The arm’s length principle has also been found to work effectively in the vast majority of cases. For example, there are many cases involving the purchase and sale of commodities and the lending of money where an arm’s length price may readily be found in a comparable transaction undertaken by comparable independent enterprises under comparable circumstances. There are also many cases where a relevant comparison of transactions can be made at the level of financial indicators such as mark-up on costs, gross margin, or net profit indicators. Nevertheless, there are some significant cases in which the arm’s length principle is difficult and complicated to apply, for example, in MNE groups dealing in the integrated production of highly specialised goods, in unique intangibles, and/or in the provision of specialised services. Solutions exist to deal with such difficult cases, including the use of the transactional profit split method described in Chapter II, Part III of these Guidelines in those situations where it is the most appropriate method in the circumstances of the case.
TPG2017 Chapter I paragraph 1.9
Category: B. Statement of the arm's length principle, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter I: The Arm's Length Principle | Tag: Article 9, Most appropriate method (MAM), Net Profit Indicator (NPI)/Profit Level Indicator (PLI), Profit split method
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.9The arm’s length principle has also been found to work effectively in the vast majority of cases. For example, there are many cases involving the purchase and sale of commodities and the lending of money where an arm’s length price may readily be...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.118While 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.117Guidance 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 520. WebCo is a member of an MNE group that develops IT solutions for business customers. Recently, WebCo designed the architecture of a web crawler to collect pricing data from internet sites. WebCo has written the code of the program so it is...
- TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 416. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 3, except that the marketing activities performed by Company B are more limited and do not significantly enhance the goodwill or reputation associated with the trademark. Company B has a mechanism...
- TPG2022 Chapter II Annex II example 25. A Co, a member of T Group, is a company incorporated in Country A whose principal activity is the growing and processing of tea. A Co identifies, acquires and cultivates land with extremely good soil for growing tea. A Co has developed...
Related Case Law
- Norway vs “Distributor A AS”, March 2021, Tax Board, Case No 01-NS 131/2017A fully fledged Norwegian distributor in the H group was restructured and converted into a Limited risk distributor. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the income of the Norwegian distributor was adjusted to the median in a benchmark study prepared by the...
- 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...
- India vs Gulbrandsen Chemicals Ltd., February 2020, High Court, Case No 751 of 2019Gulbrandsen Chemicals manufactures chemicals for industrial customers in the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industry. The Indian Subsidiary, Gulbrandsen India also sold these products to its affiliated enterprises, namely Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc, USA, and Gulbrandsen EU Limited. In regards of the controlled transactions, the tax...
- Italy vs SGL CARBON SPA, May 2023, Supreme Court, Case No 11625/2023SGL CARBON SPA paid interest on loans received from the German parent of the SGL Group. The tax authorities considered, that the interest rate applied to the intra-group loan was significantly higher than the average interest rate applied in the German market. The...
- Italy vs Terex Italia S.r.l., January 2024, Supreme Court, Cases No 2853/2024Terex Italia s.r.l. is a manufacturer of heavy machinery and sold these products to a related distributor in the UK. The remuneration of the distributor had been determined based on application of the TNM-method. Following an audit for FY 2009 and 2010 the...