In its application for an individual interpretation, R. S.A. stated that it distributes fast moving goods in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It purchases these goods from the company E. based in H. and sells them to independent wholesale distributors and retailers. At the applicant’s request, the Minister of Finance in 2015 issued a decision on a advance price agreement, recognising the correctness of the selection and application of the transactional net margin method in the applicant’s purchase of goods from a related party for further distribution in the Baltic States. In the activities covered by the decision, R. S.A. performs the functions of a distributor with limited risk and limited marketing functions and incurs the associated operating costs, which consist of both its own costs (purchase from group entities of, inter alia, advisory, legal, technical, organisational, financial and marketing/sales services) and external costs (including the costs of services purchased from other entities, also related parties, subsequently re-invoiced to the beneficiaries of those services). According to the decision, R. S.A. should have a constant profitability, determined on the basis of the operating profit ratio (operating profit related to the activities covered by the decision, shown in the income statement before financial income and expenses), with only selling and general administrative expenses included in operating expenses. To this end, an algorithm for the calculation of the transaction price in transactions for the purchase of goods was defined, which includes all types of costs referred to as operating costs, which also include the costs of intra-group services mentioned in the application, incurred in connection with the applicant’s distribution and marketing activities. R. S.A. asked whether the described costs of intragroup services, due to the fact that they are already covered by the issued decision on the prior price agreement, are subject to the restrictions under Article 15e(15) of the Corporate Income Tax Act – taking the position that these restrictions do not apply. In an individual interpretation the Director of the National Fiscal Information considered R. S.A.’s position to be incorrect. He pointed out that the prior price agreement was not concluded for the purpose of determining the amount of prices/expenses for the purchase of services from the other related parties in the group, and the decision issued in this respect involves an analysis of the conditions established only between the specified related parties, so it cannot be considered that also the services purchased from other related parties and included in the algorithm for calculating the transaction price constitute a confirmed element of the prior price agreement. Therefore, the restriction arising from Article 15e(1) of the APS will apply to the costs of intra-group services. R. S.A. challenged this interpretation before the Administrative Court. The court noted that the interpreting authority did not fully and exhaustively refer to the applicant’s position contained in the request for an interpretation, namely that the costs of intra-group services constituting the content of the interpretation question were included in the algorithm for calculating the transaction price. An appeal was then filed by the authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Excerpts “As aptly noted by the Provincial Administrative Court in the justification of the appealed judgment, since the operating costs inquired about by the applicant in its request for an individual interpretation of the tax law provisions were an element of the algorithm for calculation of remuneration in the transaction covered by the decision on the previous price agreement, which decision includes an analysis of the conditions established between certain related entities, it cannot be concluded that the services purchased from other related entities and included in that algorithm do not constitute a confirmed element of that agreement; the criterion that is decisive here is the subject matter criterion and not the entity criterion – provided that the profitability of the assessed entity in the distribution activity is not adversely affected as a certain percentage of the sales revenue agreed in the decision. Therefore, if it follows from the description of the facts presented in the request for interpretation that the algorithm for calculation of the transaction price includes all types of operating costs, including the aforementioned costs of intragroup services to which the question relates, then also these costs constitute an element of a confirmed prior price agreement. Therefore, the Director of the National Fiscal Information unfoundedly alleged that the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw breached Article 15e(15) in conjunction with Article 15e(1) of the A.p.d.o.p. by misinterpreting and, consequently, misapplying it. The assumption that Article 15e, paragraph 15 of the A.p.d.o.p. refers to the subjective scope of validity of the decision on price agreement referred to in Article 20a of the A.p.p. corresponds to the content of Article 15e, paragraph 15 of the A.p.d.o.p., which directly indicates the correctness of calculation of remuneration for services, fees and charges in the period to which the decision refers. There is also an entity criterion, but it refers to the addressee of the decision provided for in Article 20a of the P.P.O., i.e. – in the case at hand – the applicant Company. Although the decision on the previous price agreement includes an analysis of the conditions established between certain related entities, its essence is the determination of the correctness of the algorithm for calculation of the transaction price, and this correctness is not affected by the subjective side of the service provider, if it is still a related entity. Therefore, there is no normative basis for the conclusion proposed by the interpreting authority that, in the case of the acquisition of services included in the algorithm for calculating the transaction price from other related entities, the costs of these intra-group services – the characteristics of which have not changed in a manner affecting the correctness of the algorithm – are subject to limitations in inclusion in tax deductible costs under Article 15e(1) of the APS. The allegations of ...

