Tag: Profit split method

A transactional profit method is a method that identifies the combined profit to be split for the associated enterprises from a controlled transaction (or controlled transactions that it is appropriate to aggregate under the principles of Chapter III) and then splits those profits between the associated enterprises based upon 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.

Ukrain vs PJSP Gals-K, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 620/1767/19

Ukrain vs PJSP Gals-K, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 620/1767/19

Ukrainian company “PJSP Gals-K” had been involved in various controlled transactions – complex technological drilling services; sale of crude oil; transfer of fixed assets etc. The tax authority found, that prices had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle and issued a tax assessment. Gals-K disagreed and filed a complaint. The Administrative Court dismissed the tax assessment and this decision was later upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new hearing. The court considered that breaches of procedural and substantive law by both the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance have been committed, and the case should therefore be referred to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing. Excerpts “Thus, in order to properly resolve the dispute in this part, the courts ... Read more
Malaysia vs Ensco Gerudi Malaysia SDN. BHD., July 2021, Juridical Review, High Court, Case No. WA-25-233-08-2020

Malaysia vs Ensco Gerudi Malaysia SDN. BHD., July 2021, Juridical Review, High Court, Case No. WA-25-233-08-2020

Ensco Gerudi provided offshore drilling services to the petroleum industry in Malaysia, including leasing drilling rigs, to oil and gas operators in Malaysia. In order to provide these services, the Ensco entered into a Master Charter Agreement dated 21.9.2006 (amended on 17.8.2011) (“Master Charter Agreement”) with Ensco Labuan Limited (“ELL”), a third-party contractor, to lease drilling rigs from ELL. Ensco then rents out the drilling rigs to its own customers. As part of the Master Charter Agreement, Ensco agreed to pay ELL a percentage of the applicable day rate that Ensco earns from its drilling contracts with its customers for the drilling rigs. By way of a letter dated 12.10.2018, the tax authorities initiated its audit for FY 2015 to 2017. The tax authorities issued its first audit findings letter on 23.10.2019 where it took the position that the pricing of the leasing transactions between the Applicant and ELL are not at arm’s length pursuant to s 140A of the ... Read more
Italy vs TMC Italia SpA, June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 18436/2021

Italy vs TMC Italia SpA, June 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 18436/2021

TMC Italy SpA is a parent company which provides services and support to the commercial production activities of its affiliated companies based in foreign countries (Spain, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Israel, Brazil, United Kingdom). The costs of providing these intra-group services had been allocated between the related parties based on the number and salary of employees in FY 2008 and 2009. The tax administration issued an assessment where the allocation was instead be based on turnover – due to data supporting better correlation. The Court of first instance held in favour of the tax authorities. This decision was appealed by TMC to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal of TMC in its entirety and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts: “CTR considered legitimate and correct the use of the method of allocation of the profits of the transactions adopted by the Office, as provided for by the OECD Guidelines 2010, since the ... Read more
European Commission vs. Amazon and Luxembourg, May 2021, State Aid - European General Court, Case No T-816/17 and T-318/18

European Commission vs. Amazon and Luxembourg, May 2021, State Aid – European General Court, Case No T-816/17 and T-318/18

In 2017 the European Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Amazon of around €250 million.  Following an in-depth investigation the Commission concluded that a tax ruling issued by Luxembourg in 2003, and prolonged in 2011, lowered the tax paid by Amazon in Luxembourg without any valid justification. The tax ruling enabled Amazon to shift the vast majority of its profits from an Amazon group company that is subject to tax in Luxembourg (Amazon EU) to a company which is not subject to tax (Amazon Europe Holding Technologies). In particular, the tax ruling endorsed the payment of a royalty from Amazon EU to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies, which significantly reduced Amazon EU’s taxable profits. This decision was brought before the European Court of Justice by Luxembourg and Amazon. Judgement of the EU Court  The European General Court found that Luxembourg’s tax treatment of Amazon was not illegal under EU State aid rules. According to a press release ” The ... Read more
Norway vs "Distributor A AS", March 2021, Tax Board, Case No 01-NS 131/2017

