A Korean subsidiary of a Dutch multinational electronics group imported medical equipment, small household appliances, and lighting products from related parties and sold them in Korea. The company also provided after-sales maintenance services for medical equipment. For FY 2012 to 2015, the company applied the transactional net margin method separately to each business division and reported its corporate tax accordingly, using operating profit margin as the profit level indicator. Following an audit the tax authorities reclassified the company’s activities into four segments. They concluded that in the medical equipment, small household appliances, and automotive lighting segments, the transfer prices paid to foreign related parties exceeded arm’s length levels, while no upward adjustment was needed for the general lighting segment. On that basis, they issued a tax assessment. The authorities treated maintenance service activities in the medical equipment segment as closely linked to product sales and selected comparable companies largely based on similarity to domestic maintenance service businesses. The taxpayer challenged ... Read more

Nestlé Zambia Limited (NZL) had made continuous losses during the period in question. Following an audit, the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) issued an assessment adjusting NZL’s income, resulting in additional taxable income. While the Tax Appeals Tribunal found that the ZRA was justified in initiating a transfer pricing audit of NZL, it held that the resulting assessment was invalid due to the ZRA applying inappropriate transfer pricing methods and using comparables from unsuitable jurisdictions. NZL filed a cross-appeal, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in categorising it as a low-risk distributor and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the ZRA to reassess. The ZRA filed an appeal and NZL filed a cross-appeal against the decision of the Tax Appeals Tribunal. In their appeal, the ZRA argued that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the law, incorrectly criticised the ZRA’s use of methods and comparables, and overlooked NZL’s obligation to demonstrate that its transactions were conducted at arm’s length. The ... Read more

Alcoa of Australia Ltd. is engaged in mining and sold smelter-grade alumina to an unrelated party, Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C., under long-term contracts. [Australia’s transfer pricing legislation is applicable if an Australian entity gets a tax benefit in Australia from non-arm’s length cross-border conditions, regardless of whether the parties are related to one another. There are no control or ownership thresholds for the legislation to apply. This ensures that independent parties engaging in, for example, collusive behavior or other practices where they are not dealing exclusively in their own economic interests will not circumvent the rules by reason of their non-association.] Following an audit in which the arm’s-length pricing of the transactions was tested using the CUP method, the tax authorities concluded that Alcoa had not received an arm’s-length consideration for its sale of alumina. According to the tax authorities, it had undercharged Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. by more than USD 420 million over FY 1993–2009, resulting in an assessment of additional taxes ... Read more

Plaintif, “E Corp” is a Japanese corporation whose business activities are focused on four business fields: resources and energy, public infrastructure, industrial machinery, and aeronautics and space. Through company B, E Corp owned the shares in Company A located in Thailand. Company A purchased vehicle turbocharger parts or components from “E Corp” or local suppliers, manufactured vehicle turbochargers under a licence agreement with E Corp and also recieved services from E Corp. It sold the turbochargers mainly to Japanese automobile manufacturers, and also both finished products and parts to E Corp’s other affiliated companies. Following an audit a dispute arose between E Corp and the tax authorities as to what transfer pricing method to apply. An assessment was issued where the tax authorities applied a “method equivalent to the Transactional Net Margin Method” “E Corp” filed a complaint which the district court alleging that the method used by the tax authoritis was not equivalent to a TNMM, and therefore the ... Read more

“Metal KtF”‘s main activity was the production of metal parts for the automotive industry. It had been making losses since 2012, while the group to which it belonged was profitable as a whole. The tax authorities conducted an audit and classified “Metal KtF” as a low-risk manufacturing company (contract manufacturer) because the functions and business risks assumed were not the same as those of an independent manufacturing company and the losses were partly the result of decisions taken by the parent company. The tax authorities concluded that “Metal KtF” provided a hidden service to the parent company by tolerating loss-making production. An assessmet was issued where the difference between the operating result (loss) reported by “Metal KtF” and the calculated arm’s length operating result had been added to the taxable income. “Metal KtF” filed an appeal, which was mostly dismissed by the Administrative Court, and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgment The Supreme Administrative Court ... Read more

