§ 1.482-5(e) Example 3.

Category: (e) Examples, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-5 Comparable profits method | Tag: , , , , , , , ,
« | »

Multiple year analysis.

(i) The facts are the same as in Example 2. In addition, the district director examines the taxpayer’s results for the 1997 taxable year. As in Example 2, the district director increases USSub’s income for the 1996 taxable year by $24,250. The results for the 1997 taxable year, together with the 1995 and 1996 taxable years, are as follows:

1995 1996 1997 Average
Sales $560,000 $500,000 $530,000 $530,000
Cost of Good Sold 460,000 400,000 430,000 430,000
Operating Expenses 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000
Operating Profit (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000)

(ii) The interquartile range of comparable operating profits, based on average results from the uncontrolled comparables and average sales for USSub for the years 1995 through 1997, ranges from $15,500 to $30,000. In determining whether an allocation for the 1997 taxable year may be made, the district director compares USSub’s average reported operating profit for the years 1995 through 1997 to the interquartile range of average comparable operating profits over this period. USSub’s average reported operating profit is determined without regard to the adjustment made with respect to the 1996 taxable year. See § 1.482-1(f)(2)(iii)(D). Therefore, USSub’s average reported operating profit for the years 1995 through 1997 is ($10,000). Because this amount of income falls outside the interquartile range, the district director determines that an allocation may be appropriate.

(iii) To determine the amount, if any, of the allocation for the 1997 taxable year, the district director compares USSub’s reported operating profit for 1997 to the median of the comparable operating profits derived from the uncontrolled distributors’ results for 1997. The median of the comparable operating profits derived from the uncontrolled comparables results for the 1997 taxable year is $12,000. Based on this comparison, the district director increases USSub’s 1997 taxable income by $22,000, the difference between the median of the comparable operating profits for the 1997 taxable year and USSub’s reported operating profit of ($10,000) for the 1997 taxable year.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.65Generally speaking, a loss-making uncontrolled transaction should trigger further investigation in order to establish whether or not it can be a comparable. Circumstances in which loss-making transactions/ enterprises should be excluded from the list of comparables include cases where losses do not reflect...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.64An independent enterprise would not continue loss-generating activities unless it had reasonable expectations of future profits. See paragraphs 1.149-1.151. Simple or low risk functions in particular are not expected to generate losses for a long period of time. This does not mean however...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.62In determining this point, where the range comprises results of relatively equal and high reliability, it could be argued that any point in the range satisfies the arm’s length principle. Where comparability defects remain as discussed at paragraph 3.57, it may be appropriate...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.61If the relevant condition of the controlled transaction (e.g. price or margin) falls outside the arm’s length range asserted by the tax administration, the taxpayer should have the opportunity to present arguments that the conditions of the controlled transaction satisfy the arm’s length...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.60If the relevant condition of the controlled transaction (e.g. price or margin) is within the arm’s length range, no adjustment should be made....
  6. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.57It may also be the case that, while every effort has been made to exclude points that have a lesser degree of comparability, what is arrived at is a range of figures for which it is considered, given the process used for selecting...
  1. IRS – APA Study Guide issued in early 2000sIn the early 2000s the IRS issued a “APA study guide” where guidance is provided in relation to various practical issues in the area of transfer pricing. The study guide is part of a large collection of IRS practices and statistics from working...
  2. Spain releases note on arm’s length range and benchmarking.On 25 February 2021, a note was released by the Spanish Tax Agency on number of practical issues relating to application of the arm’s-length range. The note – which is based on the OECD transfer Pricing Guidelines, guidance on benchmark studies issued by...

Related Case Law

  1. France vs GE Medical Systems, November 2018, Supreme Court – Conseil d’État n° 410779Following an audit of GE Medical Systems Limited Partnership (SCS), which is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of medical equipment and software, the French tax authorities issued an assessment related to the “value added amount” produced by the company, which serves as...
  2. Greece vs “Pharma Distributor Ltd.”, November 2022, Tax Court, Case No ΔΕΔ 3712/2022Following an audit, the Greek tax authorities determined that the profit of “Pharma Distributor Ltd” for sales and service activities had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities issued an assessment of additional taxable income, rejecting the...
  3. Panama vs “Tech Distributor S.A.”, January 2023, Administrative Tax Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-006 Expediente: 115-19The tax authorities issued a transfer pricing adjustment of USD 1.4 million for FY2013, claiming that the remuneration of “Tech Distributor S.A.” had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. According to the tax authorities, there were inconsistencies between the...
  4. France vs SASU Menarini Diagnostics France, November 2023, CAA de Paris, Case No. 21PA06233SASU Menarini Diagnostics France (a French subsidiary in the Italian Menarini Group) buys and resells diagnostic equipment and products for self-diagnosis and laboratories. Since its creation it had recurring operating losses, despite the profitability of each business line and irrespective of sales trends,...
  5. France vs TCL Belgium, December 2016, CAA de Versailles, Case No 14VE02126TCL BELGIUM, established in Belgium, entered into an agreement on 18 December 2007 with TCL Macao, which sells television sets, under the terms of which TCL Belgium undertook to provide marketing services through its TCL France branch located in France; Following an audit...