The combined effect of multiple contemporaneous transactions, consisting either of multiple PCTs, or of one or more PCT and one or more other transactions in connection with a CSA that are not governed by this section (such as transactions involving cross operating contributions or make-or-sell rights), may require evaluation in accordance with the principles of aggregation described in § 1.482-1(f)(2)(i). In such cases, it may be that the multiple transactions are reasonably anticipated, as of the date of the PCT(s), to be so interrelated that the method that provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length charge is a method under this section applied on an aggregate basis for the PCT(s) and other transactions. A section 482 adjustment may be made by comparing the aggregate arm’s length charge so determined to the aggregate payments actually made for the multiple transactions. In such a case, it generally will not be necessary to allocate separately the aggregate arm’s length charge as between various PCTs or as between PCTs and such other transactions. However, such an allocation may be necessary for other purposes, such as applying paragraph (i)(6) (Periodic adjustments) of this section. An aggregate determination of the arm’s length charge for multiple transactions will often yield a payment for a controlled participant that is equal to the aggregate value of the platform contributions and other resources, capabilities, and rights covered by the multiple transactions multiplied by that controlled participant’s RAB share. Because RAB shares only include benefits from cost shared intangibles, the reliability of an aggregate determination of payments for multiple transactions may be reduced to the extent that it includes transactions covering resources, capabilities, and rights for which the controlled participants’ expected benefit shares differ substantially from their RAB shares ...

P and S are controlled taxpayers. P licenses a proprietary process to S for S’s use in manufacturing product X. Using its sales and marketing employees, S sells product X to related and unrelated customers outside the United States. If the license between P and S has economic substance, the Commissioner ordinarily will not restructure the taxpayer’s transaction to treat P as if it had elected to exploit directly the manufacturing process. However, because P could have directly exploited the manufacturing process and manufactured product X itself, this realistic alternative may be taken into account under § 1.482-4(d) in determining the arm’s length consideration for the controlled transaction. For examples of such an analysis, see Examples 7 and 8 in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(E) of this section and the Example in § 1.482-4(d)(2) ...

The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(2)(ii): ...

...

Allocating arm’s length compensation determined under an aggregate analysis – (i) P provides services to S1, which is incorporated in Country A. In connection with those services, P licenses intellectual property to S2, which is incorporated in Country B. S2 sublicenses the intellectual property to S1. (ii) Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, if an aggregate analysis of the service and license transactions provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result, then an aggregate analysis must be performed. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(D) of this section, if an allocation of the value that results from such an aggregate analysis is necessary, for example, for purposes of sourcing the services income that P receives from S1 or determining deductible expenses incurred by S1, then the value determined under the aggregate analysis must be allocated using the method that provides the most reliable measure of the services income and deductible expenses ...