The tax authority (DIAN) had issued an assessment of additional taxable income for FY2013 due to non-arm’s length pricing of transactions with related parties. According to the assessment, the tax authority disagreed with method applied by C.I. Banacol and instead applied a TNMM where the transactions were priced in the aggregate. C.I. Banacol appealed to the Administrative Court, which ruled in favour of the tax authories. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgment The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court and ruled in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts in English “The Chamber agrees with the DIAN and the Court in the sense that the four segmented transactions for the purposes of the transfer pricing regime are interrelated and are directed to the fulfilment of a single object: the international marketing of bananas and plantains and other fruits, products that are previously acquired from national economic partners or consigned by third parties.” ... Read more

A Korean subsidiary of a multinational electronics group imported medical equipment, small household appliances and lighting products from related parties abroad and sold them in Korea. It also provided after-sales maintenance services for medical equipment. The taxpayer segmented its activities by business line, applying the transactional net margin method separately to each segment and using operating profit margin as the profit level indicator. Maintenance services relating to medical equipment were treated either as a distinct activity or as a routine function with limited profitability. Following an audit, the tax authorities rejected the taxpayer’s segmentation and functional analysis. They reclassified the taxpayer’s activities into four segments, treating the maintenance services for medical equipment as economically integrated with the sale of medical equipment. Based on this, they concluded that the prices paid to foreign related parties for medical equipment, small household appliances and automotive lighting products exceeded arm’s length price, while no adjustment was required for the general lighting segment. The authorities ... Read more

BASF ARGENTINA S.A. is an Argentine company that manufactures and distributes chemical products, paints, plastics and agricultural inputs. For the 2008 tax year it filed a transfer pricing study applying the TNMM to most transactions with related parties abroad and the CUP method for interest on loans, using external comparables and BASF’s global income statement as the tested data. Following an audit focused on this study, the tax authorities determined income tax ex officio for 2008, increasing taxable income by ARS 5,625,444.17 on the basis that BASF’s profitability, especially in its chemical manufacturing activity, was below the range of independent comparables. The tax authorities did not dispute the choice of TNMM, the multi year period or the set of external comparables, but challenged BASF’s implementation of TNMM and certain comparability adjustments. They rejected BASF’s aggregation of all business segments and functions into a single operating margin, and instead used segmented information by function that BASF later provided, concluding that the ... Read more

Eni Norge AS was a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni International B.V., a Dutch company. Both companies were part of the Eni Group, which was headquartered by the Italian company Eni SpA. Eni Norway had deducted costs related to the purchase of “technical services” from Eni SpA. Following an audit, the tax authorities reduced these deductions in accordance with Section 13-1 of the Tax Act (arm’s length provision). As a result, Eni Norge’s income was increased by NOK 32,673,457 in FY2015 and NOK 16,752,728 in FY2016. The tax assessment issued by the tax authorities was later confirmed by a decision of the Petroleum Tax Appeal Board. The Tax Appeal Board found that there were price differences between the internal hourly rates for technical services and the external hourly rates. The price differences could be due to errors in the cost base and/or lack of arm’s length in the allocation of costs. Eni Norge applied to the District Court for a ... Read more

Puma Energy Bahamas SA is engaged in the wholesale of petroleum products, accessories and rolling stock in general in Panama. Following a thorough audit carried out by the Tax Administration in Panama, where discrepancies and inconsistencies had been identified between the transfer pricing documentation and financial reports and other publicly available information, an assessment was issued for FY 2013 and 2014 of additional taxable income of $39 million resulting in additional taxes and surcharges of approximately $ 14 millions. Puma Energy Bahamas SA disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Administrative Tax Tribunal. In 2020 the Administrative Tribunal decided in favor of the tax authorities with a minor adjustment in the calculations for 2014. “…we consider that the Tax Administration adhered, in this case, to the powers conferred by law, and that there is no defenselessness, since it was verified that, in the course of the audit, several requests for information were made (as evidenced in the ... Read more

