§ 1.482-7(g)(2)(vii)(B) Example 3.

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: , , , , , ,
« | »

(i) USP, a U.S. corporation, and FSub, a wholly-owned foreign subsidiary of USP, enter into a CSA in Year 1 to develop Product A. Company Y is an uncontrolled corporation that owns Technology X, which is critical to the development of Product A. Company Y currently markets Product B, which is dependent on Technology X. USP is solely interested in acquiring Technology X, but is only able to do so through the acquisition of Company Y in its entirety for $200 million in an uncontrolled transaction in Year 2. For accounting purposes, the acquisition price is allocated as follows: $120 million to Product B and the underlying Technology X, $30 million to trademark and other marketing intangibles, and the residual $50 million to goodwill and going concern value. After the acquisition of Company Y, Technology X is used to develop Product A. No other part of Company Y is used in any manner. Immediately after the acquisition, product B is discontinued, and, therefore, the accompanying marketing intangibles become worthless. None of the previous employees of Company Y is retained.

(ii) The Technology X of Company Y acquired by USP is reasonably anticipated to contribute to developing cost shared intangibles and is therefore a platform contribution for which FSub must compensate USP as part of a PCT. Although for accounting purposes a significant portion of the acquisition price of Company Y was allocated to items other than Technology X, the facts demonstrate that USP had no intention of using and therefore placed no economic value on any part of Company Y other than Technology X. If USP was willing to pay $200 million for Company Y solely for purposes of acquiring Technology X, then assuming the acquisition price method is otherwise the most reliable method, the value of Technology X is the full $200 million acquisition price. Accordingly, the value of the arm’s length PCT Payment due from FSub to USP for the platform contribution consisting of the rights in Technology X will equal the product of $200 million and FSub’s RAB share.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.39As indicated in paragraph 8.9, the economically relevant characteristics of the arrangement identified under the guidance in Section D of Chapter I may indicate that the actual transaction differs from the terms of the CCA purportedly agreed by the participants. For example, one...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 521. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that the functional analysis indicates Company A has no capacity to make decisions to take on or decline the risk-bearing opportunity represented by its participation in the CCA, or to make decisions...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 2Example 2 12. The facts are the same as Example 1, except that the per-unit value of Service 1 is 103 (that is, both Service 1 and Service 2 are low-value services). Assume, therefore, that the calculation of the costs and value of the...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.70Assume that an investor hires a fund manager to invest funds on its account. Depending on the agreement between the investor and the fund manager, the latter may be given the authority to make portfolio investments on behalf of the investor on a...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.34A CCA will be considered consistent with the arm’s length principle where the value of each participant’s proportionate share of the overall contributions to the arrangement (taking into account any balancing payments already made) is consistent with the participant’s share of the overall...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.226In considering how the conditions of the transaction between A and B differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises, it is important to consider how the high level of profitability of the insurance policies is achieved and the contributions of...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.46Similar issues could arise when a participant leaves a CCA. In particular, a participant that leaves a CCA may dispose of its interest in the results, if any, of past CCA activity (including work in progress) to the other participants. Any such transfer...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.27While all contributions should be measured at value (but see paragraph 8.28 below), it may be more administrable for taxpayers to pay current contributions at cost. This may be particularly relevant for development CCAs. If this approach is adopted, the pre-existing contributions should...
  1. Additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishmentsThe OECD has released additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. This additional guidance sets out high-level general principles for the attribution of profits to permanent establishments arising under Article 5(5), in accordance with applicable treaty provisions, and includes examples...
  2. Italien Transfer Pricing Guidelines, Ministerial Decree of 14 May 2018, published in the Official Gazette no. 118/2018Italien legislation on transfer pricing is contained in Article 110, paragraph 7 of the Consolidated Income Tax Act, where the first sentence states that “the components of income deriving from transactions with companies not resident in the territory of the State, which directly...

Related Case Law

  1. 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...
  2. US vs Altera Corp, July 2018, US Court of Appeal, Nos 16-704996In this case, the US Court of Appeal reversed a decision from the Tax Court that 26 C.F.R. § 1.482-7A(d)(2), under which related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified...
  3. Spain vs EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U., March 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 390:2021The SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION is a multinational group of Japanese origin active in among others areas, production and sale of computer products. The group is present in Spain, EPSON IBÉRICA, but has its European HQ in the Netherlands, EPSON EUROPE BV. The main...
  4. Italy vs NEOPOST ITALIA s.r.l. (QUADIENT ITALY s.r.l.), September 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 25025/2021Neopost Italia s.r.l. had paid service fees and royalties to its French parent. Following an audit, deductions for these intra-group transactions was adjusted by the tax authorities due to non compliance with the arm’s length principle and lack of documentation. However, for the...