Norway vs “Distributor A AS”, March 2021, Tax Board, Case No 01-NS 131/2017

A fully fledged Norwegian distributor in the H group was restructured and converted into a Limited risk distributor. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the income of the Norwegian distributor was adjusted to the median in a benchmark study prepared by the tax authorities, based on the “Transactional Net Margin Method” (TNMM method). Decision of the Tax Board In a majority decision, the Tax Board determined that the case should be send back to the tax administration for further processing. Excerpt “…The majority agrees with the tax office that deficits over time may give reason to investigate whether the intra-group prices are set on market terms. However, the case is not sufficiently informed for the tribunal to take a final position on this. In order to determine whether the income has been reduced as a result of incorrect pricing of intra-group transactions and debits, it is necessary to analyze the agreed prices and contract terms. A comparability analysis will ... Read more
Italy vs SIOT S.p.A. June 2020, Cassazione, Case no Sez. 5 Num. 11837

Italy vs SIOT S.p.A. June 2020, Cassazione, Case no Sez. 5 Num. 11837

This case concerns Società Italiana per l’Oleodotto Transalpino Spa (S.I.O.T.) – , which operates the transalpine oil pipeline that crosses Italy, Austria and Germany, with the Austrian subsidiary T.O.O. GmbH and with the German subsidiary D.T.O. GmbH, belonging to the same group of companies. The Italian tax authorities had issued four notices of assessment for FY 2003-2006, related to undeclared revenues, determined in application of the transfer pricing regulations, according to which revenues deriving from transactions with foreign companies must be determined according to the “normal value” of the goods sold or services provided, cf, the arm’s length principle. S.I.O.T. had allocated profit from the activity between the Italien, Austrian and German pipelines using the profit split method – where kilometers of pipeline was the splitting factor. However, the cost of maintenance borne of S.I.O.T. was almost three times higher than that of the other two companies managing the pipeline due to the geography. The tax authorities therefore adjusted the ... Read more
Netherlands vs Zinc Smelter B.V., March 2020, Court of Appeal, Case No ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:968

Netherlands vs Zinc Smelter B.V., March 2020, Court of Appeal, Case No ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:968

A Dutch company, Zinc Smelter B.V., transferred part of it’s business to a Swiss group company in 2010. In dispute was whether the payment for the transferred activities had been set at arm’s length, and whether the cost-plus remuneration applied to the Dutch company after the business restructuring constituted an arm’s length remuneration for the remaining activities in the company. The case had previously been presented before the lower court where a decision had been issued in October 2017. After hearings in the Court of Appeal, Zinc Smelter B.V. and the Dutch tax authorities reached a settlement which was laid down in the decision. According to the agreement the profit split method was the correct method for determining the arm’s length remuneration of the Dutch company after the restructuring. Click here for English translation ECLI_NL_GHSHE_2020_968 ... Read more
Switzerland vs Swiss Investment AG, February 2020, Administrative Court Zurich, Case No SB.2018.00094 and SB.2018.00095

Switzerland vs Swiss Investment AG, February 2020, Administrative Court Zurich, Case No SB.2018.00094 and SB.2018.00095

Two Swiss investors had established a structure for the management of a private equity fund in the form of a Swiss “Investment Advisor” AG and a Jersey “Investment Mananger” Ltd. They each held 50% of the shares in the Swiss AG and 50% of the shares in the Jersey Ltd. Swiss AG and Jersey Ltd then entered an investment advisory agreement whereby the Swiss AG carried out all advisory activities on behalf of Jersey Ltd and Jersey Ltd assumed all the risk of the investments. Both investors were employed by Swiss AG and Jersey Ltd had no employees execpt two directors who each received a yearly payment of CFH 15,000. According to the investment advisory agreement Jersey Ltd would remunerate the Swiss AG with 66% of the gross fee income. The Swiss AG would carry out all relevant functions related to investment advisory and recommend to Jersey Ltd acquisition targets which the latter would then evaluate and subsequently decides on ... Read more
Norway vs Orange Business Norway A/S, January 2020, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2018-84331

Norway vs Orange Business Norway A/S, January 2020, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2018-84331

