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.
TPG2018 Chapter II paragraph 2.182
Category: C. Transactional profit split method, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), Part III: Transactional profit methods, TPG2017 Chapter II: Transfer Pricing Methods | Tag: Accounting consistency, Accounting standards, Cost based splitting factors, Most appropriate method (MAM), Profit split examples, Profit split method, Profit splitting factors, Timing of expenditure, Transfer pricing methods
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.179Asset-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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.171Profit 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.183In 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....
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.182In 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.177Internal 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....
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.176Similarly, 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...
- THE APPLICATION OF THE PROFIT SPLIT METHOD WITHIN THE EU (2019)This paper addresses the first stage and aims at clarifying certain concepts in applying the PSM: (i) when to use the PSM (i.e. in which circumstances it may be considered the most appropriate transfer pricing method) and (ii) how to split the profit...
Related Case Law
- Japan vs “Banana Corp”, April 2013, Tokyo High Court, Case no 229A Japanese distributor “Banana Corp” imported Ecuadorian bananas from a group company for wholesale in Japan. The Japanese tax administration ruled that the amount of consideration paid by Japanese distributor had exceeded the arm’s length price and issued an assessment of additional tax...
- Italy vs SIOT S.p.A. June 2020, Cassazione, Case no Sez. 5 Num. 11837This case concerns Società Italiana per l’Oleodotto Transalpino Spa (S.I.O.T.) – , which operates the transalpine oil pipeline that crosses Italy, Austria and Germany, with the Austrian subsidiary T.O.O. GmbH and with the German subsidiary D.T.O. GmbH, belonging to the same group of...
- Poland vs A Sp. z o.o., June 2019, Administrative Court, Case No GD 530/19A Polish Subsidiary A SP. z o.o. had incurred a loss in 2012 in the amount of PLN 1,357,333.66 and following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment whereby the loss was reduced by an amount of PLN 234,019.90. The disputable issue...
- 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...
- US vs Perkin-Elmer Corp. & Subs., September 1993, United States Tax Court, Case No. T.C. Memo. 1993-414During the years in issue, 1975 through 1981, the worldwide operations of Perkin-Elmer (P-E) and its subsidiaries were organized into five operating groups, each of which was responsible for the research, manufacturing, sales, and servicing of its products. The five product areas were...