The transactional profit split method seeks to establish arm’s length outcomes or test reported outcomes for controlled transactions in order to approximate the results that would have been achieved between independent enterprises engaging in a comparable transaction or transactions. The method first identifies the profits to be split from the controlled transactions—the relevant profits—and then splits them between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been agreed at arm’s length. As is the case with all transfer pricing methods, the aim is to ensure that profits of the associated enterprises are aligned with the value of their contributions and the compensation which would have been agreed in comparable transactions between independent enterprises for those contributions. The transactional profit split method is particularly useful when the compensation to the associated enterprises can be more reliably valued by reference to the relative shares of their contributions to the profits arising in relation to the transaction(s) than by a more direct estimation of the value of those contributions.

References to “profits” in this section should generally be taken as applying equally to losses. That is, where a transactional profit split method is determined to be the most appropriate method, it should generally also apply, and apply in the same way, regardless of whether the transaction(s) result in a relevant profit or loss. Asymmetrical splits of profits and losses (i.e. where the parties apply different considerations depending on the results of the transaction) might be arm’s length, but should be used with caution and appropriately documented.

As is noted in paragraph 2.2, the selection of a transfer pricing method always aims at finding the most appropriate method for a particular case, taking into account the respective strengths and weaknesses of each method, its appropriateness in view of the nature of the accurately delineated controlled transaction, the availability of reliable information (in particular on uncontrolled comparables) needed for application, and the degree of comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions. See also paragraphs 2.4 to 2.7.

Guidance on how to determine whether the transactional profit split method is likely to be the most appropriate method is set out below, including the identification of certain features of a transaction which may be relevant. However it is important to note that there is no prescriptive rule for establishing when a particular transfer pricing method is the most appropriate method.

While there is no requirement in these Guidelines to undertake exhaustive analysis or testing of every method in each case, the selection of the most appropriate method should take into account the relative appropriateness and reliability of the selected method as compared to other methods which could be used.

The main strength of the transactional profit split method is that it can offer a solution for cases where both parties to a transaction make unique and valuable contributions (e.g. contribute unique and valuable intangibles) to the transaction. In such a case independent parties might effectively price the transaction in proportion to their respective contributions, making a two-sided method more appropriate. Furthermore, since those contributions are unique and valuable there will be no reliable comparables information which could be used to price the entirety of the transaction in a more reliable way, through the application of another method. In such cases, the allocation of profits under the transactional profit split method may be based on the contributions made by the associated enterprises, by reference to the relative values of their respective functions, assets and risks. See section C.2.2 below on the nature of the transaction.

The transactional profit split method can also provide a solution for highly integrated operations in cases for which a one-sided method would not be appropriate. See section C.2.2.2, below.

Another strength of the transactional profit split method is that it can offer flexibility by taking into account specific, possibly unique, facts and circumstances of the associated enterprises that may not be present in independent enterprises. Moreover, where there is a high degree of uncertainty for each of the parties in relation to a transaction, for example in transactions involving the shared assumption of economically significant risks by all parties (or the separate assumption of closely related economically significant risks), the flexibility of the transactional profit split method can allow for the determination of arm’s length profits for each party that vary with the actual outcomes of the risks associated with the transaction.

A further strength of the transactional profit split method is that all relevant parties to the transaction are directly evaluated as part of the pricing of the transaction, that is, the contributions of each party to the transaction are specifically identified and their relative values measured in order to determine an arm’s length compensation for each party in relation to the transaction.

A weakness of the transactional profit split method relates to difficulties in its application. On first review, the transactional profit split method may appear readily accessible to both taxpayers and tax administrations because it tends to rely less on information about independent enterprises. However, associated enterprises and tax administrations alike may have difficulty accessing the detailed information required to apply a transactional profit split method reliably. It may be difficult to measure the relevant revenue and costs for all the associated enterprises participating in the controlled transactions, which could require stating books and records on a common basis and making adjustments in accounting practices and currencies. Further, when the transactional profit split method is applied to operating profit, it may be difficult to identify the appropriate operating expenses associated with the transactions and to allocate costs between the transactions and the associated enterprises’ other activities. Identifying the appropriate profit splitting factors can also be challenging. Given the necessity of applying judgement in determining each of the parameters for the application of the transactional profit split method, it will be particularly important to document how the method has been applied, including the determination of the relevant profits to be split, and how the profit splitting factors were arrived at. See sections C.4 and C.5.

