Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing, marketing, and services activities. S1 is the exclusive Country Z distributor of computers manufactured by P. S2 provides marketing services in connection with sales of P computers in Country Z and in this regard uses significant marketing intangibles provided by P. S3 administers the warranty program with respect to P computers in Country Z, including maintenance and repair services. In evaluating whether the transfer prices paid by S1 to P, the fees paid by S2 to P for the use of P marketing intangibles, and the service fees earned by S2 and S3 are arm’s length amounts, it would be appropriate to perform an aggregate analysis that considers the combined effects of these interrelated transactions if they are most reliably analyzed on an aggregated basis.
§ 1.482-1T(i)(E) Example 2.
Category: Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-1T Allocation of income and deductions among taxpayers (temporary). | Tag: Actual transaction, Aggregated transactions, Aggregation, Best Method Rule, Entire arrangement, Example, Form or character of the transaction, Labels, Most appropriate method (MAM), Most appropriate net profit indicator, Service and maintenance, Warranty
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.133Although most MNE groups are integrated to some extent, a particularly high degree of integration in certain business operations is an indicator for the consideration of the transactional profit split method. A high degree of integration means that the way in which one...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.132In applying the principles of paragraphs 2.1 to 2.12 to matters involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, it is important to recognise that transactions structured in different ways may have similar economic consequences. For example, the performance of a service...
- German TP-Legislation updated as of June 2021German legislation on transfer pricing has been updated to align the rules with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017. The new amendments are effective as of fiscal year 2022. The rules includes revised content on Substance over form Risk analysis Best method rule...
Related Case Law
- Norway vs. Exxonmobil Production Norway Inc., January 2018, Lagsmanret no LB-2016-160306An assessment was issued by the Norwegian tax authorities for years 2009 2010 and 2011 concerning the interest on a loan between Exxonmobil Production Norway Inc. (EPNI) as the lender and Exxon Mobile Delaware Holdings Inc. (EMDHI) as the borrower. Both EPNI and...
- South Africa vs ABC (PTY) LTD, January 2021, Tax Court of Johannesburg, Case No IT 14305ABC Ltd is in the business of manufacturing, importing, and selling chemical products. It has a catalyst division that is focused on manufacturing and selling catalytic converters (catalysts). Catalysts are used in the abatement of harmful exhaust emissions from motor vehicles. To produce...
- Russia vs PJSC Uralkali, April 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No. А40-29025/2017PJSC Uralkali, produced and sold fertilizers (“potassium chloride”) through a related Swiss trader. Uralkali had informed the authorities about the controlled transaction and submitted the required TP documentation. To substantiate the pricing of the transaction they had applied the transactional net margin method...
- 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...
- Ukrain vs Rivneazot, September 2019, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 817/1737/17The Ukrainian group Rivneazot imports natural gas from – and exports mineral to – foreign related companies. The tax authority carried out an audit and concluded that the controlled prices of these transactions had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length...