“Electric Component Manufacturing KtF” is a Hungarian subsidiary of a global group that distributes electronic components in more than 150 countries worldwide. The tax authorities had conducted a comprehensive tax audit of the Hungarian company for the period from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017, which resulted in an assessment of additional taxable income. The transfer pricing issues identified by the tax authorities were the remuneration received by the Hungarian company for its manufacturing activities and excessive interest payments to a group company in Luxembourg. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and ordered the court to conduct new proceedings and issue a new decision. In its decision, the Court of Appeal had relied on an expert opinion, which the Supreme Court found to to be questionable, because there were serious doubt as to its correctness. Therefore, according to the order issued by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal may not undertake a professional assessment of the expert opinion that goes beyond the interpretation of the applicable legislation, nor may it review the expert opinion in the new proceedings in the absence of expertise. Excerpt “[58] In relation to the adjustment of the profit level indicator for manufacturing activities, the expert found that comparable companies do not charge taxes such as the local business tax and the innovation levy as an expense to operating profit, the amount of which distorts comparability, this is a clearly identifiable difference in the cost structure of the company under investigation and the comparable companies, so an adjustment should be made in accordance with the OECD guidelines and the Transfer Pricing Regulation, because the statistical application of the interquartile range restriction cannot be used to increase comparability. However, the Court of First Instance held that it was not disputed that, even if the interquartile range as a statistical method was used, it might be necessary to apply individual adjustments, but that the applicant had not provided the audit with a detailed analysis of the justification for the adjustment and had not provided any documentary evidence in the course of the two administrative proceedings to show how the adjustment applied served to increase comparability. However, the application for review relied on the contradictory nature of the reasoning in this respect, since, while the Court of First Instance criticised the lack of documentation to support the adjustment {Ist judgment, paragraph 34}, it shared the expert’s view that this would indeed require an investment of time and energy which taxpayers could not reasonably be expected to make {Ist judgment, paragraph 35}. [59] On the other hand, the judgment at first instance explained that the applicant had only carried out research in the course of the administrative proceedings into whether the countries of the undertakings used as comparators had a similar type of tax burden to the Hungarian local business tax, and the expert had referred in his expert opinion to the fact that the applicant had only identified this one difference when carrying out the comparative analysis, but, if a detailed analysis is carried out, each difference can be individually identified and quantified and it is for this reason that the OECD guidelines also allow a range of results to be taken into account, because it reduces the differences between the business characteristics of the associated enterprises and the independent companies involved in comparable transactions and also takes account of differences which occur in different commercial and financial circumstances. Thus, the expert did not share the expert’s view that, while the narrowing to the interquartile range includes differences that are not quantifiable or clearly identifiable, individual adjustments should always be applied in the case of clearly identifiable and quantifiable significant differences. Thus, the trial court took a contrary view to the expert on this issue. [60] Nor did the Court of First Instance share the expert’s view in relation to the interest rate on the intercompany loan granted to the applicant by its affiliate and did not accept the expert’s finding that the MNB’s interest rate statistics were an averaging of the credit spreads of the debtor parties involved in the financing transactions, on an aggregated basis and, consequently, the use of the MNB interest rate statistics is not in itself capable of supporting or refuting the arm’s length principle of the interest rate applied in intra-group lending transactions, whether long or short-term. Nor did it accept the method used and described by the applicant in the comparability field, since it did not consider that the applicant should have used an international database to look for comparative data, since comparability was questionable. Furthermore, it considered irrelevant the expert’s reference to the fact that the average loan interest rates in Hungary in 2016 were strongly influenced by the low interest rates on subsidised loans to businesses and criticised the fact that the expert did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant’s current account loans under the cash-pool scheme. [61] It can thus be concluded that the Court of First Instance, in its judgment, did not accept the reasoning of the private expert’s opinion and made professionally different findings from those of the expert on both substantive points. [62] The opinion of the appointed expert is questionable if a) it is incomplete or does not contain the mandatory elements of the opinion required by law, b) it is vague, c) it contradicts itself or the data in the case, or d) there is otherwise a strong doubt as to its correctness [Art. 316 (1) of the Civil Code]. The private expert’s opinion is questionable if a) the case specified in paragraph (1) is present [Art. 316 (2) a) of the Civil Code]. Section 316 of the Private Expert Act specifies and indicates precisely in which cases the expert’s opinion is to be considered as a matter of concern. Thus, the expert’s opinion is of concern if it is incomplete, vague, contradictory or otherwise doubtful. The latter case ...