It is sometimes argued that a transactional profit split method is rarely used among independent enterprises, and thus its application in controlled transactions should be similarly rare. Where such a method is determined to be the most appropriate, this should not be a factor since transfer pricing methods are not necessarily intended to replicate arm’s length behaviour, but rather to serve as a means of establishing and/or verifying arm’s length outcomes for controlled transactions. That said, where there is evidence that independent parties in comparable transactions apply a profit split method among themselves, such evidence should be considered in determining whether a transactional profit split method is the most appropriate method for the controlled transactions. See paragraph 2.129.

The accurate delineation of the actual transaction will be important in determining whether a transactional profit split is potentially applicable. This process should have regard to the commercial and financial relations between the associated enterprises, including an analysis of what each party to the transaction does, and the context in which the controlled transactions take place. That is, the accurate delineation of a transaction requires a two-sided analysis (or a multi-sided analysis of the contributions of more than two associated enterprises, where necessary) irrespective of which transfer pricing method is ultimately found to be the most appropriate. (See Section D.1, and in particularly Section D.1.2 of Chapter I of these Guidelines.)

The existence of unique and valuable contributions by each party to the controlled transaction is perhaps the clearest indicator that a transactional profit split may be appropriate. The context of the transaction, including the industry in which it occurs and the factors affecting business performance in that sector can be particularly relevant to evaluating the contributions of the parties and whether such contributions are unique and valuable. Depending on the facts of the case, other indicators that the transactional profit split may be the most appropriate method could include a high level of integration in the business operations to which the transactions relate and /or the shared assumption of economically significant risks (or the separate assumption of closely related economically significant risks) by the parties to the transactions. It is important to note that the indicators are not mutually exclusive and on the contrary may often be found together in a single case.

At the other end of the spectrum, where the accurate delineation of the transaction determines that one party to the transaction performs only simple functions, does not assume economically significant risks in relation to the transaction and does not otherwise make any contribution which is unique and valuable, a transactional profit split method typically would not be appropriate since a share of profits (which may be impacted by the playing out of the economically significant risks) would be unlikely to represent an arm’s length outcome for such contributions or risk assumption.

A lack of closely comparable, uncontrolled transactions which would otherwise be used to benchmark an arm’s length return for the party performing the less complex functions should not per se lead to a conclusion that the transactional profit split is the most appropriate method. Depending on the facts of the case, an appropriate method using uncontrolled transactions that are sufficiently comparable, but not identical to the controlled transaction is likely to be more reliable than an inappropriate use of the transactional profit split method. See paragraphs 3.38–3.39 for a discussion of limitations in available comparables. See also section C.2.3.

It may also be relevant to consider industry practices. For instance, if information is available that independent parties do commonly use profit splitting approaches in similar situations, careful consideration should be given to whether the transactional profit split method may be the most appropriate method for the controlled transactions. Such industry practices may be a pointer to the fact that each party makes unique and valuable contributions, and/or that the parties are highly inter-dependent upon each other. Conversely, if independent parties engaged in comparable transactions are found to make use of other pricing methods, this should also be taken into account in determining the most appropriate transfer pricing method.

Contributions (for instance functions performed, or assets used or contributed) will be “unique and valuable” in cases where (i) they are not comparable to contributions made by uncontrolled parties in comparable circumstances, and (ii) they represent a key source of actual or potential economic benefits in the business operations. The two factors are often linked: comparables for such contributions are seldom found because they are a key source of economic advantage. It may be the case that in these situations, the risks associated with the respective unique and valuable contributions cannot be controlled by the other party or parties. This may impact the assumption of risk under the accurate delineation of the actual transaction. For example, the developer and manufacturer of a key component of a product together with the developer and manufacturer of another key component that together with the first component, form the ready-to-sell product, may both make unique and valuable contributions in terms of functions and intangibles that represent a key source of economic benefits. (See also paragraphs 6.50 to 6.58 and 6.133.) In practice, neither of them may be able to control the development risk in relation to the product as a whole, but instead they together control the development risks and share in the relevant profits resulting from their contributions. The principles of this section are illustrated by Examples 1, , and in Annex II to Chapter II of these Guidelines.

Where each party to the transaction legally owns unique and valuable intangibles that are relevant to the transaction, it will also be necessary to consider whether, under the accurate delineation of the transaction, they each assume the economically significant risks relating to those intangibles, e.g. risks related to development, obsolescence, infringement, product liability and exploitation (see paragraphs 6.65 to 6.68).

