21. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that the functional analysis indicates Company A has no capacity to make decisions to take on or decline the risk-bearing opportunity represented by its participation in the CCA, or to make decisions on whether and how to respond to the risks associated with the opportunity. It also has no capability to mitigate the risks or to assess and make decisions relating to the risk mitigation activities of another party conducted on its behalf. 22. In accurately delineating the transactions associated with the CCA, the functional analysis therefore indicates that Company A does not control its specific risks under the CCA in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 8.15 and consequently is not entitled to a share in the output that is the objective of the CCA ... Continue to full case

17. Company A and Company B are members of an MNE group and decide to undertake the development of an intangible through a CCA. The intangible is anticipated to be highly profitable based on Company B’s existing intangibles, its track record and its experienced research and development staff. Company A performs, through its own personnel, all the functions expected of a participant in a development CCA obtaining an independent right to exploit the resulting intangible, including functions required to exercise control over the risks it contractually assumes in accordance with the principles outlined in paragraphs 8.14 to 8.18. The particular intangible in this example is expected to take five years to develop before possible commercial exploitation and if successful, is anticipated to have value for ten years after initial Exploitation. 18. Under the CCA, Company A will contribute to funding associated with the development of ... Continue to full case

15. The facts are the same as Example 1, except that the per-unit value of Service 2 is 120 (that is, both Service 1 and Service 2 are equally valuable, and neither are low-value services). 16. Under the CCA, the value of Company A and Company B’s contributions should each correspond to their respective proportionate shares of expected benefits i.e. 50%. Since the total value of contributions under the CCA is 6 000, this means each party must contribute 3 000. The value of Company A’s in-kind contribution is 3 600. The value of Company B’s in- kind contribution is 2 400. Accordingly, Company B should make a balancing payment to Company A of 600. This has the effect of “topping up” Company B’s contribution to 3 000; and offsets Company A’s contribution to the same amount. Example 3 illustrates that, in general, assessing contributions ... Continue to full case

Example 2 12. The facts are the same as Example 1, except that the per-unit value of Service 1 is 103 (that is, both Service 1 and Service 2 are low-value services). Assume, therefore, that the calculation of the costs and value of the services is as follows: Cost to Company A of providing services (30 units * 100 per unit) 3 000 (60% of total costs) Cost to Company B of providing services (20 units * 100 per unit) 2 000 (40% of total costs Total cost to group 5 000 Value of contribution made by Company A (30 units * 103 per unit) 3 090 (59.5% of     total contributions) Value of contribution made by Company B (20 units * 105 per unit) 2 100 (40.5% of     total contributions) Total value of contributions made under the CCA 5 190 Company A and Company B each ... Continue to full case

8. The facts are the same as Example 1. In accordance with the guidance in paragraph 8.27, an alternative way to achieve the identical result under Example 1 is through the use of a two-step process as set out below 9. Step 1 (contributions measured at cost): Company A should bear 50% of the total cost of 5 000, or 2 500. The cost of Company A’s in-kind contribution is 3 000. Company B should bear 50% of the total cost, or 2 500. The cost of Company B’s in-kind contribution is 2 000. Company B should thus make an additional payment to Company A of 500. This reflects a balancing payment associated with current contributions. 10. Step 2 (accounting for additional contributions of value to the CCA): Company A produces 20 of value above costs per unit. Company B produces 5 of value above ... Continue to full case

1. Example 1 illustrates the general principle that contributions should be assessed at value (i.e. based on arm’s length prices) in order to produce results that are consistent with the arm’s length 2. Company A and Company B are members of an MNE group and decide to enter into a CCA. Company A performs Service 1 and Company B performs Service 2. Company A and Company B each “consume” both services (that is, Company A receives a benefit from Service 2 performed by Company B, and Company B receives a benefit from Service 1 performed by Company A). 3. Assume that the costs and value of the services are as follows: Costs of providing Service 1 (cost incurred by Company A) 100 per unit. Value of Service 1 (i.e. the arm’s length price that Company A would charge Company B for the provision of Service ... Continue to full case