Taxpayers do not always perform searches for comparables on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, e.g. in cases where there are insufficient data available at the domestic level and/or in order to reduce compliance costs where several entities of an MNE group have comparable functional analyses. Non-domestic comparables should not be automatically rejected just because they are not domestic. A determination of whether non-domestic comparables are reliable has to be made on a case-by-case basis and by reference to the extent to which they satisfy the five comparability factors. Whether or not one regional search for comparables can be reliably used for several subsidiaries of an MNE group operating in a given region of the world depends on the particular circumstances in which each of those subsidiaries operates. See paragraphs 1.132-1.133 on market differences and multi-jurisdictional analyses. Difficulties may also arise from differing accounting standards ...

Step 4 of the typical process described at paragraph 3.4 is a review of existing internal comparables, if any. Internal comparables may have a more direct and closer relationship to the transaction under review than external comparables. The financial analysis may be easier and more reliable as it will presumably rely on identical accounting standards and practices for the internal comparable and for the controlled transaction. In addition, access to information on internal comparables may be both more complete and less costly ...

Where the relevant profits to be split are comprised of profits of two or more associated enterprises, the relevant financial data of the parties to the transaction to which a transactional profit split is applied need to be put on a common basis as to accounting practice and currency, and then combined. Because accounting standards can have significant effects on the determination of the profits to be split, accounting standards should, in cases where the taxpayer chooses to use the transactional profit split method, be selected in advance of applying the method and applied consistently over the lifetime of the arrangement. Differences in accounting standards may affect the timing of revenue recognition as well as the treatment of expenses in arriving at profits. Material differences between the accounting standards used by the parties should be identified and aligned ...

One question that arises in cases where the net profit indicator is weighted against sales is how to account for rebates and discounts that may be granted to customers by the taxpayer or the comparables. Depending on the accounting standards, rebates and discounts may be treated as a reduction of sales revenue or as an expense. Similar difficulties can arise in relation to foreign exchange gains or losses. Where such items materially affect the comparison, the key is to compare like with like and follow the same accounting principles for the taxpayer and for the comparables ...

Another important aspect of comparability is measurement consistency. The net profit indicators must be measured consistently between the associated enterprise and the independent enterprise. In addition, there may be differences in the treatment across enterprises of operating expenses and non-operating expenses affecting the net profits such as depreciation and reserves or provisions that would need to be accounted for in order to achieve reliable comparability ...

The costs that may be considered in applying the cost plus method are limited to those of the supplier of goods or services. This limitation may raise a problem of how to allocate some costs between suppliers and purchasers. There is a possibility that some costs will be borne by the purchaser in order to diminish the supplier’s cost base on which the mark up will be calculated. In practice, this may be achieved by not allocating to the supplier an appropriate share of overheads and other costs borne by the purchaser (often the parent company) for the benefit of the supplier (often a subsidiary). The allocation should be undertaken based on an analysis of functions performed (taking into account assets used and risks assumed) by the respective parties as provided in Chapter I. A related problem is how overhead costs should be apportioned, whether by reference to turnover, number or cost of employees, or some other criterion. The issue of cost allocation is also discussed in Chapter VIII on cost contribution arrangements ...

While precise accounting standards and terms may vary, in general the costs and expenses of an enterprise are understood to be divisible into three broad categories. First, there are the direct costs of producing a product or service, such as the cost of raw materials. Second, there are indirect costs of production, which although closely related to the production process may be common to several products or services (e.g. the costs of a repair department that services equipment used to produce different products). Finally, there are the operating expenses of the enterprise as a whole, such as supervisory, general, and administrative expenses ...

Another important aspect of comparability is accounting consistency. Where the accounting practices differ in the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled transaction, appropriate adjustments should be made to the data used to ensure that the same type of costs are used in each case to ensure consistency. The gross profit mark ups must be measured consistently between the associated enterprise and the independent enterprise. In addition, there may be differences across enterprises in the treatment of costs that affect gross profit mark ups that would need to be accounted for in order to achieve reliable comparability. In some cases it may be necessary to take into account certain operating expenses in order to achieve consistency and comparability; in these circumstances the cost plus method starts to approach a net rather than gross profit analysis. To the extent that the analysis takes into account operating expenses, its reliability may be adversely affected for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2.70 – 2.73. Thus, the safeguards described in paragraphs 2.74 – 2.81 may be relevant in assessing the reliability of such analyses ...

