TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex II – Hard To Value Intangibles – 2. Examples

« | »

2. Examples (1)

18. The following examples are aimed at illustrating the practical application of a transfer pricing adjustment arising from the application of the HTVI guidance. The assumptions made about arm’s length arrangements and transfer pricing adjustments determined in the examples are intended for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as prescribing adjustments and arm’s length arrangements in actual cases or particular industries. The HTVI guidance must be applied in each case according to the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

19. These examples make the following assumptions:

  • The transaction involves the transfer of an intangible (or rights therein) meeting the criteria for HTVI in paragraph 6.189, that is (i) no reliable comparables exist; and (ii) at the time the transaction was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions used in valuing the intangible, are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the level of ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer.
  • The exemptions to the application of the HTVI approach contained in paragraph 6.193 are not applicable unless specifically discussed.
  • As a result, the HTVI guidance is applicable and the tax administration may consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements.
  • A transfer pricing adjustment is warranted for the transaction.

20. In addition, the examples make reference to valuation techniques using the discounted value of projected income or cash flows derived from the exploitation of the transferred intangible. Neither this application guidance nor the examples below are intended to mandate the use of valuation techniques using the discounted value of projected income or cash flows for determining the arm’s length price of transactions involving HTVI. Therefore, references to such a valuation technique should not be interpreted as implying conclusions about the appropriateness of the technique in a particular case. The guidance on applying methods based on the discounted value of projected cash flows is contained in Chapter VI paragraphs 6.153-6.178, and this application guidance should be applied in a manner that is consistent with other relevant guidance contained in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.

Example 1

21. Company A, a resident of Country A, has patented a pharmaceutical compound. Company A has concluded pre-clinical tests for the compound and has successfully taken the compound through Phases I and II of the clinical trials. Company A transfers in Year 0 the patent rights to an affiliate, Company S, a resident of Country S. Company S will be responsible for the Phase III trials following the transfer. In order to determine the price for the patent on the partially developed drug, the parties made an estimation of expected income or cash flows that will be obtained upon exploitation of the drug once finalised over the remaining life of the patent. Assume the price so derived at the time of the transfer was 700 and that this was paid as a lump sum in Year 0.

22. In particular, the taxpayer assumed sales would not exceed 1,000 a year and that commercialisation would not commence until Year 6. The discount rate was determined by referring to external data analysing the risk of failure for drugs in a similar therapeutic category at the same stage of development. Even if the tax administration of Country A had been aware of these facts relating to the transfer of the patent rights in Year 0, it would have had little means of verifying the reasonableness of the taxpayer’s assumptions relating to sales.

Scenario A

23. In Year 4, the tax administration of Country A audits Company A for Years 0-2 and obtains information that commercialisation in fact started during Year 3 since the Phase III trials were completed earlier than projected. Sales in Years 3 and 4 correspond to sales that were projected, at the time of the transfer, to be achieved in Years 6 and 7. The taxpayer cannot demonstrate that its original valuation took into account the possibility that sales would arise in earlier periods, and cannot demonstrate that such a development was unforeseeable.

24. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcome to determine that the valuation made at the time the transaction took place did not consider the possibility of sales occurring in earlier years. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of earlier sales resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 1,000 instead of 700. The revised net present value also takes into account the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed in relation to the HTVI by each of the parties before the transaction and reasonably anticipated, at the time of the transaction, to be performed, used or assumed by each of the parties after the transaction. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 1,000. Note that the value of 1,000 is not necessarily the net present value of the transferred rights based solely on the actual outcome (see paragraph 6 of this guidance).

25. In accordance with the approach to HTVI, the tax administration is entitled to make an adjustment to assess the additional profits of 300 in Year 0.

Scenario B

26. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcomes to determine that the valuation made at the time the transaction took place, did not consider the possibility of sales occurring in earlier years. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of sales occurring in earlier years resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 800 instead of 700. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 800. Note that the value of 800 is not necessarily the net present value of the transferred rights based solely on the actual outcome (see paragraph 6 of this guidance).

27. In accordance with the approach to HTVI, the tax administration is entitled to make an adjustment to assess the additional profits of 100 in Year 0. However, in this example, the exemption provided by item (iii) in paragraph 6.193 applies since the adjustment to the compensation for the transfer is within 20% of the compensation determined at the time of the transaction.

Example 2

28. The facts are the same as in paragraphs 21-22. Based on those facts, assume that in Year 7, the tax administration of Country A audits Company A for Years 3-5 and obtains information that sales in Years 5 and 6 of the product to which the patent relates were significantly higher than those projected. In the original valuation, the taxpayer had not projected sales any higher than 1,000 in any year, but outcomes in each of Years 5 and 6 show sales of 1,500. The taxpayer cannot demonstrate that its original valuation took into account the possibility that sales would reach these levels, and cannot demonstrate that reaching that level of sales was due to an unforeseeable development.

29. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcomes to determine that the possibility of higher sales should have been taken into account in the valuation. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of sales occurring in earlier years, resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 1300 instead of 700. The revised net present value also takes into account the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed in relation to the HTVI by each of the parties before the transaction and reasonably anticipated, at the time of the transaction, to be performed, used or assumed by each of the parties after the transaction. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 1300. Note that the value of 1300 is not necessarily the net present value of the transferred rights based solely on the actual outcome (see paragraph 6 of this guidance).

30. In accordance with the approach to HTVI, the tax administration is entitled to make an adjustment to assess the additional profits of 600. Assume for the purposes of this example that none of the exemptions listed in paragraph 6.193 of Chapter VI of the Guidelines applies.

31. One way to implement the adjustment is to re-assess the price paid in Year 0. However, the significant revision of the lump-sum payment highlights the risks posed by the high uncertainty in valuing the intangible and gives rise to consideration, in light of this significant uncertainty, of whether adjustments consistent with an alternative payment structure might be more consistent with what unrelated parties would have done (see paragraph 16 of this guidance and paragraph 6.183 of Chapter VI of the Guidelines).

32. Evidence of pricing arrangements for the transfer of intangibles in comparable circumstances to address high valuation uncertainty may point to appropriate alternatives to making the adjustment in Year 0. For example, assume that in the pharmaceutical sector it is common to transfer patent rights to independent parties through a combination of an initial lump sum payment and additional contingent payment arrangements based on the successful completion of development phases or regulatory approvals in a particular market. In this case, assume that the first market approvals were obtained in Year 3. The tax administration may, therefore, determine that it is consistent with arm’s length practices in comparable circumstances to recover the underpayment through a further payment in Year 3. Note that this paragraph is not intended to, and does not, imply that modification of the payment form can only occur when there is a common practice in the relevant business sector regarding the form of payment for the transfer of a particular type of intangible.

33. The principles illustrated by this example apply irrespective of whether the tax administration in fact carries out an audit for Years 0-2 and then a second audit for Years 3-5, or whether it audits only for Years 3-5. In both scenarios, a revision to the original valuation is justified based on ex post evidence emerging in Year 7, and, subject to any treaty or domestic law limitations, the undervaluation may be recovered based on the HTVI approach contained in Section D.4 of Chapter VI (see paragraph 6.192).

 

(1) Please note that the fact that these examples are focused on the pharmaceutical sector should not be interpreted as limiting the application of the HTVI approach set out in Section D.4 of Chapter VI of the Guidelines or this guidance to this particular industry. The HTVI approach contained in Section D.4 of the Guidelines and this guidance are applicable to transactions involving intangibles qualifying as HTVI under paragraph 6.189, irrespective of the industry or sector in which they take place.

Related Guidelines