Marelli Slovakia’s main business is the manufacture of automotive engine and transmission components and that its main products are throttle bodies, throttle position sensors and high-pressure fuel pumps. The parent company is Magneti Marelli S.p.A., Italy, which owns 100 % of the shares of the company, and the parent company of the entire group is Fiat S.p.A. In an audit of corporate income taxes for FY 2012 the tax authorities compared the resale price method, the cost plus method and the net margin method, and stated the reasons why it had chosen the net margin method as the most appropriate method for assessing the arm’s length pricing of the controlled transactions relating to the intra-group sale of Marelli Slovakia’s products. In comparing the terms and conditions agreed in the commercial relationships, it took into account the activities carried out by Marelli Slovakia in production, purchasing and sales, as well as the extent of the business risks, the contractual terms and ... Read more

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., challenged an assessment made by the tax authorities for FY 2018-19 regarding the separate benchmarking of royalty payments to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The main issue related to whether royalty payments should be benchmarked separately or subsumed within the TNMM applied at the entity level. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. argued that it had used TNMM at the entity level, which already took into account all international transactions, including royalty. It contended that royalty was part of integrated business operations and could not be evaluated in isolation. The tax authorities, however, rejected this approach, held that royalty was a separate transaction with a separate agreement, and adopted the CUP method instead. They benchmarked royalty by comparing it to similar expenses (royalty + R&D) incurred by comparable companies, concluding that the royalty paid by Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. exceeded the arm’s length standard, leading to a TP adjustment of Rs. 279.84 crores. The Commissioner of ... Read more

Plaintif, “E Corp” is a Japanese corporation whose business activities are focused on four business fields: resources and energy, public infrastructure, industrial machinery, and aeronautics and space. Through company B, E Corp owned the shares in Company A located in Thailand. Company A purchased vehicle turbocharger parts or components from “E Corp” or local suppliers, manufactured vehicle turbochargers under a licence agreement with E Corp and also recieved services from E Corp. It sold the turbochargers mainly to Japanese automobile manufacturers, and also both finished products and parts to E Corp’s other affiliated companies. Following an audit a dispute arose between E Corp and the tax authorities as to what transfer pricing method to apply. An assessment was issued where the tax authorities applied a “method equivalent to the Transactional Net Margin Method” “E Corp” filed a complaint which the district court alleging that the method used by the tax authoritis was not equivalent to a TNMM, and therefore the ... Read more

In 2012, the tax authorities increased the taxable income for the income years 2006-2008 for two companies in the former A. P. Møller – Mærsk Group. P. Moller – Maersk Group. The taxable income was thus increased for the former Mærsk Olie og Gas A/S (MOGAS), which was taken over by Total S.A. in 2018, and for A.P. Møller – Mærsk A/S (APMM), which was the management company in the joint taxation with, among others, MOGAS. As grounds for the increases, the tax authorities referred to the fact that intra-group transactions had taken place between MOGAS and the company’s subsidiaries, Mærsk Olie Algeriet A/S and Maersk Oil Qatar A/S, which did not fulfil the tax legislation’s rules that transactions between group companies must be priced in accordance with what could have been achieved if the transactions had been concluded between independent parties (arm’s length terms). The assessment of additional income concerned three issues. Firstly, prior to the establishment of the ... Read more

In 2008 and 2009 the Medtronic group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Ventor Technologies Ltd, for a sum of $325 million. Subsequent to the acquisition various inter-company agreements were entered into between Ventor Technologies Ltd and Medtronics, but no transfer of intangible assets was recognised by the Group for tax purposes. The tax authorities found that all the intangibles previously owned by Ventor had been transferred to Medtronic and issued an assessment of additional taxable profits. An appeal was filed by Medtronic Ventor Technologies Ltd. Judgment of the District Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Click here for English translation ... Read more