Where the accounting practices differ from the controlled transaction to the uncontrolled transaction, appropriate adjustments should be made to the data used in calculating the resale price margin in order to ensure that the same types of costs are used in each case to arrive at the gross margin. For example, costs of R&D may be reflected in operating expenses or in costs of sales. The respective gross margins would not be comparable without appropriate adjustments ...

Difficulties also would arise in determining the sales of each member and in the valuation of assets (e.g. historic cost versus market value), especially in the valuation of intangibles. These difficulties would be compounded by the existence across taxing jurisdictions of different accounting standards and of multiple currencies. Accounting standards among all countries would have to be conformed in order to arrive at a meaningful measure of profit for the entire MNE group. Of course, some of these difficulties, for example the valuation of assets and intangibles, also exist under the arm’s length principle, although significant progress in respect of the latter has been made, whereas no credible solutions have been put forward under global formulary apportionment ...

“TP Packaging” is mainly engaged in the marketing of packaging materials, which in 2013 required a number of goods and services provided by its related companies. The transfer pricing analysis of the controlled transactions was carried out with “TP Packaging” as the tested party. The transactional net margin method (TNMM) was applied using the profitability indicator ROS (return on sales) and external comparables (eleven comparables). “TP Packaging”‘s financial information for the years 2011 to 2013 was used but certain adjustments had been made to the 2013 financial results. The results showed that “TP Packaging”‘s profitability in 2013 was within the interquartile range. The tax authorities agreed with the study presented in the transfer pricing analysis. However, they did not accept the use of multi-year financial information (years 2011 to 2013) and the adjustments made to the financial results. As a result, “TP Packaging”‘s profitability in 2013 was now below the interquartile range. A transfer pricing adjustment was therefore made to the median, which resulted in an assessment of additional taxable income. Not satisfied with the assessment, “TP Packaging” appealed to the Tax Court. Decision of the Tax Court The Court upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal of “TP Packaging”. Excerpts “It should be reiterated that the purpose of the accounting adjustment referred to by the appellant was to prepare and present its financial statements in accordance with the IFRS accounting standard, this not having been an aspect taken into account in the search for and selection of comparable companies, given that independent companies were identified as such which adopted in some cases a different accounting standard (US GAAP) and in others the same accounting standard (IFRS), it is therefore not apparent that the exclusion of the accounting adjustment referred to by the appellant helped to improve comparability with the abovementioned companies, the argument that the comparable companies did not make an accounting adjustment to their financial information is not a valid reason, since, as mentioned above, the exclusion of that accounting adjustment would mean that the appellant’s financial information would no longer be shown in accordance with IFRS, which would be justified in the transfer pricing analysis if it were intended to bring the appellant’s accounting standard, as the party under analysis, into line with the accounting standards used by the independent third parties selected as comparable, which has not been verified in the present case. On the other hand, the transfer pricing analysis under the application of the TNM method performed by the submitted study, as well as the analysis performed by the Administration, used the financial information of the Appellant’s complete financial statements as the examined part, i.e. both parties considered it appropriate for the comparability analysis not to segment the Appellant’s financial information (which excludes income and expenses not related to the related transactions under examination)”, Therefore, the Appellant’s claim that the accounting adjustment for the adoption of IFRS relates to other transactions (machine leases) and that its exclusion for the transfer pricing analysis would therefore improve comparability with the independent companies selected as comparables is not supportable. From the foregoing, it is established that the relevance of the comparability adjustment proposed by the appellant (exclusion of the accounting adjustment for the adoption of IFRS) for the purposes of the transfer pricing analysis is not substantiated, and therefore the rejection by the Administration of said adjustment is in accordance with the law.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