Services provided using intangibles. – (i) P’s worldwide group produces and markets Product X and subsequent generations of products, which result from research and development performed by P’s R&D Team. Through this collaboration with respect to P’s proprietary products, the members of the R&D Team have individually and as a group acquired specialized knowledge and expertise subject to non-disclosure agreements (collectively, “knowhow”). (ii) P arranges for the R&D Team to provide research and development services to create a new line of products, building on the Product X platform, to be owned and exploited by S1 in the overseas market. P asserts that the arm’s length charge for the services is only reimbursement to P of its associated R&D Team compensation costs. (iii) Even though P did not transfer the platform or the R&D Team to S1, P is providing value associated with the use of the platform, along with the value associated with the use of the knowhow, to S1 by way of the services performed by the R&D Team for S1 using the platform and the knowhow. The R&D Team’s use of intangible property, and any other valuable resources, in P’s provision of services (regardless of whether the service effects a transfer of intangible property or valuable resources and regardless of whether the property is relatively high or low value) must be evaluated under the section 482 regulations, including the regulations specifically applicable to controlled services transactions in § 1.482-9, to ensure that P receives arm’s length compensation for any value (attributable to such property or services) provided to S1 in a controlled transaction. See §§ 1.482-4 and 1.482-9(m). Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this section, the arm’s length compensation for the services performed by the R&D Team for S1 must be consistent with the value provided to S1, including the value of the knowhow and any synergies with the platform. Under paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(B) and (C) of this section, the best method analysis may determine that the compensation is most reliably determined on an aggregate basis reflecting the interrelated value of the services and embedded value of the platform and knowhow. (iv) In the alternative, the facts are the same as above, except that P assigns to S1 all or a pertinent portion of the R&D Team and the relevant rights in the platform. P takes the position that, although the transferred platform rights must be compensated, the knowhow does not have substantial value independent of the services of any individual on the R&D Team and therefore is not an intangible within the meaning of § 1.482-4(b). In P’s view, S1 owes no compensation to P on account of the R&D Team, as S1 will directly bear the cost of the relevant R&D Team compensation. However, in assembling and arranging to assign the relevant R&D Team, and thereby making available the value of the knowhow to S1, rather than other employees without the knowhow, P is performing services for S1 under imputed contractual terms based on the parties’ course of conduct. Therefore, even if P’s position were correct that the knowhow is not an intangible under § 1.482-4(b), a position that the Commissioner may challenge, arm’s length compensation is required for all of the value that P provides to S1 through the interrelated provision of platform rights, knowhow, and services under paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this section ...

Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing and marketing intangibles governed by different statutes and regulations. The facts are the same as in Example 8 except that P transfers only the ROW intangibles related to manufacturing to S1 in an exchange described in section 351 and, upon entering into the CSA, then transfers the ROW intangibles related to marketing to S1 in a platform contribution transaction described in § 1.482-7(c) (rather than transferring all ROW intangibles only upon entering into the CSA or only in a prior exchange described in section 351). The value of the ROW intangibles that P transferred in the two transactions is greater in the aggregate, due to synergies among the different types of ROW intangibles, than if valued as two separate transactions. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the arm’s length standard requires these synergies to be taken into account in determining the arm’s length results for the transactions ...

Arm’s length compensation for equivalent provisions of intangibles under sections 351 and 482. P owns the worldwide rights to manufacturing and marketing intangibles that it uses to manufacture and market a product in the United States (“US intangibles”) and the rest of the world (“ROW intangibles”). P transfers all the ROW intangibles to S1 in an exchange described in section 351 and retains the US intangibles. Immediately after the exchange, P and S1 entered into a CSA described in § 1.482-7(b) that covers all research and development of intangibles conducted by the parties. A realistic alternative that was available to P and that would have involved the controlled parties performing similar functions, employing similar resources, and assuming similar risks as in the controlled transaction, was to transfer all ROW intangibles to S1 upon entering into the CSA in a platform contribution transaction described in § 1.482-7(c), rather than in an exchange described in section 351 immediately before entering into the CSA. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this section, the arm’s length compensation for the ROW intangibles must correspond to the value provided between the parties, regardless of the form of the transaction. Accordingly, the arm’s length compensation for the ROW intangibles is the same in both scenarios, and the analysis of the amount to be taken into account under section 367(d) pursuant to §§ 1.367(d)-1T(c) and 1.482-4 should include consideration of the amount that P would have charged for the realistic alternative determined under § 1.482-7(g) (and § 1.482-4, to the extent of any make-or-sell rights transferred). See §§ 1.482-1(b)(2)(iii) and 1.482-4(g) ...

