Financial capacity to assume risk can be defined as access to funding to take on the risk or to lay off the risk, to pay for the risk mitigation functions and to bear the consequences of the risk if the risk materialises. Access to funding by the party assuming the risk takes into account the available assets and the options realistically available to access additional liquidity, if needed, to cover the costs anticipated to arise should the risk materialise. This assessment should be made on the basis that the party assuming the risk is operating as an unrelated party in the same circumstances as the associated enterprise, as accurately delineated under the principles of this section. For example, exploitation of rights in an income-generating asset could open up funding possibilities for that party. Where a party assuming risk receives intra-group funding to meet the funding demands in relation to the risk, the party providing the funding may assume financial risk but does not, merely as a consequence of providing funding, assume the specific risk that gives rise to the need for additional funding. Where the financial capacity to assume a risk is lacking, then the allocation of risk requires further consideration under step 5.
TPG2017 Chapter I paragraph 1.64
Category: D. Guidance for applying the arm's length principle, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter I: The Arm's Length Principle | Tag: Access to funding, Analysis of risk, Assumption of risk / Risk assumption, Comparability analysis, Delineation, FAR analysis, Financial capacity, Functional analysis, Funding, Funding without risk
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.64Financial capacity to assume risk can be defined as access to funding to take on the risk or to lay off the risk, to pay for the risk mitigation functions and to bear the consequences of the risk if the risk materialises. Access...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.104Guidance on the relationship between risk assumption in relation to the provision of funding and the operational activities for which the funds are used is given in paragraphs 6.60-6.64. The concepts reflected in these paragraphs are equally applicable to investments in assets other...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.102In the circumstances of Example 2 in paragraph 1.84, the significant risks associated with generating a return from the manufacturing activities are controlled by Company A, and the upside and downside consequences of those risks should therefore be allocated to Company A. Company...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.83 (Example 1)Company A seeks to pursue a development opportunity and hires a specialist company, Company B, to perform part of the research on its behalf. Under step 1 development risk has been identified as economically significant in this transaction, and under step 2 it...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.99In exceptional circumstances, it may be the case that no associated enterprise can be identified that both exercises control over the risk and has the financial capacity to assume the risk. As such a situation is not likely to occur in transactions between...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.98If it is established in step 4(ii) that the associated enterprise assuming the risk based on steps 1 – 4(i) does not exercise control over the risk or does not have the financial capacity to assume the risk, then the risk should be...
Related Case Law
- Panama vs “Petroleum Wholesale Corp”, September 2020, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-062“Petroleum Wholesale Corp” is engaged in the wholesale of petroleum products, accessories and rolling stock in general in Panama. Following a thorough audit carried out by the Tax Administration in Panama, where discrepancies and inconsistencies had been identified between the transfer pricing documentation...
- European Commission vs. Amazon and Luxembourg, May 2021, State Aid – European General Court, Case No T-816/17 and T-318/18In 2017 the European Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Amazon of around €250 million. Following an in-depth investigation the Commission concluded that a tax ruling issued by Luxembourg in 2003, and prolonged in 2011, lowered the tax paid by...
- Italy vs Prinoth S.p.A., December 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 36275/2022Prinoth S.p.A. is an Italian manufacturer of snow groomers and tracked vehicles. For a number of years the parent company had been suffering losses while the distribution subsidiaries in the group had substantial profits. Following an audit the tax authorities concluded that the...
- Sweden vs Pandox AB, February 2022, Administrative Court, Case No 12512-20, 12520–12523- 20 and 13265-20Pandox AB is the parent company of a hotel group active in northern Europe. Pandox AB’s business concept is to acquire hotel property companies with associated external operators running hotel operations. Pandox AB acquires both individual companies and larger portfolios, both in Sweden...
- European Commission vs Amazon and Luxembourg, December 2023, European Court of Justice, Case No C‑457/21 PIn 2017 the European Commission concluded that Luxembourg had granted undue tax benefits to Amazon of around €250 million. According to the Commission, a tax ruling issued by Luxembourg in 2003 – and prolonged in 2011 – lowered the tax paid by Amazon...