter II provides an illustration. See paragraphs 6.150 to 6.151. Where the intangibles transferred are hard-to-value intangibles, the provisions of Section D.4 of Chapter VI should be considered ... Continue to full case

Where each party to the transaction legally owns unique and valuable intangibles that are relevant to the transaction, it will also be necessary to consider whether, under the accurate delineation of the transaction, they each assume the economically significant risks relating to those intangibles, e.g. risks related to development, obsolescence, infringement, product liability and exploitation (see paragraphs 6.65 to 6.68) ... Continue to full case

Contributions (for instance functions performed, or assets used or contributed) will be “unique and valuable” in cases where (i) they are not comparable to contributions made by uncontrolled parties in comparable circumstances, and (ii) they represent a key source of actual or potential economic benefits in the business operations. The two factors are often linked: comparables for such contributions are seldom found because they are a key source of economic advantage. It may be the case that in these situations, the risks associated with the respective unique and valuable contributions cannot be controlled by the other party or parties. This may impact the assumption of risk under the accurate delineation of the actual transaction. For example, the developer and manufacturer of a key component of a product together with the developer and manufacturer of another key component that together with the first component, form the ... Continue to full case

It may also be relevant to consider industry practices. For instance, if information is available that independent parties do commonly use profit splitting approaches in similar situations, careful consideration should be given to whether the transactional profit split method may be the most appropriate method for the controlled transactions. Such industry practices may be a pointer to the fact that each party makes unique and valuable contributions, and/or that the parties are highly inter-dependent upon each other. Conversely, if independent parties engaged in comparable transactions are found to make use of other pricing methods, this should also be taken into account in determining the most appropriate transfer pricing method ... Continue to full case

A lack of closely comparable, uncontrolled transactions which would otherwise be used to benchmark an arm’s length return for the party performing the less complex functions should not per se lead to a conclusion that the transactional profit split is the most appropriate method. Depending on the facts of the case, an appropriate method using uncontrolled transactions that are sufficiently comparable, but not identical to the controlled transaction is likely to be more reliable than an inappropriate use of the transactional profit split method. See paragraphs 3.38-3.39 for a discussion of limitations in available comparables. See also Section C.2.3 ... Continue to full case