As set out in paragraphs 6.148 to 6.149 and 6.152, in some cases, the transactional profit split method may be the most appropriate method for a transfer of fully developed intangibles (including rights in intangibles) where it is not possible to identify reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions. The transactional profit split method may also be appropriate for transfers of partially developed intangibles. Example 5 in Annex II to Chapter II provides an illustration. See paragraphs 6.150 to 6.151. Where the intangibles transferred are hard-to-value intangibles, the provisions of section D.4 of Chapter VI should be considered.

Although 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 party to the transaction performs functions, uses assets and assumes risks is interlinked with, and cannot reliably be evaluated in isolation from, the way in which another party to the transaction performs functions, uses assets and assumes risks. In contrast, many instances of integration within an MNE result in situations in which the contribution of at least one party to the transaction can in fact be reliably evaluated by reference to comparable uncontrolled transactions. For example, where complementary but discrete activities are undertaken by the entities, it may be the case that it is possible to find reliable comparables since the functions, assets and risks involved in each discrete stage may be comparable to those in uncontrolled arrangements. This needs to be borne in mind in considering which transfer pricing method is the most appropriate in a particular case. Examples 6, and in Annex II to Chapter II illustrate the principles of this section.

In some cases the parties may perform functions jointly, use assets jointly and/or share assumption of risks to such an extent that it is impossible to evaluate their respective contributions in isolation from those of others. As an example, the transactional profit split method can be applied to the global trading of financial instruments by associated enterprises. See in Part III, Section C of the Report on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments. (See the Report on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments (OECD, 2010).

Another example may be where the integration between the parties takes the form of a high degree of inter-dependency. For instance, profit split approaches may be used by independent enterprises engaged in long-term arrangements where each party has made a significant contribution (e.g. of an asset) whose value depends on the counterparty to the arrangement. In these kinds of cases, where each party makes such a contribution, and is dependent on the other party (or where the value of the contribution(s) of one party depends to a significant degree on the contribution(s) of the other party), some form of flexible pricing that takes into account, and varies with, the outcome of the risks assumed by each party arising from its dependence on the other party may be observed.

Where business operations are highly integrated, the extent to which the parties share the assumption of the same economically significant risks or separately assume closely related economically significant risks will be relevant to the determination of the most appropriate method and, if a transactional profit split is considered the most appropriate method, how it should be applied; in particular whether a split of actual profits or of anticipated profits should be used. See section C.4.1.

Where a party contributes to the control of economically significant risk, but that risk is assumed by the other party to the transaction, this may, in some cases, demonstrate that it is appropriate for the first party to share in the potential upside and downside associated with that risk, commensurate with its contribution to control. See paragraph 1.105. However, the mere fact that an entity performs control functions in relation to a risk will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transactional profit split is the most appropriate method in the case.

Where the contributions are highly inter-related or inter-dependent upon each other, the evaluation of the respective contributions of the parties may need to be done holistically. That is, a high degree of integration may also affect whether contributions by the enterprises are considered to be unique and valuable. For instance, a unique contribution by one party may have a significantly greater value when considered in combination with the particular unique contribution of the other party. Paragraphs 6.93–6.94 discuss this issue in relation to the combination of intangibles. See also Example 9 in Annex II to Chapter II.

A transactional profit split may be found to be the most appropriate method where, according to the accurately delineated transaction, each party to the controlled transaction shares the assumption of one or more of the economically significant risks in relation to that transaction (see paragraph 1.95).

A transactional profit split may also be found to be the most appropriate method where, according to the accurately delineated transaction, the various economically significant risks in relation to the transaction are separately assumed by the parties, but those risks are so closely inter-related and/or correlated that the playing out of the risks of each party cannot reliably be isolated. See Example 10 in Annex II to Chapter II.

The relevance of this factor as an indicator for the transactional profit split method will depend in large measure on the extent to which the risks concerned are economically significant such that a share of relevant profits would be warranted for each party. The economic significance of the risks should be analysed in relation to their importance to the actual or anticipated relevant profits from the controlled transaction(s), rather than in respect of their importance to any one of the associated enterprises whose business operations may extend beyond those covered by the relevant profits.

If each party shares the assumption of economically significant risks or separately assumes inter-related, economically significant risks, and a transactional profit split is considered to be the most appropriate method, it is likely that a split of actual profits, rather than anticipated profits, will be warranted since those actual profits, i.e. the actual relevant profits to be split, will reflect the playing out of the risks of each party. Conversely, a profit split of anticipated profits will tend to concentrate the playing out of economically significant risks on one party. That is, the transfer pricing outcome—a sharing of actual or anticipated profits—should align with the accurate delineation of the transaction. See section C.4.1 below on splits of actual and anticipated profits.