Orange Business Norway AS, a subsidiary of the French Orange Telecom Group, had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2006-2008. According to the Norwegian tax authorities, Orange Business Norway had determined the remuneration by applying a Profit Split Method in a way that closely resembled Global formulary apportionment. The tax authorities also found that a Profit Split approach was not suitable for the case and instead determined the income of Orange Business Norway based on the Transactional Net Margin Method. The Court of Appeal concluded that the tax authorities had not proven that the income of Orange Business Norway had been reduced due to common interests with other group companies, cf. SKL § 13-1 (1) and the OECD transfer pricing guidelines. Like the district court, the Court of Appeal concluded that the profit split method (PSM) had not been incorrectly applied by the company. Furthermore, the internal pricing determined by the company was sufficiently substantiated by the functional analyzes ... Read more
UN Manual on Transfer Pricing - draft update on Financial Transactions and Profit Splits

UN Manual on Transfer Pricing – draft update on Financial Transactions and Profit Splits

A new version of the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries is due by 2021. According to the mandate the new manual will make further improvements in usability and practical relevance, updates and improvements to existing text, including on Country Practices (Part D) and will have new content, in particular, on financial transactions; profit splits, centralized procurement functions and comparability issues. A draft paper was published 8 April 2019 containing further guidance on: • Financial Transactions (Attachment A); • Profit Splits (Attachment B); and • Establishing Transfer Pricing Capability, Risk Assessment and Transfer Pricing Audits (Attachment C). 2019 Update-UN-Practical-Manual-on-Transfer-Pricing ... Read more
THE APPLICATION OF THE PROFIT SPLIT METHOD WITHIN THE EU (2019)

THE APPLICATION OF THE PROFIT SPLIT METHOD WITHIN THE EU (2019)

This paper addresses the first stage and aims at clarifying certain concepts in applying the PSM: (i) when to use the PSM (i.e. in which circumstances it may be considered the most appropriate transfer pricing method) and (ii) how to split the profit based on the concepts described in the revised OECD Guidelines as well as by providing an inventory of recurrent splitting factors. For the avoidance of doubt this report should be regarded as complementary to, and supportive of, the text of the OECD Revised Guidelines on the application of the Transactional Profit Split Method issued in June 2018. The paper is structured as follows: section 2 provides a short description of the profit split method; section 3 seeks to clarify some key concepts related to the use of the profit split method also touching upon some challenging points; and section 4 describes a number of potential splitting factors listed in the Annex ... Read more
Revised guidance on the profit split method from the OECD

Revised guidance on the profit split method from the OECD

June 2018 the OECD released revised guidance on the profit split method. The new guidance will be incorporated into the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, replacing the previous text on the transactional profit split method in Chapter II. The revised guidance retains the basic premise that the profit split method should be applied where it is found to be the most appropriate method to the case at hand, but it significantly expands the guidance available to help determine when that may be the case. It also contains more guidance on how to apply the method, as well as numerous examples. revised-guidance-on-the-application-of-the-transactional-profit-split-method-beps-action-10 ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 16

85. Company A, Company B and Company C, members of the same MNE group, jointly agree to share the “greenfield” development of a new product. In this regard, none of the entities brings existing contributions of value such as pre-existing intangibles to the project. Each associated enterprise will be responsible for developing and manufacturing one of the three key components of the product. 86. In this case, assume that the transactional profit split is found to be the most appropriate method for determining the profits of the three companies from the sale of the new product. The functional analysis concludes that the relative contributions of the parties may be measured by reference to the relative expenses incurred by each company in the development of the components as there is a direct correlation between these relative expenses and the relative value contributed by each company. Accordingly, the relevant profits (losses) in relation to the sales of the new product can be ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 15

80. Company A, resident in Country A, and Company B, resident in Country B, are members of an MNE group. Both companies undertake the design and manufacturing of products and their activities in this regard are highly integrated. Additionally, Company A and Company B are responsible for the marketing and distribution of the products to unrelated customers in Country A and in Country B, respectively. 81. Company A and Company B enter into an agreement to buy and sell pieces, moulds and different components to manufacture various different models of products. These transactions may also relate to semi-finished products to effectively meet customers’ demands in a timely fashion. As a result of their broad experience in the sector, Company A and Company B have each developed unique and valuable know-how and other intangibles in their respective design and manufacturing processes. 82. The functional analysis shows the economically significant risks are the strategic and operational risks in relation to the design ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 14