“Tobacco S.A.” is the parent company of a group active in the tobacco industry. C. SA is a subsidiary of the group and operates as a toll manufacturer (Toller) on behalf of another subsidiary, B S.A. For the manufacturing services provided C S.A receives a “toll fee” from B S.A. According to the manufacturing service agreement the toll fee is calculated, based on Toller’s production costs plus and the capital invested by Toller in the production. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an additional assessment of corporate income tax and compensatory interest, relating to FY 2009, in the amount of EUR 1,395,039.79. The tax authorities considered that i) to correct the value of the production costs of the year 2009, in the amount corresponding to the deduction of the income with the “Write Off” of several credit balances of third parties over the company, since these deductions were not provided for in the contract; ii) to correct the value of the return on invested capital [which in the contract and also in the sentence is designated by the acronym ROCE] because the rules of the contract for its determination were not respected, which resulted in a lower remuneration by C. S.A. and in a cost saving by its contractual counterpart, leading to a result that is not compatible with the arm’s length principle. An appeal was filed against the assessment, but the tax tribunal of Lisbon dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Tobacco S.A. claimed that it did not in any way breach the contract for the provision of production services as it applied the POC rules when calculating the toll fee. Thus, it must be concluded that the correction made by the Tax Authority and confirmed by the Court of Appeal and which is claimed to be exclusively based on the incorrect interpretation of the contract by the Appellant is illegal due to the violation of the law. Moreover, according to Tobacco S.A, the tax authorities made an error on the assumptions, since it corrected the calculation of the value of the return on invested capital based on different rules from those which, in its interpretation, result from the contract. The appellant had made the calculations according to the statutory accounts (POC accounts), in compliance with the provisions of Annex B to the contract, and the Tax Authorities decided to correct those values by applying the values contained in Annexes C and D (US GAAP accounting classifications), which, according to the appellant, have the sole function of “allowing uniform intra-group reporting, essentially of a management nature”. “(…) as to the corrections to the ROCE, in the amount of €2,965,761.08, the appellant claims that, by disregarding the POC accounts and considering the US GAAP accounts, the Tax Authorities followed an understanding that does not prove to be correct and is distant from that provided for in the agreements entered into. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case, as it considered to lack jurisdiction in regards to a judgment on the factual matter. The case was therefore officially transferred to the South Administrative Central Court. Excerpt “… Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court is reserved the role of a review court, with intervention only in cases where the matter of fact in dispute in the case is stabilised and only the law remains under discussion. In order to assess the competence of the Supreme Administrative Court on the grounds of hierarchy, it is necessary to consider, in principle, only the content of the conclusions of the appeal statements (since these define the object and delimit the scope of the appeal – cf. It is necessary, in principle, to look only at the content of the conclusions of the appeal statement (since the object and scope of the appeal are defined by those conclusions – see Article 635 of the CPC) and check whether, in the light of those conclusions, the questions in dispute are resolved exclusively by applying and interpreting legal norms or whether, on the contrary, consideration of them implies the need to settle questions of fact (either because the appellant maintains that the facts presented as proved in the judgment have not been proved, or because he disagrees with the conclusions of fact to be drawn from them, or, still, because he invokes facts which have not been presented as proved and which are not, in the abstract, irrelevant for the judgment of the case). But not only this, it may also be necessary to compare the conclusions with the very substance of the allegations in the appeal, in particular to check whether they expressly contradict the facts on which the decision is based. And if the appellant raises any issue of fact, the appeal will no longer be based exclusively on points of law, and the competence of the Central Administrative Court will be defined from the outset, regardless of the possibility that this Court may eventually conclude that the disagreement on the factual issue is irrelevant for the decision of the appeal. However, the problem, in this case, of the correct interpretation of the contractual clauses on the basis of which the accounts (the accounting system) that are to serve as the basis for the calculation of the taxable amount are defined, is still a matter of fact. Although it is accepted that it may be qualified as a mixed matter (of fact and law), as it involves, on the one hand, the interpretation of the will of the contractual parties in determining the accounts that they intended to use in the calculation of the taxable amount for the purposes of taxation in Portugal of C……… (factual judgment) and, on the other hand, the normative interpretation of the contractual and legal clauses that define the arm’s length principle in the scope of legal transactions between persons that are in a special relationship with each other (transfer pricing), the truth is ...

Second, it will be necessary to consider how exceptional, non-recurring operating costs arising as a result of COVID-19 should be allocated between associated parties.19 These costs should be allocated based on an assessment of how independent enterprises under comparable circumstances operate. Separately, as extraordinary costs may be recognised as either operating or non-operating items, comparability adjustments may be necessary to improve the reliability of a comparability analysis. It is important to keep in mind that the treatment in a transfer pricing analysis of “exceptional,” “non-recurring,” or “extraordinary” costs incurred as a result of the pandemic will not be dictated by the label applied to such costs, but by an accurate delineation of the transaction, an analysis of the risks assumed by the parties to the intercompany transaction, an understanding of how independent enterprises may reflect such costs in arm’s length prices, and ultimately how such costs may impact prices charged in transactions between the associated enterprises (see OECD TPG paragraph 2.86, for example). Financial accounting standards should be considered in the comparability study, as they contain relevant and potentially helpful concepts in identifying the nature of costs. However, it should also be noted that even under those financial accounting concepts, there can be uncertainty as to whether particular costs are properly characterised as exceptional or extraordinary costs. 19 Depending on the duration of COVID-19 and the broader effects of the pandemic, the question may arise what constitutes an “exceptional, non-recurring” operating cost and when should such costs no longer be considered “exceptional” or “non-recurring”. As the effects of the pandemic vary by industry, business model or market, it is likely that this question can only be answered through a careful analysis of the specific costs under consideration ...