In general, it will tend to be the case that the presence of factors indicating that a transactional profit split is the most appropriate method will correspond to an absence of factors indicating that an alternative transfer pricing method—one which relies entirely on comparables—is the most appropriate method, determined in accordance with paragraph 2.2 of these Guidelines. Put another way, if information on reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions is available to price the transaction in its entirety, it is less likely that the transactional profit split method will be the most appropriate method. However, a lack of comparables alone is insufficient to warrant the use of a transactional profit split. See paragraph 2.128.

While the transactional profit split method can be applied in cases where there are no uncontrolled comparables, information from transactions between independent parties may still be relevant to the application of the method, for example to guide the splitting of relevant profits (see section C.3.1.1), or where a residual analysis approach is used (see section C.3.1.2).

This section has described certain characteristics of the transactional profit split method and provided a number of potential indicators as to when it may be found to be the most appropriate method, as well as a number of factors which may point in the opposite direction. The guidance in this regard does not seek to be comprehensive, nor is it prescriptive. The presence or absence of one or more of the indicators described in this section will not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transactional profit split will (or will not) be the most appropriate method in a particular case. Each case needs to be analysed on its own facts, and it will be important to consider the relative merits and shortcomings of available transfer pricing methods.

These Guidelines do not seek to provide an exhaustive catalogue of ways in which the transactional profit split method may be applied. Application of the method will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the information available, but the overriding objective should be to approximate as closely as possible the split of profits that would have been realised had the parties been independent enterprises.

Under the transactional profit split method, the relevant profits are to be split between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement made at arm’s length. In general, the determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should: Be consistent with the functional analysis of the controlled transaction under review, and in particular reflect the assumption of the economically significant risks by the parties, and Be capable of being measured in a reliable manner.

In addition, If the transactional profit split method is used to set transfer pricing in controlled transactions at the outset, it would be reasonable to expect the life-time of the arrangement and the criteria or profit splitting factors to be agreed in advance of the transaction, The person using the transactional profit split method (taxpayer or tax administration) should be prepared to explain why it is regarded as the most appropriate method in the circumstances of the case, as well as the way it is implemented, and in particular the criteria or profit splitting factors used to split the relevant profits, and The determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should generally be used consistently over the life-time of the arrangement, including during loss years, unless the rationale for using differing relevant profits or profit splitting factors over time is supported by the facts and circumstances and is documented.

There are a number of approaches to the application of the transactional profit split method, depending on the characteristics of the controlled transactions, and the information available. As has been described above, the method seeks to split the relevant profits from controlled transactions on an economically valid basis, in order to approximate the results that would have been achieved between independent enterprises in comparable circumstances. This may be done by considering the relative contributions of each party (a “contribution analysis”). Where the transactional profit split method is the most appropriate method but at least one party also makes some less complex contributions which are capable of being benchmarked by reference to comparable, uncontrolled transactions, a two-stage “residual analysis” may be appropriate.

Under a contribution analysis, the relevant profits, which are the total profits from the controlled transactions under examination, are divided between the associated enterprises in order to arrive at a reasonable approximation of the division that independent enterprises would have achieved from engaging in comparable transactions. This division can be supported by comparables data where available. In the absence thereof, it should be based on the relative value of the contributions by each of the associated enterprises participating in the controlled transactions, determined using information internal to the MNE group, as a proxy for the division that independent enterprises would have achieved (see section C.5.2). In cases where the relative value of the contributions can be measured, it may not be necessary to estimate the actual market value of each party’s contributions.

It can be difficult to determine the relative value of the contribution that each of the associated enterprises makes to the relevant profits, and the approach will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The determination might be made by comparing the nature and degree of each party’s contribution of differing types (for example, provision of services, development expenses incurred, assets used or contributed, capital invested) and assigning a percentage based upon the relative comparison and external market data. See section C.5 for a discussion of how to split the relevant profits.