Distinguishing provision of value from characterization – (i) P developed a collection of resources, capabilities, and rights (“Collection”) that it uses on an interrelated basis in ongoing research and development of computer code that is used to create a successful line of software products. P can continue to use the Collection on such interrelated basis in the future to further develop computer code and, thus, further build on its successful line of software products. Under § 1.482-7(g)(2)(ix), P determines that the interquartile range of the net present value of its own use of the Collection in future research and development and software product marketing is between $1000x and $1100x, and this range provides the most reliable measure of the value to P of continuing to use the Collection on an interrelated basis in future research, development, and exploitation. Instead, P enters into an exchange described in section 351 in which it transfers certain intangible property related to the Collection to S1 for use in future research, development, and exploitation but continues to perform the same development functions that it did prior to the exchange, now on behalf of S1, under express or implied commitments in connection with S1’s use of the intangible property. P takes the position that a portion of the Collection, consisting of computer code and related instruction manuals and similar intangible property (Portion 1), was transferrable intangible property and was the subject of the section 351 exchange and compensable under section 367(d). P claims that another portion of the Collection consists of items that either do not constitute property for purposes of section 367 or are not transferrable (Portion 2). P then takes the position that the value of Portion 2 does not give rise to income under section 367(d) or gain under section 367(a). (ii) Under paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (C) of this section, any part of the value in Portion 2 that is not taken into account in an exchange under section 367 must nonetheless be evaluated under section 482 and the regulations thereunder to determine arm’s length compensation for any value provided to S1. Accordingly, even if P’s assertion that certain items were either not property or not capable of being transferred were correct, arm’s length compensation is nonetheless required for all of the value associated with P’s contributions under the section 482 regulations. Alternatively, the Commissioner may determine under all the facts and circumstances that P’s assertion is incorrect and that the transaction in fact constitutes an exchange of property subject to, and therefore to be taken into account under, section 367. Thus, whether any item that P identifies as being within Portion 2 is properly characterized as property under section 367 (transferable or otherwise) is irrelevant because any value in Portion 2 that is provided to S1 must be compensated by S1 in a manner consistent with the $1000x to $1100x interquartile range of the overall value ...

Consideration of entire arrangement, including imputed contractual terms – (i) P conducts a business (“Business”) from the United States, with a worldwide clientele, but until Date X has no foreign operations. The success of Business significantly depends on intangibles (including marketing, manufacturing, technological, and goodwill or going concern value intangibles, collectively the “IP”), as well as ongoing support activities performed by P (including related research and development, central marketing, manufacturing process enhancement, and oversight activities, collectively “Support”), to maintain and improve the IP and otherwise maximize the profitability of Business. (ii) On Date X, Year 1, P contributes the foreign rights to conduct Business, including the foreign rights to the IP, to newly incorporated S1. S1, utilizing the IP of which it is now the owner, commences foreign operations consisting of local marketing, manufacturing, and back office activities in order to conduct and expand Business in the foreign market. (iii) Later, on Date Y, Year 1, P and S1 enter into a cost sharing arrangement (“CSA”) to develop and exploit the rights to conduct the Business. Under the CSA, P is entitled to the U.S. rights to conduct the Business, and S1 is entitled to the rest-of-the-world (“ROW”) rights to conduct the Business. P continues after Date Y to perform the Support, employing resources, capabilities, and rights that as a factual matter were not contributed to S1 in the Date X transaction, for the benefit of the Business worldwide. Pursuant to the CSA, P and S1 share the costs of P’s Support in proportion to their reasonably anticipated benefit shares from their respective rights to the Business. (iv) P treats the Date X transaction as a transfer described in section 351 that is subject to 367 and treats the Date Y transaction as the commencement of a CSA subject to section 482 and § 1.482-7. P takes the position that the only platform contribution transactions (“PCTs”) in connection with the Date Y CSA consist of P’s contribution of the U.S. Business IP rights and S1’s contribution of the ROW Business IP rights of which S1 had become the owner on account of the prior Date X transaction. (v) Pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this section, in determining whether an allocation of income is appropriate in Year 1 or subsequent years, the Commissioner may consider the economic substance of the entire arrangement between P and S1, including the parties’ actual conduct throughout their relationship, regardless of the form or character of the contractual arrangement the parties have expressly adopted. The Commissioner determines that the parties’ formal arrangement fails to reflect the full scope of the value provided between the parties in accordance with the economic substance of their arrangement. Therefore, the Commissioner may impute one or more agreements between P and S1, consistent with the economic substance of their arrangement, that fully reflect their respective reasonably anticipated commitments in terms of functions performed, resources employed, and risks assumed over time. For example, because P continues after Date Y to perform the Support, employing resources, capabilities, and rights not contributed to S1, for the benefit of the Business worldwide, the Commissioner may impute another PCT on Date Y pursuant to which P commits to so continuing the Support. See § 1.482-7(b)(1)(ii). The taxpayer may present additional facts that could indicate whether this or another alternative agreement best reflects the economic substance of the underlying transactions and course of conduct, provided that the taxpayer’s position fully reflects the value of the entire arrangement consistent with the realistic alternatives principle ...

