§ 1.482-1(d)(3)(iii)(C) Example 2.

Category: (d) Comparability, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-1 Allocation of income and deductions among taxpayers | Tag: , , , , , , , ,
« | »

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that in Year 1 FD had only $100,000 in total capital, including loans. In subsequent years USM makes no additional contributions to the capital of FD, and FD is unable to obtain any capital through loans from an unrelated party. Nonetheless, USM continues to sell 20,000 widgets annually to FD under the terms of the contract, and USM extends credit to FD to enable it to finance the purchase. FD does not have the financial capacity in Years 1, 2 and 3 to finance the purchase of the widgets given that it could not sell most of the widgets it purchased during those years. Thus, notwithstanding the terms of the contract, USM and not FD assumed the market risk that a substantial portion of the widgets could not be sold, since in that event FD would not be able to pay USM for all of the widgets it purchased.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.85 (Example 3)Company A has acquired ownership of a tangible asset and enters into contracts for the use of the asset with unrelated customers. Under step 1 utilisation of the tangible asset, that is the risk that there will be insufficient demand for the asset...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.84 (Example 2)Company B manufactures products for Company A. Under step 1 capacity utilisation risk and supply chain risk have been identified as economically significant in this transaction, and under step 2 it has been established that under the contract Company A assumes these risks....
  3. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.83 (Example 1)Company A seeks to pursue a development opportunity and hires a specialist company, Company B, to perform part of the research on its behalf. Under step 1 development risk has been identified as economically significant in this transaction, and under step 2 it...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.82In this step the functions in relation to risk of the associated enterprises that are parties to the transaction are analysed. The analysis provides information about how the associated enterprises operate in relation to the assumption and management of the specific, economically significant...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.50The following example illustrates the concept of determining the actual transaction where a transaction has not been identified by the MNE. In reviewing the commercial or financial relations between Company P and its subsidiary companies, it is observed that those subsidiaries receive services...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.49Where no written terms exist, the actual transaction would need to be deduced from the evidence of actual conduct provided by identifying the economically relevant characteristics of the transaction. In some circumstances the actual outcome of commercial or financial relations may not have...


Related Case Law

  1. Portugal vs “FURNITURE S.A.” No I, November 2021, CAAD, Case No 14/2021-TFurniture S.A is engaged in the production and sale of furniture and had established a US subsidiary to market and sell furniture overseas. The pricing of the controlled transactions with the US subsidiary had been based on a resale price method, which resulted...
  2. Portugal vs “FURNITURE S.A.” No II, November 2021, CAAD, Case No 604/2021-TFurniture S.A is engaged in the production and sale of furniture and had established a US subsidiary to market and sell furniture overseas. The pricing of the controlled transactions with the US subsidiary had been based on a resale price method, which resulted...
  3. UK vs. DSG Retail (Dixon case), Tax Tribunal, Case No. UKFT 31This case concerns the sale of extended warranties to third-party customers of Dixons, a large retail chain in the UK selling white goods and home electrical products. The DSG group captive (re)insurer in the Isle of Man (DISL) insured these extended warranties for...
  4. India vs ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., September 2020, Income Tax Tribunal, ITA No.6169/Del./2012ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of ST Microelectronics Pte. Ltd. which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of ST Microelectronics NV, Netherlands. ST Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd. is into the business of Integrated Circuit Design, CAD Tools and software development for...
  5. Poland vs “Shopping Centre Developer sp.k.”, June 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3050/19A Polish company, “Shopping Centre Lender sp.k.”, had been granted three intra group loans in FY 2013 for a maximum amount of EUR 2 million, EUR 115 million and EUR 43.5 million. The interest rate on the loans had been set at 9%....