Where the contributions of the parties are such that some can be reliably valued by reference to a one-sided method and benchmarked using comparables, while others cannot, the application of a residual analysis may be appropriate. A residual analysis divides the relevant profits from the controlled transactions under examination into two categories. In the first category are profits attributable to contributions which can be reliably benchmarked: typically less complex contributions for which reliable comparables can be found. Ordinarily this initial remuneration would be determined by applying one of the traditional transaction methods or a transactional net margin method to identify the remuneration of comparable transactions between independent enterprises. Thus, it would generally not account for the return that would be generated by a second category of contributions which may be unique and valuable, and/or are attributable to a high level of integration or the shared assumption of economically significant risks. Typically, the allocation of the residual profit among the parties will be based on the relative value of the second category of contributions of the parties in the same way as in the application of the contribution analysis outlined above and in accordance with the guidance as described in section C.5.

Example 11 in Annex II to Chapter II illustrates the application of a residual analysis under a transactional profit split method.

The relevant profits to be split under the transactional profit split method are those of the associated enterprises arising as a result of the controlled transactions under review. It is essential to identify the level of aggregation, see paragraphs 3.9-3.12. In determining the relevant profits, it is therefore essential to first identify and accurately delineate the transactions to be covered by the transactional profit split method, and from this identify the relevant income and expense amounts for each party in relation to those transactions. See section C.4.2, below. Example 12 in Annex II to Chapter II of these Guidelines illustrates the principles of this section.

Where the relevant profits to be split are comprised of profits of two or more associated enterprises, the relevant financial data of the parties to the transaction to which a transactional profit split is applied need to be put on a common basis as to accounting practice and currency, and then combined. Because accounting standards can have significant effects on the determination of the profits to be split, accounting standards should, in cases where the taxpayer chooses to use the transactional profit split method, be selected in advance of applying the method and applied consistently over the lifetime of the arrangement. Differences in accounting standards may affect the timing of revenue recognition as well as the treatment of expenses in arriving at profits. Material differences between the accounting standards used by the parties should be identified and aligned.

Financial accounting may provide the starting point for determining the profit to be split in the absence of harmonised tax accounting standards. The use of other financial data (e.g. cost accounting) should be permitted where such accounts exist, are reliable, auditable and sufficiently transactional. In this context, product-line income statements or divisional accounts may prove to be the most useful accounting records.

However, except in circumstances where the total activities of each of the parties are the subject of the profit split, the financial data will need to be segregated and allocations made in accordance with the accurately delineated transaction(s) so that the profits relating to the combined contributions made by the parties are identified. For example, a product supplier in a profit split with an associated enterprise engaged in European marketing and distribution would need to identify the profits arising from its production of goods for the European market, and exclude the profits arising from the production of goods for other markets. The exercise may be relatively simple if the same goods are supplied to all markets, but will be more complex if different goods with different production costs or with different embedded technology, for example, are supplied to different markets. Similarly, if the associated enterprise engaged in European marketing and distribution buys products from other sources, it will need to segregate its financial data in a way that reflects the revenues, costs, and profits relating to the goods purchased from the associated product supplier in the profit split. Experience suggests that this initial stage in performing a profit split can in some circumstances be extremely complex, and the method of identifying the profits relevant to the transaction and any assumptions made in doing so need to be documented.

The determination of the profits to be split, including whether those profits are actual profits or anticipated profits, or some combination thereof, should be aligned with the accurately delineated transaction. Example 13 in Annex II to Chapter II illustrates the principles of this section.

Where the transactional profit split method is found to be the most appropriate, the splitting of actual profits, i.e. profits which have been affected by the playing out of economically significant risks, would only be appropriate where the accurate delineation of the transaction shows that the parties either share the assumption of the same economically significant risks associated with the business opportunity or separately assume closely related, economically significant risks associated with the business opportunity and consequently should share in the resulting profits or losses. These kinds of risk assumption may occur in scenarios where the business operations are highly integrated and/or each party makes unique and valuable contributions.

Alternatively, if the transactional profit split is found to be the most appropriate method (e.g. because each party to the transaction makes unique and valuable contributions) but one of the parties does not share in the assumption of the economically significant risks which might play out after entering into the transaction, a split of anticipated profits would be more appropriate. See scenario 1 of Example 13 in Annex II to Chapter II of this guidance.

In any application of a transactional profit split, care should be exercised to ensure that the method is applied without hindsight. See paragraph 3.74. That is, irrespective of whether a transactional profit split of anticipated or actual profits is used, unless there are major unforeseen developments which would have resulted in a renegotiation of the agreement had it occurred between independent parties, the basis upon which those profits are to be split between the associated enterprises, including the profit splitting factors, the way in which relevant profits are calculated, and any adjustments or contingencies, must be determined on the basis of information known or reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time the transactions were entered into. This is so notwithstanding the fact that in many cases, the actual calculations can necessarily only be performed some time afterwards, where, for example they apply profit splitting factors determined at the outset to the actual profits. Additionally, it should be remembered that the starting point in the accurate delineation of any transaction will generally be the written contracts which may reflect the intention of the parties at the time the contract was concluded. See paragraph 1.42.