Aggregation of interrelated patents. P owns 10 individual patents that, in combination, can be used to manufacture and sell a successful product. P anticipates that it could earn profits of $25x from the patents based on a discounted cash flow analysis that provides a more reliable measure of the value of the patents exploited as a bundle rather than separately. P licenses all 10 patents to S1 to be exploited as a bundle. Evidence of uncontrolled licenses of similar individual patents indicates that, exploited separately, each license of each patent would warrant a price of $1x, implying a total price for the patents of $10x. Under paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B) of this section, in determining the arm’s length royalty for the license of the bundle of patents, it would not be appropriate to use the uncontrolled licenses as comparables for the license of the bundle of patents, because, unlike the discounted cash flow analysis, the uncontrolled licenses considered separately do not reliably reflect the enhancement to value resulting from the interrelatedness of the 10 patents exploited as a bundle ...

Non-aggregation of transactions that are not interrelated. P enters into a license agreement with S1 that permits S1 to use a proprietary process for manufacturing product X and to sell product X to uncontrolled parties throughout a specified region. P also sells to S1 product Y, which is manufactured by P in the United States and unrelated to product X. Product Y is resold by S1 to uncontrolled parties in the specified region. There is no connection between product X and product Y other than the fact that they are both sold in the same specified region. In evaluating whether the royalty paid by S1 to P for the use of the manufacturing process for product X and the transfer prices charged for unrelated product Y are arm’s length amounts, it would not be appropriate to consider the combined effects of these separate and unrelated transactions ...

Aggregation and reliability of comparable uncontrolled transactions. The facts are the same as in Example 2. In addition, U1, U2, and U3 are uncontrolled taxpayers that carry out functions comparable to those of S1, S2, and S3, respectively, with respect to computers produced by unrelated manufacturers. R1, R2, and R3 constitute a controlled group of taxpayers (unrelated to the P controlled group) that carry out functions comparable to those of S1, S2, and S3 with respect to computers produced by their common parent. Prices charged to uncontrolled customers of the R group differ from the prices charged to customers of U1, U2, and U3. In determining whether the transactions of U1, U2, and U3, or the transactions of R1, R2, and R3, would provide a more reliable measure of the arm’s length result, it is determined that the interrelated R group transactions are more reliable than the wholly independent transactions of U1, U2, and U3, given the interrelationship of the P group transactions ...

Aggregation of interrelated manufacturing, marketing, and services activities. S1 is the exclusive Country Z distributor of computers manufactured by P. S2 provides marketing services in connection with sales of P computers in Country Z and in this regard uses significant marketing intangibles provided by P. S3 administers the warranty program with respect to P computers in Country Z, including maintenance and repair services. In evaluating whether the transfer prices paid by S1 to P, the fees paid by S2 to P for the use of P marketing intangibles, and the service fees earned by S2 and S3 are arm’s length amounts, it would be appropriate to perform an aggregate analysis that considers the combined effects of these interrelated transactions if they are most reliably analyzed on an aggregated basis ...