In its application for an individual interpretation, R. S.A. stated that it distributes fast moving goods in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It purchases these goods from the company E. based in H. and sells them to independent wholesale distributors and retailers. At the applicant’s request, the Minister of Finance in 2015 issued a decision on a advance price agreement, recognising the correctness of the selection and application of the transactional net margin method in the applicant’s purchase of goods from a related party for further distribution in the Baltic States. In the activities covered by the decision, R. S.A. performs the functions of a distributor with limited risk and limited marketing functions and incurs the associated operating costs, which consist of both its own costs (purchase from group entities of, inter alia, advisory, legal, technical, organisational, financial and marketing/sales services) and external costs (including the costs of services purchased from other entities, also related parties, subsequently re-invoiced to the ... Read more

“Cosmetics sp. z o.o.” is a Polish distributor of cosmetics. It purchases the goods from a related foreign company. The contract concluded between “Cosmetics sp. z o.o.” and the foreign company contained a provision according to which 3% of the price of the goods purchased was to be paid (in the form of royalties) for the right to use the trademarks for the promotion, advertising and sale of the products. However, the invoices issued by the foreign company for the sale of the goods in question did not show the amount paid for the right to use the trademarks as a separate item. The invoices simply stated the price of the goods purchased. “Cosmetics sp. z o.o. requested an “individual interpretation” from the tax authorities as to whether the royalty payments included in the price of the goods were subject to withholding tax in Poland. According to Cosmetics sp. z o.o., the answer should be no, as the “royalty” element ... Read more

Transalliance Iberica SA had priced its controlled transactions for the years 2008-2013 by comparing the gross margin achieved on an overall basis with the gross margins of comparable companies. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued a notice of assessment rejecting the method used by the company due to differences in the treatment of cost items and thus issues of comparability at a gross margin level. Instead, the tax authorities applied the TNMM. The profit was outside the interquartile range and an adjustment to the median was made. Transalliance lodged an appeal. Judgment of the Court The Court largely ruled in favor of the tax authorities, but according to the Court, an adjustment to the median could only be made where the tax authorities established the existence of comparability defects. Since such defects had not been established, the adjustment was reduced to the lower quartile. Excerpt “Of the points that are dealt with, the appellant focuses the discussion on the ... Read more

The combined effect of multiple contemporaneous transactions, consisting either of multiple PCTs, or of one or more PCT and one or more other transactions in connection with a CSA that are not governed by this section (such as transactions involving cross operating contributions or make-or-sell rights), may require evaluation in accordance with the principles of aggregation described in § 1.482-1(f)(2)(i). In such cases, it may be that the multiple transactions are reasonably anticipated, as of the date of the PCT(s), to be so interrelated that the method that provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length charge is a method under this section applied on an aggregate basis for the PCT(s) and other transactions. A section 482 adjustment may be made by comparing the aggregate arm’s length charge so determined to the aggregate payments actually made for the multiple transactions. In such a case, it generally will not be necessary to allocate separately the aggregate arm’s length charge as ... Read more

P and S are controlled taxpayers. P licenses a proprietary process to S for S’s use in manufacturing product X. Using its sales and marketing employees, S sells product X to related and unrelated customers outside the United States. If the license between P and S has economic substance, the Commissioner ordinarily will not restructure the taxpayer’s transaction to treat P as if it had elected to exploit directly the manufacturing process. However, because P could have directly exploited the manufacturing process and manufactured product X itself, this realistic alternative may be taken into account under § 1.482-4(d) in determining the arm’s length consideration for the controlled transaction. For examples of such an analysis, see Examples 7 and 8 in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(E) of this section and the Example in § 1.482-4(d)(2) ... Read more