Most commonly, the relevant profits to be split under the transactional profit split method are operating profits. Applying the transactional profit split method in this manner ensures that both income and expenses of the MNE are attributed to the relevant associated enterprise on a consistent basis. However, depending on the accurate delineation of the transaction, it may be appropriate to split a different measure of profits such as gross profits, and then deduct the expenses incurred by or attributable to each relevant enterprise (excluding expenses already taken into account). In such cases, care must be taken to ensure that the expenses incurred by or attributable to each enterprise are consistent with the accurate delineation of the transaction, particularly the activities and risks undertaken by each party, and that the allocation of profits is likewise consistent with the contributions of the parties.

That is, the measure of profits to be split will depend on the accurate delineation of the transaction. For instance, if the accurate delineation of the transaction determines that the parties share the assumption of not only market risk, which affects the volume of sales and prices charged, but also risks associated with producing or otherwise acquiring goods and services, which affect the level of gross profit, it would be most appropriate to use gross profits as the basis of the split. In such a scenario, the parties may have integrated or joint functions and assets relating to the production or acquisition of goods and services. If the accurate delineation of the transaction determines that the parties share the assumption of, in addition to market and production risks, a further range of risks that affect the level of operating expenses that may include investment in intangibles, it would be most appropriate to use operating profits as the basis of the split. In this scenario, the parties may have integrated or joint functions relating to the entire value chain.

For example, two associated enterprises, each with its own manufacturing specialisation and unique and valuable intangibles, agree to contribute the intangibles to produce innovative, complex products. The accurate delineation of the transaction determines that the enterprises in this example share the assumption of risks associated with the success or otherwise of the products in the marketplace. However, they do not share the assumption of risks associated with their selling and other expenses, which are largely unintegrated. Using a profit split based on combined operating profits after all expenses of both parties would have the potential result of sharing the consequences of risks that are assumed by only one of the parties. In such cases, a splitting of gross profits may be more appropriate and reliable since this level of profits captures the outcomes of market and production activities that the parties share together with the assumption of associated risks. Similarly, in the case of associated enterprises that engage in highly integrated worldwide trading operations, if the accurate delineation of the actual transaction determines that the shared assumption of risks and level of integration does not extend to operating costs, it may be appropriate to split the gross profits from each trading activity, and then deduct from the resulting share of the overall gross profits allocated to each enterprise its own operating expenses incurred.

Example 14 in Annex II to Chapter II illustrates the principles of this section.

Profits should be split on an economically valid basis that reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the transaction and thus approximates the division of profits that would have obtained at arm’s length. The relevance of comparable uncontrolled transactions or internal data (see section C.5.2) and the criteria used to achieve an arm’s length division of the profits depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is therefore not desirable to establish a prescriptive list of criteria or profit splitting factors. See paragraphs 2.146-2.148 for general guidance on the consistency of the determination of the splitting factors. In addition, the criteria or splitting factors used to split the profit should: Be independent of transfer pricing policy formulation, i.e. they should be based on objective data (e.g. sales to independent parties), not on data relating to the remuneration of controlled transactions (e.g. sales to associated enterprises), Be verifiable, and Be supported by comparables data, internal data, or both.

One possible approach is to split the relevant profits based on the division of profits that actually is observed in comparable uncontrolled transactions. Examples of possible sources of information on uncontrolled transactions that might usefully assist the determination of criteria to split the profits, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, include joint-venture arrangements between independent parties under which profits are shared, such as development projects in the oil and gas industry; pharmaceutical collaborations, co-marketing or co-promotion agreements; arrangements between independent music record labels and music artists; uncontrolled arrangements in the financial services sector, etc.

However, it can be difficult to find reliable comparables data that can be used in this manner. Nevertheless, external market data can be relevant in the profit split analysis to assess the value of contributions that each associated enterprise makes to the transactions. In effect, the assumption is that independent parties would have split relevant profits in proportion to the value of their respective contributions to the generation of profit in the transaction. Thus, where there is no more direct evidence of how independent parties in comparable circumstances would have split the profit in comparable transactions, the allocation of profits may be based on the relative contributions of the parties, as measured by their functions, assets used and risks assumed.

