In cases where PCTs occur on different dates, the determination of the arm’s length amount charged, respectively, in the prior and subsequent PCTs must be coordinated in a manner that provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result. In some circumstances, a subsequent PCT may be reliably evaluated independently of other PCTs, as may be possible for example, under the acquisition price method. In other circumstances, the results of prior and subsequent PCTs may be interrelated and so a subsequent PCT may be most reliably evaluated under the residual profit split method of paragraph (g)(7) of this section. In those cases, for purposes of allocating the present value of nonroutine residual divisional profit or loss, and so determining the present value of the subsequent PCT Payments, in accordance with paragraph (g)(7)(iii)(C) of this section, the PCT Payor’s interest in cost shared intangibles, both already developed and in process, are treated as additional PCT Payor operating contributions as of the date of the subsequent PCT.
§ 1.482-7(g)(2)(viii)(B) Best method analysis for subsequent PCT.
Category: (g) Supplemental guidance on methods applicable to PCTs, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-7 Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a cost sharing arrangement | Tag: CCA/CSA, CCA/CSA - methods for pricing, Cost Contribution Arrangement (CCA), Cost Sharing Arrangement (CSA), Platform contribution transaction (PCT), Pre-existing intangibles, Subsequent PCT, Valuation, Valuation of intangibles, Valuation of PCTs
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.180Where one or more of the parties to a transaction for which the transactional profit split method is found to be the most appropriate makes a contribution in the form of intangibles, difficult issues can arise in relation both to their identification and...
- TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.40As indicated in paragraph 8.33, the guidance in Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles may equally apply in situations involving CCAs. This will be the case if the objective of the CCA is to develop a new intangible that is hard to value at...
- 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...
- 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...
- 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...
Related Case Law
- US vs. Amazon, March 2017, US Tax Court, Case No. 148 T.C. No 8Amazon 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...
- Spain vs EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U., Feb 2018, Audiencia Nacional, Case No 314/2016EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. had deducted the full employee pension costs of a CEO that had worked both for the HQ in the Netherlands and the local Spanish Company. The tax authorities issued an assessment where 90% of the pension costs had been disallowed...
- Singapore vs Intevac Asia Pte Ltd, October 2020, High Court, Case No [2020] SGHC 218, Tax Appeal No 3 of 2020The Intevac group initially focused on designing and producing thin-film production systems for the manufacturing of hard disk drives (“HDD”). However, sometime in or around the mid-2000s, Intevac Asia Pte Ltd received a purchase order for a tool designed for the manufacturing of...
- Norway vs Eni Norge AS , September 2023, District Court, Case No TSRO-2022-185908Eni Norge AS was a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni International B.V., a Dutch company. Both companies were part of the Eni Group, in which the Italian company Eni S.p.A was the HQ. Eni Norway had deducted costs related to the purchase of...
- Norway vs Eni Norge AS, June 2024, Court of Appeal, Case No LG-2023-156824Eni Norge AS was a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni International B.V., a Dutch company. Both companies were part of the Eni Group, which was headquartered by the Italian company Eni SpA. Eni Norway had deducted costs related to the purchase of “technical...