§ 1.482-9(f)(3) Examples.

Category: (f) Comparable profits method, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-9 Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a controlled services transaction | Tag: , , ,
« | »

The principles of this paragraph (f) are illustrated by the following examples:






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.39One example involves debt-factoring activities, where an MNE group decides to centralise the activities for economic reasons. For example, it may be prudent to centralise the debt-factoring activities to better manage liquidity, currency and debt risks and to provide administrative efficiencies. A debt-factoring...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.60The examples of allocation keys provided in the previous paragraph are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Depending on the facts and circumstances more sophisticated allocation keys might be used. However, a balance should be struck between theoretical sophistication and practical administration,...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.61In determining the arm’s length charge for low value-adding intra-group services, the MNE provider of services shall apply a profit mark-up to all costs in the pool with the exception of any pass-through costs as determined under paragraphs 2.99 and 7.34. The same...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.63Tax administrations adopting the simplified approach to low¬value-adding intra-group services set out in this section may include an appropriate threshold to enable them to review the simplified approach in cases where the threshold is exceeded. Such a threshold might, for example, be based...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.11In general, no intra-group service should be found for activities undertaken by one group member that merely duplicate a service that another group member is performing for itself, or that is being performed for such other group member by a third party. An...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.62Subject to the provisions of paragraph 7.55, the charge for services to any member of the electing MNE group shall be the sum of (i) the costs incurred by another group member in providing services specifically to the member under the second step...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.1This chapter discusses issues that arise in determining for transfer pricing purposes whether services have been provided by one member of an MNE group to other members of that group and, if so, in establishing arm’s length pricing for those intra-group services. The...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.51The definition of low value-adding intra-group services refers to the supportive nature of such services, which are not part of the core business of the MNE group. The provision of low value-adding intra-group services may, in fact, be the principal business activity of...


Related Case Law

  1. Romania vs “Stone” A SRL, July 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 3217/2020“Stone” A SRL had bought stones/minerals from related parties and paid for certain services. Following an audit the tax authorities had issued an assessment, where the price paid for stones had been adjusted based on cost plus method and deductions for costs of...
  2. Spain vs Universal Pictures International Spain SL, December 2022, Audiencia Nacional, Case No SAN 5855/2022 – ECLI:EN:AN:2022:5855Universal Pictures International Spain SL is a distributor of films on the Spanish Market. It distributes films both from related parties (Universal Pictures) and from unrelated parties. Following an audit, the Spanish tax authorities issued an assessment where the remuneration received for distribution...
  3. Portugal vs “A Bank SGPS, S.A.”, November 2021, Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Case No JSTA00071308The Tax Authority had made a transfer pricing adjustment for FY 2007 in the amount of €262,500.00 arising from the provision of a guarantee for payment granted under a credit agreement between a bank and its subsidiary. The adjustment had been determined using...
  4. France vs. Eduard Kettner, March 2012, Administrative Court of Appeals of Paris, No. 10PA04193Kettner was a French distributor of hunting products. Kettner was charged service fees by it’s German parent company for a range of services including packaging, warehouse and inventory management, IT, management fees etc. The tax administration was of the opinion that the fees...