Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing and marketing intangibles governed by different statutes and regulations. The facts are the same as in Example 8 except that P transfers only the ROW intangibles related to manufacturing to S1 in an exchange described in section 351 and, upon entering into the CSA, then transfers the ROW intangibles related to marketing to S1 in a platform contribution transaction described in § 1.482-7(c) (rather than transferring all ROW intangibles only upon entering into the CSA or only in a prior exchange described in section 351). The value of the ROW intangibles that P transferred in the two transactions is greater in the aggregate, due to synergies among the different types of ROW intangibles, than if valued as two separate transactions. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the arm’s length standard requires these synergies to be taken into account in determining the arm’s length results for the transactions.
§ 1.482-1T(i)(E)Example 9.
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, Intangibles, Labels, Manufacturing, Marketing activities, Most appropriate method (MAM)
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- 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 paragraph 6.104Intangibles may be used in connection with controlled transactions in situations where there is no transfer of the intangible or of rights in the intangible. For example, intangibles may be used by one or both parties to a controlled transaction in connection with...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.28It is not necessary for purposes of this chapter to establish a precise definition of goodwill or ongoing concern value for transfer pricing purposes or to define when goodwill or ongoing concern value may or may not constitute an intangible. It is important...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.11Care should be taken in determining whether or when an intangible exists and whether an intangible has been used or transferred. For example, not all research and development expenditures produce or enhance an intangible, and not all marketing activities result in the creation...
- TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 25. A Co, a member of T Group, is a company incorporated in Country A whose principal activity is the growing and processing of tea. A Co identifies, acquires and cultivates land with extremely good soil for growing tea. A Co has developed...
- 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
- India vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.Maruti Suzuki India manufactures and sells cars and spare parts. A license agreement had been entered with the group parent for use of licensed information and trademark for the manufacture and sale of the products. Hence, Maruti Suzuki paid royalties to the parent for trademark...
- 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...