TPG2017 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.18

Category: C. Applying the arm's length principle, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter VIII: Cost Contribution Arrangements | Tag: , ,
« | »

In cases where CCA activities are outsourced, an arm’s length charge would be appropriate to compensate the entity for services or other contributions being rendered to the CCA participants. Where the entity is an associated enterprise of one or more of the CCA participants, the arm’s length charge would be determined under the general principles of Chapters I – III, including inter alia consideration of functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed, as well as the special considerations affecting an arm’s length charge for services and/or in relation to any intangibles, as described in Chapter VII and Chapter VI (including the guidance on hard-to-value intangibles).






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.19The relative shares of expected benefits might be estimated based on the anticipated additional income generated or costs saved or other benefits received by each participant as a result of the arrangement. An approach that is frequently used in practice, most typically for...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.4As indicated in Section D. 1 of Chapter I, the delineation of the actual transaction undertaken forms the first phase in any transfer pricing analysis. The contractual agreement provides the starting point for delineating the actual transaction. In this respect, no difference exists...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.45The amount of a buy-in payment should be determined based upon the value (i.e. the arm’s length price) of the interest in the intangibles and/or tangible assets the new entrant obtains, taking into account the new entrant’s proportionate share of the overall expected...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.18In cases where CCA activities are outsourced, an arm’s length charge would be appropriate to compensate the entity for services or other contributions being rendered to the CCA participants. Where the entity is an associated enterprise of one or more of the CCA...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.17As described in the previous paragraphs, it is not necessary for the CCA participants to perform all of the CCA activities through their own personnel. In some cases, the participants in a CCA may decide to outsource certain functions related to the subject...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.50Under the principles of Chapters I – III, each member of the MNE group should receive arm’s length compensation for the functions it performs. In cases involving intangibles, this includes functions related to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles. The...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.29Since contributions are based on expected benefits, this generally implies that where a cost reimbursement basis for valuing current contributions is permitted, the analysis should initially be based on budgeted costs. This does not necessarily mean fixing the costs, since the budget framework...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.27While all contributions should be measured at value (but see paragraph 8.28 below), it may be more administrable for taxpayers to pay current contributions at cost. This may be particularly relevant for development CCAs. If this approach is adopted, the pre-existing contributions should...
  1. 2022: ATO Taxpayer Alert on Treaty shopping arrangements to obtain reduced withholding tax rates (TA 2022/2)The ATO is currently reviewing treaty shopping arrangements designed to obtain the benefit of a reduced withholding tax (WHT) rate under a double-tax agreement (DTA) in relation to royalty or dividend payments from Australia. Typically, this benefit is sought via the interposition of one...
  2. EU JTPF, March 2017, Report on the Use of Comparables in the EUIn March 2017 the JTPF agreed the Report on the Use of Comparables in the EU. The report establishes best practices and pragmatic solutions by issuing various recommendations for both taxpayers and tax administrations in the EU and aims at increasing in practice...

Related Case Law

  1. US vs Medtronic, August 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals, Case No: 17-1866In this case the IRS was of the opinion, that Medtronic erred in allocating the profit earned from its devises and leads between its businesses located in the United States and its device manufacturer in Puerto Rico. To determine the arm’s length price...
  2. Spain vs EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U., Feb 2018, High Court, Case No 314/2016EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. had deducted the full employee pension costs of a CEO that had worked both for the HQ in the Netherlands and the local Spanish Company. The tax authorities issued an assessment where 90% of the pension costs had been disallowed...
  3. US vs. Xilinex Inc, August 2005In a decision the IRS found that Xilinx should have allocated stock option costs for foreign subsidiary research and development employees as part of its Section 482-7 cost-sharing agreement calculation. In this decision, the United States Tax Court overruled the IRS, finding that...
  4. US vs Microsoft, May 2017, US District CourtIn an ongoing transfer pricing battle between Microsoft and the IRS related to Microsofts’ use of a IP subsidiary in Puerto Rico to shift income and reduce taxes, the District Court of Washington has now ordered Microsoft to provide a number of documents...