The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(2)(ii): ... Read more

... Read more

Allocating arm’s length compensation determined under an aggregate analysis – (i) P provides services to S1, which is incorporated in Country A. In connection with those services, P licenses intellectual property to S2, which is incorporated in Country B. S2 sublicenses the intellectual property to S1. (ii) Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, if an aggregate analysis of the service and license transactions provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result, then an aggregate analysis must be performed. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(D) of this section, if an allocation of the value that results from such an aggregate analysis is necessary, for example, for purposes of sourcing the services income that P receives from S1 or determining deductible expenses incurred by S1, then the value determined under the aggregate analysis must be allocated using the method that provides the most reliable measure of the services income and deductible expenses ... Read more

Services provided using intangibles. – (i) P’s worldwide group produces and markets Product X and subsequent generations of products, which result from research and development performed by P’s R&D Team. Through this collaboration with respect to P’s proprietary products, the members of the R&D Team have individually and as a group acquired specialized knowledge and expertise subject to non-disclosure agreements (collectively, “knowhow”). (ii) P arranges for the R&D Team to provide research and development services to create a new line of products, building on the Product X platform, to be owned and exploited by S1 in the overseas market. P asserts that the arm’s length charge for the services is only reimbursement to P of its associated R&D Team compensation costs. (iii) Even though P did not transfer the platform or the R&D Team to S1, P is providing value associated with the use of the platform, along with the value associated with the use of the knowhow, to S1 by ... Read more

Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing and marketing intangibles governed by different statutes and regulations. The facts are the same as in Example 8 except that P transfers only the ROW intangibles related to manufacturing to S1 in an exchange described in section 351 and, upon entering into the CSA, then transfers the ROW intangibles related to marketing to S1 in a platform contribution transaction described in § 1.482-7(c) (rather than transferring all ROW intangibles only upon entering into the CSA or only in a prior exchange described in section 351). The value of the ROW intangibles that P transferred in the two transactions is greater in the aggregate, due to synergies among the different types of ROW intangibles, than if valued as two separate transactions. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the arm’s length standard requires these synergies to be taken into account in determining the arm’s length results for the transactions ... Read more

Arm’s length compensation for equivalent provisions of intangibles under sections 351 and 482. P owns the worldwide rights to manufacturing and marketing intangibles that it uses to manufacture and market a product in the United States (“US intangibles”) and the rest of the world (“ROW intangibles”). P transfers all the ROW intangibles to S1 in an exchange described in section 351 and retains the US intangibles. Immediately after the exchange, P and S1 entered into a CSA described in § 1.482-7(b) that covers all research and development of intangibles conducted by the parties. A realistic alternative that was available to P and that would have involved the controlled parties performing similar functions, employing similar resources, and assuming similar risks as in the controlled transaction, was to transfer all ROW intangibles to S1 upon entering into the CSA in a platform contribution transaction described in § 1.482-7(c), rather than in an exchange described in section 351 immediately before entering into the CSA. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this ... Read more

Distinguishing provision of value from characterization – (i) P developed a collection of resources, capabilities, and rights (“Collection”) that it uses on an interrelated basis in ongoing research and development of computer code that is used to create a successful line of software products. P can continue to use the Collection on such interrelated basis in the future to further develop computer code and, thus, further build on its successful line of software products. Under § 1.482-7(g)(2)(ix), P determines that the interquartile range of the net present value of its own use of the Collection in future research and development and software product marketing is between $1000x and $1100x, and this range provides the most reliable measure of the value to P of continuing to use the Collection on an interrelated basis in future research, development, and exploitation. Instead, P enters into an exchange described in section 351 in which it transfers certain intangible property related to the Collection to S1 for ... Read more

Consideration of entire arrangement, including imputed contractual terms – (i) P conducts a business (“Business”) from the United States, with a worldwide clientele, but until Date X has no foreign operations. The success of Business significantly depends on intangibles (including marketing, manufacturing, technological, and goodwill or going concern value intangibles, collectively the “IP”), as well as ongoing support activities performed by P (including related research and development, central marketing, manufacturing process enhancement, and oversight activities, collectively “Support”), to maintain and improve the IP and otherwise maximize the profitability of Business. (ii) On Date X, Year 1, P contributes the foreign rights to conduct Business, including the foreign rights to the IP, to newly incorporated S1. S1, utilizing the IP of which it is now the owner, commences foreign operations consisting of local marketing, manufacturing, and back office activities in order to conduct and expand Business in the foreign market. (iii) Later, on Date Y, Year 1, P and S1 enter into ... Read more