As noted above, arm’s length parties can be assumed to split profits on the basis of their relative contributions to the creation of those profits. The division of the relevant profits under the transactional profit split method is generally achieved using one or more profit splitting factors. The functional analysis and an analysis of the context in which the transactions take place (e.g. the industry and environment) are essential to the process of determining the relevant factors to use in splitting profits, including determining the weighting of applicable profit splitting factors, in cases where more than one factor is used. The determination of appropriate profit splitting factor(s) should reflect the key contributions to value in relation to the transaction. Examples 15 and 16 in Annex II to Chapter II of these Guidelines illustrate the principles of this section.

Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the factor can be a figure (e.g. a 30%-70% split based on evidence of a similar split achieved between independent parties in comparable transactions), or a variable (e.g. relative value of participant’s marketing contributions or other possible factors as discussed below) which could be calculated on the basis of a single profit splitting factor or a weighting of multiple factors.

Profit splitting factors based on assets or capital (e.g. operating assets, fixed assets (e.g. production assets, retail assets, IT assets), intangibles), or costs (e.g. relative spending and/or investment in key areas such as research and development, engineering, marketing) may be used where these capture the relative contributions of the parties to the profits being split and they can be measured reliably. Note that while costs may be a poor measure of the value of intangibles contributed (see paragraph 6.142), the relative costs incurred by parties may provide a reasonable proxy for the relative value of those contributions where such contributions are similar in nature (see paragraphs 8.27-8.28).

Other profit splitting factors that could be appropriate in the circumstances of a given case include incremental sales, or employee compensation (relating to the individuals involved in the key functions that generate value to the transaction, for example in relation to the global trading of financial instruments). In other situations it is possible that headcount or time spent by a certain group of similarly skilled employees with similar responsibilities could be used if there is a strong and relatively consistent correlation between this and the creation of value represented by the relevant profits. The guidance in this section should not be considered as an exhaustive list of potential profit splitting factors. Other profit splitting factors may be acceptable provided they result in arm’s length outcomes for all relevant parties.

In addition to the Local File, which should contain a detailed functional analysis of the taxpayer and its relevant associated enterprises, the MNE group’s Master File might be a useful source of information relevant to the determination of appropriate profit splitting factors. As is set out in Annex I to Chapter V, the Master File should include information on the important drivers of business profit, the principal contributions to value creation by entities within the group, and key group intangibles. However, it should be borne in mind that the Master File is intended only to provide a high-level overview of an MNE group, and not granular or detailed information as to all of the group’s transactions.

Where comparable uncontrolled transactions of sufficient reliability are lacking to support the division of the relevant profits, consideration should be given to internal data, which may provide a reliable means of establishing or testing the arm’s length nature of the division of profits. The types of such internal data that are relevant will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and should satisfy the conditions outlined in this section and in particular at paragraphs 2.147-2.148 and 2.166. They will frequently be extracted from the taxpayers’ cost accounting or financial accounting.

For instance, where an asset-based profit splitting factor is used, it may be based on data extracted from the balance sheets of the parties to the transaction. It will often be the case that not all the assets of the taxpayers relate to the transaction at hand and that accordingly some analytical work is needed for the taxpayer to draw up a “transactional” balance sheet that will be used for the application of the transactional profit split method. In addition, certain assets, such as self-developed intangibles, may not be reflected on the balance sheet at all, and accordingly must be separately evaluated. In this regard, valuation techniques, such as those based on the discounted value of projected future income streams or cash flows derived from the exploitation of the intangible may be useful. See Section D.2.6.3 of Chapter VI of these guidelines. See also paragraph 2.104 for a discussion of valuation of assets in the context of the transactional net margin method where the net profit is weighted to assets, which is also relevant to the valuation of assets in the context of a transactional profit split where an asset-based profit splitting factor is used.

Similarly, where cost-based profit splitting factors are used that are based on data extracted from the taxpayers’ profit and loss accounts, it may be necessary to draw up transactional accounts that identify those expenses that are related to the controlled transaction at hand and those that should be excluded from the determination of the profit splitting factor. The type of expenditure that is taken into account (e.g. salaries, depreciation, etc.) as well as the criteria used to determine whether a given expense is related to the transaction at hand or is rather related to other transactions of the taxpayer (e.g. to other lines of products not subject to this profit split determination) should be applied consistently to all the parties to the transaction.

Internal data may also be helpful where the profit splitting factor is based on a cost accounting system, e.g. employee costs related to some aspects of the transaction, or time spent by a certain group of employees on certain tasks, etc.

