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 and manufacturing functions and that Company A and Company B are engaged in a complex web of intragroup transactions where the performance of each company heavily depends on the capacity of the other to provide the different components and other inputs. The manufacturing and design activities of Company A and Company B are highly interdependent and the entities both perform relevant control functions in relation to the economically significant risks. In accordance with the risk analysis framework described in Section D.1.2.1 of Chapter I of these Guidelines, it is determined that Company A and Company B share the assumption of the risks relating to design and manufacturing. Both Companies A and B make unique and valuable contributions to the design and manufacturing processes.
83. Under these circumstances, the transactional profit split method is likely to be the most appropriate method for determining the compensation for Companies A and B in relation to their intra-group transactions
84. In the absence of comparable uncontrolled transactions or direct evidence of how independent parties would have split the profits in comparable circumstances, the profit split can be applied based on the relative value of the contributions of Company A and Company B. In particular, an asset-based splitting factor may be appropriate, provided that the functional analysis concludes that there is a strong correlation between the assets of Company A and Company B and the creation of value in the context of their controlled transactions.