Aggregation of interrelated patents. P owns 10 individual patents that, in combination, can be used to manufacture and sell a successful product. P anticipates that it could earn profits of $25x from the patents based on a discounted cash flow analysis that provides a more reliable measure of the value of the patents exploited as a bundle rather than separately. P licenses all 10 patents to S1 to be exploited as a bundle. Evidence of uncontrolled licenses of similar individual patents indicates that, exploited separately, each license of each patent would warrant a price of $1x, implying a total price for the patents of $10x. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, in determining the arm’s length royalty for the license of the bundle of patents, it would not be appropriate to use the uncontrolled licenses as comparables for the license of the bundle of patents, because, unlike the discounted cash flow analysis, the uncontrolled licenses considered separately do not reliably reflect the enhancement ... Read more

Non-aggregation of transactions that are not interrelated. P enters into a license agreement with S1 that permits S1 to use a proprietary process for manufacturing product X and to sell product X to uncontrolled parties throughout a specified region. P also sells to S1 product Y, which is manufactured by P in the United States and unrelated to product X. Product Y is resold by S1 to uncontrolled parties in the specified region. There is no connection between product X and product Y other than the fact that they are both sold in the same specified region. In evaluating whether the royalty paid by S1 to P for the use of the manufacturing process for product X and the transfer prices charged for unrelated product Y are arm’s length amounts, it would not be appropriate to consider the combined effects of these separate and unrelated transactions ... Read more

Aggregation and reliability of comparable uncontrolled transactions. The facts are the same as in Example 2. In addition, U1, U2, and U3 are uncontrolled taxpayers that carry out functions comparable to those of S1, S2, and S3, respectively, with respect to computers produced by unrelated manufacturers. R1, R2, and R3 constitute a controlled group of taxpayers (unrelated to the P controlled group) that carry out functions comparable to those of S1, S2, and S3 with respect to computers produced by their common parent. Prices charged to uncontrolled customers of the R group differ from the prices charged to customers of U1, U2, and U3. In determining whether the transactions of U1, U2, and U3, or the transactions of R1, R2, and R3, would provide a more reliable measure of the arm’s length result, it is determined that the interrelated R group transactions are more reliable than the wholly independent transactions of U1, U2, and U3, given the interrelationship of the P group transactions ... Read more

Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing, marketing, and services activities. S1 is the exclusive Country Z distributor of computers manufactured by P. S2 provides marketing services in connection with sales of P computers in Country Z and in this regard uses significant marketing intangibles provided by P. S3 administers the warranty program with respect to P computers in Country Z, including maintenance and repair services. In evaluating whether the transfer prices paid by S1 to P, the fees paid by S2 to P for the use of P marketing intangibles, and the service fees earned by S2 and S3 are arm’s length amounts, it would be appropriate to perform an aggregate analysis that considers the combined effects of these interrelated transactions if they are most reliably analyzed on an aggregated basis ... Read more

Aggregation of interrelated licensing, manufacturing, and selling activities. P enters into a license agreement with S1 that permits S1 to use a proprietary manufacturing process and to sell the output from this process throughout a specified region. S1 uses the manufacturing process and sells its output to S2, which in turn resells the output to uncontrolled parties in the specified region. In evaluating whether the royalty paid by S1 to P is an arm’s length amount, it may be appropriate to evaluate the royalty in combination with the transfer prices charged by S1 to S2 and the aggregate profits earned by S1 and S2 from the use of the manufacturing process and the sale to uncontrolled parties of the products produced by S1 ... Read more

The following examples illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (f)(2)(i). For purposes of the examples in this paragraph (E), P is a domestic corporation, and S1, S2, and S3 are foreign corporations that are wholly owned by P ... Read more