Internal data are essential to assess the values of the respective contributions of the parties to the controlled transaction. The determination of such values should rely on a functional analysis that takes into account all the economically significant functions, assets and risks contributed by the parties to the controlled transaction. In those cases where the profit is split on the basis of an evaluation of the relative importance of the functions, assets and risks to the value added to the controlled transaction, such evaluation should be supported by reliable objective data in order to limit arbitrariness. Particular attention should be given to the identification of the relevant contributions of unique and valuable intangibles and the assumption of economically significant risks and the importance, relevance and measurement of the factors which gave rise to these.

Asset-based or capital-based profit splitting factors can be used where there is a strong correlation between tangible assets or intangibles, or capital employed and creation of value in the context of the controlled transaction. In order for a profit splitting factor to be meaningful, it should be applied consistently to all the parties to the transaction. See paragraph 2.104 for a discussion of comparability issues in relation to asset valuation in the context of the transactional net margin method, which is also valid in the context of the transactional profit split method. Example 15 in Annex II to this chapter illustrates the principles of this section.

Where one or more of the parties to a transaction for which the transactional profit split method is found to be the most appropriate makes a contribution in the form of intangibles, difficult issues can arise in relation both to their identification and to their valuation. Guidance on the identification and valuation of intangibles is found at Chapter VI of these Guidelines. See also the examples in the Annex to Chapter VI “Examples to illustrate the guidance on intangibles.”

A profit splitting factor based on expenses may be appropriate where it is possible to identify a strong correlation between relative expenses incurred and relative value contributed. For example, marketing expenses may be an appropriate factor for distributors-marketers if advertising generates unique and valuable marketing intangibles, e.g. in consumer goods where the value of marketing intangibles is affected by advertising. Research and development expenses may be suitable for manufacturers if they relate to the development of unique and valuable intangibles such as patents. However, if, for instance, each party contributes different valuable intangibles, then it is not appropriate to use a cost- based factor unless cost is a reliable measure of the relative value of those intangibles or costs can be risk-weighted to achieve a reliable measure of relative value. Even where each party contributes the same kind of intangibles, risk-weighting will be an appropriate consideration. For example, where the risk of failure at an early stage of development is several times higher than the risk of failure at a later stage or in the development of incremental improvements to an already proven concept, then the costs incurred in that early stage will have a higher risk weighting than the costs incurred at a later stage or on incremental improvements. Employee remuneration may be relevant in situations where functions relating to the skills and experience of staff are the primary factor in generating the relevant profits.

In identifying and applying appropriate cost-based profit splitting factors a number of issues may need to be considered. One is that there may be differences between the parties in the timing of expenditure. For example, research and development costs that are relevant to the value of a party’s contributions may have been incurred several years in the past, whereas the expenditure for another party may be current. As a result, it may be necessary to bring historic costs to current values (as discussed further below) in addition to the risk weighting described in paragraph 2.181. The relevant costs may be part of a larger cost pool that needs to be analysed and allocated to the contributions made to the profit split transaction. For example, marketing costs may be incurred and recorded across several product lines, whereas only one product line is the subject of the profit split transaction. Where location savings retained by member(s) of the MNE group are a significant contributor to profits, and such costs are included in the profits to be split, then the manner in which independent parties would allocate retained location savings would need to be reflected in the profit split, taking into account the guidance in section D.6 of Chapter I. Cost-based profit splitting factors can be very sensitive to differences and changes in accounting classification of costs. It is therefore necessary to clearly identify in advance what costs will be taken into account in the determination of the profit splitting factor and to determine the factor consistently among the parties.

In some cases, a significant issue for the reliability of cost-based splitting factors is the determination of the relevant period of time from which the elements of determination of the profit splitting factor(s) (e.g. assets, costs, or others) should be taken into account. A difficulty arises because there can be a lag between the time when expenses are incurred and the time when value is created, and it is sometimes difficult to decide which period’s expenses should be used. For example, in the case of a cost-based factor, using the expenditure on a single-year basis may be suitable for some cases, while in some other cases it may be more suitable to use accumulated expenditure (net of depreciation or amortisation, where appropriate in the circumstances) incurred in the previous as well as the current years. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, this determination may have a significant effect on the allocation of profits amongst the parties. As noted at section C.5.1 above, the selection of the profit splitting factor should be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case and provide a reliable approximation of the division of profits that would have been agreed between independent parties. The principles of this section are illustrated by Example 16 in Annex II to Chapter II of this guidance.