“Petroleum Wholesale Corp” is engaged in the wholesale of petroleum products, accessories and rolling stock in general in Panama. Following a thorough audit carried out by the Tax Administration in Panama, where discrepancies and inconsistencies had been identified between the transfer pricing documentation and financial reports and other publicly available information, an assessment was issued for FY 2013 and 2014 resulting in additional taxes and surcharges of approximately $ 14 millions. Petroleum Wholesale Corp disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal decided in favor of the tax authorities with a minor adjustment in the calculations for 2014. “…we consider that the Tax Administration adhered, in this case, to the powers conferred by law, and that there is no defenselessness, since it was verified that, in the course of the audit, several requests for information were made (as evidenced in the minutes of the proceedings in the background file), and then, in the governmental channel, after notification, the evidence requested by the plaintiff was admitted and practiced, in the first instance, having carried out the corresponding procedural stages.” “In view of the above, we consider that the taxpayer should have been consistent in the handling of the financial information used, and calculate the gross margin in accordance with the guidelines established in our legislation…” “In this sense, it is noteworthy that a method was chosen that weighs the margins, rather than the price of the product, when the part analysed is exclusively dedicated to the distribution of oil, a product that has a public market price, and in the Panamanian case, there is a suggested price for its purchase and sale to the consumer.” “Based on the calculations described in the previous point, no adjustment would be necessary to the calculation of the additional settlement for the period 2013, as it coincides with the work carried out by the tax authorities (see Table n.). 40 to sheet 309 of the background file). Therefore, we will only proceed with the adjustment of the taxpayer’s financial information for the 2014 period, specifically the cost of sales, in order to bring it to the median of the interquartile range, reflecting, for clarity, a comparative analysis of the adjustment made in the first instance, with the findings described in this resolution“ Click here for English translation ...

In this case, the French tax authorities questioned the method implemented by GE Healthcare Clinical Systems to determine the purchase price of the equipment it was purchasing from other General Electric subsidiaries in the United States, Germany and Finland for distribution in France. The method used by the GE Group for determining the transfer prices was to apply a margin of 5% to all direct and indirect production costs borne by the foreign group suppliers. For the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 the tax authorities applied a TNM-method based on a study of twenty-six comparable companies. The operating results of GE Healthcare France was then determined by multiplying the median value of the ratio “operating result/turnover” from the benchmark study to the turnover in GE Healthcare Clinical Systems. The additional profit was declared and qualified as constituting an indirect transfer of profits to the related party suppliers in the General Electric Group. The GE Group disagreed and brought the case to Court. First, the Tribunal dismissed the application by judgment of 18 May 2015, as did the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal in a judgment of 9 February 2017. Finally, the Conseil d’Etat rejected the appellant’s appeal on the ground that the administration had established the existence of a benefit constituting a transfer of profits. When the tax authorities note that the prices charged to a company established in France by a foreign related company are higher than those charged to independent parties, without this difference being explained by the different circumstances, it is entitled to reinstate in the results of the French company an amount equal to the advantage. The Conseil d’Etat also confirmed that a benchmark study could include companies whose turnover was not identical to that of the taxpayer. Click here for translation ...

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 ...

Where the relevant profits to be split are comprised of profits of two or more associated enterprises, the relevant financial data of the parties to the transaction to which a transactional profit split is applied need to be put on a common basis as to accounting practice and currency, and then combined. Because accounting standards can have significant effects on the determination of the profits to be split, accounting standards should, in cases where the taxpayer chooses to use the transactional profit split method, be selected in advance of applying the method and applied consistently over the lifetime of the arrangement. Differences in accounting standards may affect the timing of revenue recognition as well as the treatment of expenses in arriving at profits. Material differences between the accounting standards used by the parties should be identified and aligned ...