In some cases, it may be necessary to allocate one or more portions of the arm’s length result that was properly determined under a coordinated best method analysis described in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C) of this section. Any such allocation of the arm’s length result determined under the coordinated best method analysis must be made using the method that, under the facts and circumstances, provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result for each allocated amount. For example, if the full value of compensation due in controlled transactions whose tax treatment is governed by multiple provisions of the Code or regulations has been most reliably determined on an aggregate basis, then that full value must be allocated in a manner that provides the most reliable measure of each allocated amount ... Read more

Consistent with the principles of paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, a coordinated best method analysis and evaluation of two or more controlled transactions to which one or more provisions of the Code or regulations apply may be necessary to ensure that the overall value provided, including any synergies, is properly taken into account. A coordinated best method analysis would include a consistent consideration of the facts and circumstances of the functions performed, resources employed, and risks assumed in the relevant transactions, and a consistent measure of the arm’s length results, for purposes of all relevant statutory and regulatory provisions ... Read more

The combined effect of two or more separate transactions (whether before, during, or after the year under review), including for purposes of an analysis under multiple provisions of the Code or regulations, may be considered if the transactions, taken as a whole, are so interrelated that an aggregate analysis of the transactions provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result determined under the best method rule of § 1.482-1(c). Whether two or more transactions are evaluated separately or in the aggregate depends on the extent to which the transactions are economically interrelated and on the relative reliability of the measure of an arm’s length result provided by an aggregate analysis of the transactions as compared to a separate analysis of each transaction. For example, consideration of the combined effect of two or more transactions may be appropriate to determine whether the overall compensation in the transactions is consistent with the value provided, including any synergies among items and services ... Read more

All value provided between controlled taxpayers in a controlled transaction requires an arm’s length amount of compensation determined under the best method rule of § 1.482-1(c). Such amount must be consistent with, and must account for all of, the value provided between the parties in the transaction, without regard to the form or character of the transaction. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider the entire arrangement between the parties, as determined by the contractual terms, whether written or imputed in accordance with the economic substance of the arrangement, in light of the actual conduct of the parties. See, e.g., § 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B) (identifying contractual terms) and (f)(2)(ii)(A) (regarding reference to realistic alternatives) ... Read more

... Read more

(a) through (f) (2) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.482-1(a) through (f)(2) ... Read more

In April 2010 Roche pharmaceutical group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Medingo Ltd, for USD 160 million. About six months after the acquisition, Medingo was entered into 3 inter-group service agreements: a R&D services agreement, pursuant to which Medingo was to provide R&D services in exchange for cost + 5%. All developments under the agreement would be owned by Roche. a services agreement according to which Medingo was to provided marketing, administration, consultation and support services in exchange for cost + 5%. a manufacturing agreement, under which Medingo was to provide manufacturing and packaging services in exchange for cost + 5. A license agreement was also entered, according to which Roche could now manufacture, use, sell, exploit, continue development and sublicense to related parties the Medingo IP in exchange for 2% of the relevant net revenues. Finally, in 2013, Medingo’s operation in Israel was terminated and its IP sold to Roche for approximately USD 45 million ... Read more

Akzo Nobel India Pvt – a subsidiary of Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV – had paid for administrative services purportedly rendered form a group company in Singapore and had claimed a deduction of INR 19,465 250. The price paid for these services had been determined by the group on an aggregate basis using the transactional net margin method to establish that all controlled transactions in Akzo Nobel India had been at arm’s length. During the audit, the tax authority requested Akzo Nobel India to justify the arm’s length nature of the payment for these administrative services. To that end Akzo Nobel India submitted a copy of the agreement and the allocations keys used. Akzo Nobel India also submitted that the group company in Singapore had provided administrative support services like supply chain management support, marketing and commercial service support, commercial vehicle support, automotive after-market support, supporting R&D, human resource, finance management and general management support. However, according to the tax ... Read more

