Aggregation of interrelated patents. P owns 10 individual patents that, in combination, can be used to manufacture and sell a successful product. P anticipates that it could earn profits of $25x from the patents based on a discounted cash flow analysis that provides a more reliable measure of the value of the patents exploited as a bundle rather than separately. P licenses all 10 patents to S1 to be exploited as a bundle. Evidence of uncontrolled licenses of similar individual patents indicates that, exploited separately, each license of each patent would warrant a price of $1x, implying a total price for the patents of $10x. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, in determining the arm’s length royalty for the license of the bundle of patents, it would not be appropriate to use the uncontrolled licenses as comparables for the license of the bundle of patents, because, unlike the discounted cash flow analysis, the uncontrolled licenses considered separately do not reliably reflect the enhancement to value resulting from the interrelatedness of the 10 patents exploited as a bundle.
§ 1.482-1T(i)(E) Example 5.
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, Interrelated transactions, Labels, Most appropriate method (MAM), Most appropriate net profit indicator, Patents
« 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 25. The facts related to the development and control of patentable inventions are the same as in Example 1. However, instead of granting a perpetual and exclusive licence of its patents back to Premiere, Company S, acting under the direction and control of...
- 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...
- 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...
- India vs Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, March 2020, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – BANGALORE, Case No IT(TP) No.1915/Bang/2017 & 3377/Bang/2018Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited manufactures auto parts and sold them to Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited, another Indian corporation in the Toyota Group. In FY 2013-14 Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited paid a 5% royalty to the Japanese parent Toyota Motor Corporation...