The examples of allocation keys provided in the previous paragraph are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Depending on the facts and circumstances more sophisticated allocation keys might be used. However, a balance should be struck between theoretical sophistication and practical administration, bearing in mind that the costs involved are not generating high value for the group. In this context, there may be no need to use multiple allocation keys if the taxpayer can explain the reasons for concluding that a single key provides a reasonable reflection of the respective benefits. For reasons of consistency, the same allocation key or keys should be applied in determining the allocation to all recipients within the group of the same type of low value-adding intra-group services, and it is expected that the same reasonable key will be used from year to year unless there is a justified reason to change. Tax administrations and taxpayers should also bear in mind that changing the reasonable allocation key can give rise to considerable complexities. It is expected that the taxpayer will describe in its documentation (see paragraph 7.64 below) the reasons for concluding that the allocation key produces outcomes which reasonably reflects the benefits likely to be derived by each service recipient.
TPG2017 Chapter VII paragraph 7.60
Category: D. Low value-adding intra-group services, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter VII: Special Considerations for Intra-Group Services | Tag: Allocation key, Application of the simplified approach, Intra-group services, Low value-adding services (LVAS), Pool of cost, Service fee, Services
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.60The examples of allocation keys provided in the previous paragraph are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Depending on the facts and circumstances more sophisticated allocation keys might be used. However, a balance should be struck between theoretical sophistication and practical administration,...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.59The third step in this simplified charge method for low value-adding intra-group service costs is to allocate among members of the group the costs in the cost pool that benefit multiple members of the group. The taxpayer will select one or more allocation...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.62Subject to the provisions of paragraph 7.55, the charge for services to any member of the electing MNE group shall be the sum of (i) the costs incurred by another group member in providing services specifically to the member under the second step...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.61In determining the arm’s length charge for low value-adding intra-group services, the MNE provider of services shall apply a profit mark-up to all costs in the pool with the exception of any pass-through costs as determined under paragraphs 2.99 and 7.34. The same...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.58At this stage in the calculation, the MNE group has identified a pool of costs associated with categories of low value-adding services which are provided to multiple members of the MNE group....
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.57As a second step, the MNE group should identify and remove from the pool those costs that are attributable to services performed by one group member solely on behalf of one other group member. In creating a pool of payroll costs, for example,...
Related Case Law
- Peru vs “Metal S.A.”, February 2023, Tax Court, Case No 01428-1-2023Following an audit, the tax authorities found that “Metal S.A.” had not been remunerated at arm’s length for its distribution activities. In addition, the intra-group services received by “Metal S.A.” were considered to be low value-added services for which the margin could not...
- Peru vs “Copper Corporation S.A.”, July 2011, Tax Tribunal, Case No 12609-8-2011“Copper Corporation S.A.” had deducted intra-group service payments in it’s taxable income. The Peruvian tax authorities determined that the documentation provided by the company did not sufficiently support the actual provision of these services. Hence, tax deductions for the expenses was denied. The...
- Switzerland vs “Trust Administrator A. SA”, September 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_343/2019A Swiss company provided administration and other services to trusts. According to the company a related party in the Seychelles handled the daily business and received remuneration in accordance with an intra-group service agreement. Due to the service fees paid the Swiss company...
- Poland vs D. Sp. z oo, April 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Bd 128/22D. Sp. z oo had deducted interest expenses on intra-group loans and expenses related to intra-group services in its taxable income for FY 2015. The loans and services had been provided by a related party in Delaware, USA. Following a inspection, the tax...
- Poland vs “H. LVAS Sp. z oo”, September 2022, Administrative Court, Case No I SA / Go 234/22“H. LVAS Sp. z oo” had deducted expenses related to intra-group services in its taxable income. The services had been provided by its German parent company, H. GmbH. The services (supervision and management support, coordination of projects, support in accounting, controlling, IT and...