US vs. Amazon, March 2017, US Tax Court, Case No. 148 T.C. No 8

Posted on | By Courts of the US
Category: Cost Contribution Arrangements, Digital Economy, Intangibles - Goodwill Know-how Patents, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Transfer Pricing Methods, Valuation - DCF and CUT/CUPs | Tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

Amazon is an online retailer that sells products through Amazon.com and related websites. Amazon also sells third-party products for which it receives a commissions.

In a series of transactions  in 2005 and 2006, Amazon US transferred intangibles to Amazon Europe, a newly established European HQ placed in Luxembourg.

  • A Cost Sharing Arrangement (“CSA”), whereby Amazon US and Amazon Europe agreed to share costs of further research, development, and marketing in proportion to the benefits
  • A License Agreement, whereby Amazon US granted Amazon Europe the right to Amazon US’s Technology IP
  • An Assignment Agreement, whereby Amazon US granted Amazon Europe the right to Amazon US’s Marketing IP and Customer Lists.

For these transfers Amazon Europe was required to make an upfront buy-in payment and annual payments according to the cost sharing arrangement for ongoing developments of the intangibles.

In the valuation, Amazon had considered the intangibles to have a lifetime of 6 to 20 years. On that basis, the buy-in payment for pre-existing intangibles had been set to $254.5 million.

The IRS disagreed with the valuation and calculated a buy-in payment of $3.5 billion, by applying a discounted cash-flow methodology to the expected cash flows from the European business. The IRS took the position, that the intangibles transferred to Amazon Europe had an indefinite useful life and had to be valued as integrated components of an ongoing business rather than separate assets.

The case brought before the US Tax Court HAD two issues had to be decided:

  • Amazon Europe’s buy-in payment with respect to the intangibles transferred; and
  • The pool of cost, on which Amazon Europe ongoing cost sharing payments were to be calculated.

The Courts decision on Amazon Europe’s buy-in payment

IRS’s position of “indefinite useful life” in the valuation of the intangibles and the buy in payment was rejected by the court, and the comparable uncontrolled transaction (“CUT”) method applied by Amazon – after appropriate upward adjustments – was found to be the best method.

The Courts decision on Cost Share Payments

The Court found that Amazon’s method for allocating intangible development costs, after adjustments, was reasonable.

US CSA regulations pre- and post 2009 

US CSA regs in effect for 2005-2006 refer to the definition of intangibles set forth in section 1.482-4(b), Income Tax Regs. Here intangibles are defined to include five enumerated categories of assets, each of which has “substantial value independent of the services of any individual.” These include patents, inventions, copyrights, know-how, trademarks, trade names, and 20 other specified intangibles. The definition of intangibles in the pre 2009 CSA regs did not include value of workforce in place, going concern value, goodwill, and growth options, corporate resources or opportunities.

In 2009 new CSA regs were introduced in the US where the concept of “platform contribution transaction” (PCT) applies. According to the new regs. there are no limit on the type of intangibles that must be compensated under a cost sharing arrangement. But these new US CSA regulations did not apply to the years 2005 – 2006 in the Amazon case. See also the US vs. Veritas case from 2009.

 

2019 UPDATE The 2017 decision of the Tax Court has later been appealed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

 

US-vs-Amazon-March-2017-US-Tax-Court-2

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.33Company A based in country A and Company B based in country B are members of an MNE group and have concluded a CCA to develop intangibles. Company B has entitlement under the CCA to exploit the intangibles in country B, and Company A has entitlement under the CCA to...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.26In valuing contributions, distinctions should be drawn between contributions of pre-existing value and current contributions. For example, in a CCA for the development of an intangible, the contribution of patented technology by one of the participants reflects a contribution of pre-existing value which is useful towards the development of the...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 1a8. 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...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.508.50 Generally, a CCA between controlled parties should meet the following conditions: a) The participants would include only enterprises expected to derive mutual and proportionate benefits from the CCA activity itself (and not just from performing part or all of that activity). See paragraph 8.14. b) The arrangement would specify...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.24Contributions to a CCA may take many forms. For services CCAs, contributions primarily consist of the performance of the services. For development CCAs, contributions typically include the performance of development activities (e.g. R&D, marketing), and often include additional contributions relevant to the development CCA such as pre-existing tangible assets or...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 417. 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...
TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.28Whereas it cannot be assumed that the value of pre-existing contributions corresponds to costs, it is sometimes the case that cost could be used as a practical means to measure relative value of current contributions. Where the difference between the value and costs is relatively insignificant, for practical reasons, current...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1654. Shuyona is the parent company of an MNE group. Shuyona is organised in and operates exclusively in Country X. The Shuyona group is involved in the production and sale of consumer goods. In order to maintain and, if possible, improve its market position, ongoing research is carried out by...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.128In conducting a comparability analysis involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, the existence of risks related to the likelihood of obtaining future economic benefits from the transferred intangibles must be considered, including the allocation of risk between the parties which should be analysed within the framework set...
TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 28101. Company A is the Parent company of an MNE group with operations in country S. Company B is a member of the MNE group with operations in country T, and Company C is also a member of the MNE group with operations in country U. For valid business reasons...