TPG2017 Chapter VI paragraph 6.104

Category: C. Transactions involving the use of intangibles, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter VI: Special Considerations for Intangibles | Tag: , ,
« | »

Intangibles may be used in connection with controlled transactions in situations where there is no transfer of the intangible or of rights in the intangible. For example, intangibles may be used by one or both parties to a controlled transaction in connection with the manufacture of goods sold to an associated enterprise, in connection with the marketing of goods purchased from an associated enterprise, or in connection with the performance of services on behalf of an associated enterprise. The nature of such a transaction should be clearly specified, and any relevant intangibles used by either of the parties in connection with such a controlled transaction should be identified and taken into account in the comparability analysis, in the selection and application of the most appropriate transfer pricing method for that transaction, and in the choice of the tested party. Supplemental guidance regarding the determination of arm’s length conditions for transactions involving the use of intangibles in connection with the sale of goods or the provision of services is contained in Sections D. 1 and D.4 of this chapter.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.104Intangibles may be used in connection with controlled transactions in situations where there is no transfer of the intangible or of rights in the intangible. For example, intangibles may be used by one or both parties to a controlled transaction in connection with...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.138However, it will often be the case in matters involving transfers of intangibles or rights in intangibles that the comparability analysis (including the functional analysis) reveals that there are no reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions that can be used to determine the arm’s length...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.59Group members that use assets in the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of an intangible should receive appropriate compensation for doing so. Such assets may include, without limitation, intangibles used in research, development or marketing (e.g. know-how, customer relationships, etc.), physical assets,...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.58Because the important functions described in paragraph 6.56 are often instrumental in managing the different functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed that are key to the successful development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, or exploitation of intangibles, and are therefore essential to the creation...
  5. 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...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 614. In Year 1, a multinational group comprised of Company A (a country A corporation) and Company B (a country B corporation) decides to develop an intangible, which is anticipated to be highly profitable based on Company B’s existing intangibles, its track record...


Related Case Law

  1. India vs Kellogg India Private Limited, February 2022, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Mumbai, Case NoITA No. 7342/Mum/2018Kellogg India Private Limited is engaged in manufacturing and sales of breakfast cereals and convenience foods and it operates as a licensed manufacturer under the Kellogg brand. During the year under consideration, Kellogg India had commenced business of distributing Pringles products in the...
  2. Greece vs “Marine Fuel Ltd”, January 2022, Administrative Tribunal, Case No 36/2022“Marine Fuel Ltd” was audited for FY 2015 and an assessment was issued by the tax authorities, where the taxable income had been increased due to a transfer pricing adjustment. The tax authorities had dismissed the CUP method chosen by the group and...
  3. 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...
  4. Kenya vs Oracle Technology Systems (Kenya) Limited, December 2021, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Appeals No 149 of 2019Following an audit of Oracle Technology Systems (Kenya) Limited, a distributor of Oracle products in Kenya, the tax authority issued an assessment for FY2015-2017 relating to controlled transactions. In assessing the income, the tax authority had used a CUP method instead of the...
  5. Kenya vs Beta Healthcare International Limited, February 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Appeals No 866 of 2022 – [2024] KETAT 143 (KLR)Following an audit of Beta Healthcare International Limited, a Kenyan subsidiary in the Aspen Healthcare Group, the tax authorities issued a notice of additional taxable income relating to controlled transactions, in which they had determined the arm’s length price for controlled transactions using...