74. Below are some illustrations of the effect of choosing a measure of profits to determine the relevant profits to be split when applying a transactional profit split Scenario 1 74. Assume A and B are two associated enterprises situated in two different tax jurisdictions. Both manufacture the same widgets and incur expenditure that results in the creation of a unique and valuable intangible which they can mutually use. For the purpose of this example, it is assumed that the nature of this particular unique and valuable intangible is such that the value of A and B’s respective unique and valuable contributions in the year in question is proportional to A and B’s relative expenditure on the intangible in that year. (It should be noted that this assumption will not always be true in ) Assume A and B exclusively sell products to third parties. Assume that it is determined that the most appropriate method to be used is a ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 13

65. Company A, resident in Country A, is the parent company of Retail Group, an MNE group engaged in the retail fashion industry. Over the years, Company A has developed know-how and has enhanced the value of the trademark and associated goodwill of its business through intensive marketing activities. In this case, the intangibles developed and owned by Company A do not qualify as hard-to-value intangibles. 66. To expand the business into the Country B market, Company A enters into an agreement with Company B, a member of Retail Group resident in Country B. Under this agreement, Company A grants to Company B the rights to utilise the know-how and to use the trademarks for the purpose of fashion retailing in Country B. Company B has extensive experience in retail fashion distribution and has a strong track record in building brand recognition and loyalty in Country B through its in-house team which develops and implements innovative marketing strategies and activities ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 12

59. Company A, resident in Country A, Company B, resident in Country B, and Company C, resident in Country C, are members of an MNE group. Companies A and B undertake the design and manufacturing of products and their activities in this regard are highly integrated. Additionally, Company A and Company B are responsible for the marketing and distribution of the products to unrelated customers in Country A and in Country B, respectively. Company C is responsible for the benchmarkable marketing and distribution of products purchased from Company A and Company B to unrelated customers in Country C. 60. Company A and Company B enter into an agreement to buy and sell pieces, moulds and components to manufacture the different models of the products. These transactions may also relate to semi-finished products to effectively meet customers’ demands in a timely fashion. As a result of their broad experience in the sector, Company A and Company B have each developed unique ... Read more
TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 11

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 11

51.  The success of an electronics product is linked to the innovative technological design both of its electronic processes and of its major component. That component is designed and manufactured by associated company A; is transferred to associated company B which designs and manufactures the rest of the product; and is distributed by associated company C. Information exists to verify by means of a resale price method that the distribution functions, assets and risks of Company C are being appropriately rewarded by the transfer price of the finished product sold from B to C. 52.  The most appropriate method to price the component transferred from A to B may be a CUP, if a sufficiently similar comparable could be found. See paragraph 2.15 of the Guidelines. However, since the component transferred from A to B reflects the innovative technological advance enjoyed by company A in this market, which is found to be a unique and valuable contribution by company A, in this ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 10

46. Company A designs, develops and produces a line of high technology industrial products. A new generation of the product line incorporates a key component developed and created by Company B, an associated enterprise of Company A. This key component is highly innovative, incorporating unique and valuable intangibles. This innovation represents the key point of difference in the new generation of products. The success of the new generation of products is heavily dependent upon the performance of the key component made by Company B. The key component is specifically tailored for the new generation of products and cannot be used in any other products. 47. The key component was developed entirely by Company B. The accurate delineation of the transaction determines that Company B performs all the control functions and assumed all the risks in relation to the development of the component, with no involvement by Company A. 48. The accurate delineation of the transaction also finds that Company A ... Read more

TPG2017 Chapter II Annex II example 9

42. ACo, resident in Country A, and BCo, resident in Country B, are members of AB Inc, an MNE Group. ACo owns worldwide patents on Compound A and BCo owns worldwide patents on Enzyme B. Compound A and Enzyme B are both unique. ACo and BCo have each developed their respective compound or enzyme by their own efforts, for different purposes, but each found that they were not able to be used as they had originally intended. As a result, neither Compound A nor Enzyme B has significant value at this time. 43. However, engineers from ACo and BCo working together subsequently determine that the combination of Compound A and Enzyme B creates a unique and valuable drug which is very effective in treating a specific disease and is likely to be highly valuable. 44. ACo and BCo enter into a contract according to which ACo grants BCo the right to use Compound A. BCo will combine both components to ... Read more