Taxpayers do not always perform searches for comparables on a country-by-country basis, e.g. in cases where there are insufficient data available at the domestic level and/or in order to reduce compliance costs where several entities of an MNE group have comparable functional analyses. Non-domestic comparables should not be automatically rejected just because they are not domestic. A determination of whether non- domestic comparables are reliable has to be made on a case-by-case basis and by reference to the extent to which they satisfy the five comparability factors. Whether or not one regional search for comparables can be reliably used for several subsidiaries of an MNE group operating in a given region of the world depends on the particular circumstances in which each of those subsidiaries operates. See paragraphs 1.112-1.113 on market differences and multi-country analyses. Difficulties may also arise from differing accounting standards ...

One question that arises in cases where the net profit indicator is weighted against sales is how to account for rebates and discounts that may be granted to customers by the taxpayer or the comparables. Depending on the accounting standards, rebates and discounts may be treated as a reduction of sales revenue or as an expense. Similar difficulties can arise in relation to foreign exchange gains or losses. Where such items materially affect the comparison, the key is to compare like with like and follow the same accounting principles for the taxpayer and for the comparables ...

Another important aspect of comparability is measurement consistency. The net profit indicators must be measured consistently between the associated enterprise and the independent enterprise. In addition, there may be differences in the treatment across enterprises of operating expenses and non-operating expenses affecting the net profits such as depreciation and reserves or provisions that would need to be accounted for in order to achieve reliable comparability ...

The costs that may be considered in applying the cost plus method are limited to those of the supplier of goods or services. This limitation may raise a problem of how to allocate some costs between suppliers and purchasers. There is a possibility that some costs will be borne by the purchaser in order to diminish the supplier’s cost base on which the mark up will be calculated. In practice, this may be achieved by not allocating to the supplier an appropriate share of overheads and other costs borne by the purchaser (often the parent company) for the benefit of the supplier (often a subsidiary). The allocation should be undertaken based on an analysis of functions performed (taking into account assets used and risks assumed) by the respective parties as provided in Chapter I. A related problem is how overhead costs should be apportioned, whether by reference to turnover, number or cost of employees, or some other criterion. The issue of cost allocation is also discussed in Chapter VIII on cost contribution arrangements ...

While precise accounting standards and terms may vary, in general the costs and expenses of an enterprise are understood to be divisible into three broad categories. First, there are the direct costs of producing a product or service, such as the cost of raw materials. Second, there are indirect costs of production, which although closely related to the production process may be common to several products or services (e.g. the costs of a repair department that services equipment used to produce different products). Finally, there are the operating expenses of the enterprise as a whole, such as supervisory, general, and administrative expenses ...

Another important aspect of comparability is accounting consistency. Where the accounting practices differ in the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled transaction, appropriate adjustments should be made to the data used to ensure that the same type of costs are used in each case to ensure consistency. The gross profit mark ups must be measured consistently between the associated enterprise and the independent enterprise. In addition, there may be differences across enterprises in the treatment of costs that affect gross profit mark ups that would need to be accounted for in order to achieve reliable comparability. In some cases it may be necessary to take into account certain operating expenses in order to achieve consistency and comparability; in these circumstances the cost plus method starts to approach a net rather than gross profit analysis. To the extent that the analysis takes into account operating expenses, its reliability may be adversely affected for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2.70 – 2.73. Thus, the safeguards described in paragraphs 2.74 – 2.81 may be relevant in assessing the reliability of such analyses ...

Where the accounting practices differ from the controlled transaction to the uncontrolled transaction, appropriate adjustments should be made to the data used in calculating the resale price margin in order to ensure that the same types of costs are used in each case to arrive at the gross margin. For example, costs of R&D may be reflected in operating expenses or in costs of sales. The respective gross margins would not be comparable without appropriate adjustments ...

Difficulties also would arise in determining the sales of each member and in the valuation of assets (e.g. historic cost versus market value), especially in the valuation of intangibles. These difficulties would be compounded by the existence across taxing jurisdictions of different accounting standards and of multiple currencies. Accounting standards among all countries would have to be conformed in order to arrive at a meaningful measure of profit for the entire MNE group. Of course, some of these difficulties, for example the valuation of assets and intangibles, also exist under the arm’s length principle, although significant progress in respect of the latter has been made, whereas no credible solutions have been put forward under global formulary apportionment ...