The determination of the arm’s length compensation for a transfer of an ongoing concern does not necessarily amount to the sum of the separate valuations of each separate element that comprises the aggregate transfer. In particular, if the transfer of an ongoing concern comprises multiple contemporaneous transfers of interrelated assets, risks, or functions, valuation of those transfers on an aggregate basis may be necessary to achieve the most reliable measure of the arm’s length price for the ongoing concern. Valuation techniques that are used, in acquisition deals, between independent parties may prove useful to valuing the transfer of an ongoing concern between associated enterprises. The guidance on the use of valuation techniques for transactions involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles contained in Section D.2.6.3 of Chapter VI should be considered ... Read more

Intra-group arrangements for rendering services are sometimes linked to arrangements for transferring goods or intangibles (or the licensing thereof). In some cases, such as know-how contracts containing a service element, it may be very difficult to determine where the exact border lies between the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles and the provision of services. Ancillary services are frequently associated with the transfer of technology. It may therefore be necessary to consider the principles for aggregation and segregation of transactions in Chapter III where a mixed transfer of services and property is involved ... Read more

Paragraphs 3.9 to 3.12 and paragraph 3.37 provide guidance regarding the aggregation of separate transactions for purposes of transfer pricing analysis. Those principles apply fully to cases involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles and are supplemented by the guidance in Section C of this chapter. Indeed, it is often the case that intangibles may be transferred in combination with other intangibles, or in combination with transactions involving the sale of goods or the performance of services. In such situations it may well be that the most reliable transfer pricing analysis will consider the interrelated transactions in the aggregate as necessary to improve the reliability of the analysis ... Read more

Moreover, it should also be emphasised that determinations as to whether transactions should be aggregated or segregated for analysis usually involve the delineation of the actual transaction undertaken, by reference to written agreements and the actual conduct of the parties. Determinations regarding the actual transaction undertaken constitute one necessary element in determining the most appropriate transfer pricing method in the particular case ... Read more

In other situations, the provision of a service and the transfer of one or more intangibles may be so closely intertwined that it is difficult to separate the transactions for purposes of a transfer pricing analysis. For example, some transfers of rights in software may be combined with an undertaking by the transferor to provide ongoing software maintenance services, which may include periodic updates to the software. In situations where services and transfers of intangibles are intertwined, determining arm’s length prices on an aggregate basis may be necessary ... Read more

For example, a pharmaceutical product will often have associated with it three or more types of intangibles. The active pharmaceutical ingredient may be protected by one or more patents. The product will also have been through a testing process and a government regulatory authority may have issued an approval to market the product in a given geographic market and for specific approved indications based on that testing. The product may be marketed under a particular trademark. In combination these intangibles may be extremely valuable. In isolation, one or more of them may have much less value. For example, the trademark without the patent and regulatory marketing approval may have limited value since the product could not be sold without the marketing approval and generic competitors could not be excluded from the market without the patent. Similarly, the value of the patent may be much greater once regulatory marketing approval has been obtained than would be the case in the absence ... Read more

Intangibles (including limited rights in intangibles) may be transferred individually or in combination with other intangibles. In considering transactions involving transfers of combinations of intangibles, two related issues often arise ... Read more

Intangibles that are important to consider for transfer pricing purposes are not always recognised as intangible assets for accounting purposes. For example, costs associated with developing intangibles internally through expenditures such as research and development and advertising are sometimes expensed rather than capitalised for accounting purposes and the intangibles resulting from such expenditures therefore are not always reflected on the balance sheet. Such intangibles may nevertheless be used to generate significant economic value and may need to be considered for transfer pricing purposes. Furthermore, the enhancement to value that may arise from the complementary nature of a collection of intangibles when exploited together is not always reflected on the balance sheet. Accordingly, whether an item should be considered to be an intangible for transfer pricing purposes under Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention can be informed by its characterisation for accounting purposes, but will not be determined by such characterisation only. Furthermore, the determination that an item should ... Read more