Aggregation of interrelated licensing, manufacturing, and selling activities. P enters into a license agreement with S1 that permits S1 to use a proprietary manufacturing process and to sell the output from this process throughout a specified region. S1 uses the manufacturing process and sells its output to S2, which in turn resells the output to uncontrolled parties in the specified region. In evaluating whether the royalty paid by S1 to P is an arm’s length amount, it may be appropriate to evaluate the royalty in combination with the transfer prices charged by S1 to S2 and the aggregate profits earned by S1 and S2 from the use of the manufacturing process and the sale to uncontrolled parties of the products produced by S1 ...

The following examples illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (f)(2)(i). For purposes of the examples in this paragraph (E), P is a domestic corporation, and S1, S2, and S3 are foreign corporations that are wholly owned by P ...

In some cases, it may be necessary to allocate one or more portions of the arm’s length result that was properly determined under a coordinated best method analysis described in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C) of this section. Any such allocation of the arm’s length result determined under the coordinated best method analysis must be made using the method that, under the facts and circumstances, provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result for each allocated amount. For example, if the full value of compensation due in controlled transactions whose tax treatment is governed by multiple provisions of the Code or regulations has been most reliably determined on an aggregate basis, then that full value must be allocated in a manner that provides the most reliable measure of each allocated amount ...

Consistent with the principles of paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, a coordinated best method analysis and evaluation of two or more controlled transactions to which one or more provisions of the Code or regulations apply may be necessary to ensure that the overall value provided, including any synergies, is properly taken into account. A coordinated best method analysis would include a consistent consideration of the facts and circumstances of the functions performed, resources employed, and risks assumed in the relevant transactions, and a consistent measure of the arm’s length results, for purposes of all relevant statutory and regulatory provisions ...

The combined effect of two or more separate transactions (whether before, during, or after the year under review), including for purposes of an analysis under multiple provisions of the Code or regulations, may be considered if the transactions, taken as a whole, are so interrelated that an aggregate analysis of the transactions provides the most reliable measure of an arm’s length result determined under the best method rule of § 1.482-1(c). Whether two or more transactions are evaluated separately or in the aggregate depends on the extent to which the transactions are economically interrelated and on the relative reliability of the measure of an arm’s length result provided by an aggregate analysis of the transactions as compared to a separate analysis of each transaction. For example, consideration of the combined effect of two or more transactions may be appropriate to determine whether the overall compensation in the transactions is consistent with the value provided, including any synergies among items and services provided ...

All value provided between controlled taxpayers in a controlled transaction requires an arm’s length amount of compensation determined under the best method rule of § 1.482-1(c). Such amount must be consistent with, and must account for all of, the value provided between the parties in the transaction, without regard to the form or character of the transaction. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider the entire arrangement between the parties, as determined by the contractual terms, whether written or imputed in accordance with the economic substance of the arrangement, in light of the actual conduct of the parties. See, e.g., § 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B) (identifying contractual terms) and (f)(2)(ii)(A) (regarding reference to realistic alternatives) ...

...

(a) through (f) (2) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.482-1(a) through (f)(2) ...

The tax authority found that P.sp. z o.o. had understated its income from sales to related parties in the P. Group. The tax authority selected three comparable independent wholesalers and established a range of profit margins between 4.02% and 6.24%. As P. sp. z o.o. had a profit margin of only 2.84% on its wholesale activities, an adjustment was made to the taxable income. A complaint was filed by “P. sp. z o.o.” with the Administrative Court, which was dismissed, and an appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court. The the Supreme Administrative Court, annulled the appealed decision in its entirety and ordered – when re-examining the case – the tax authority to follow the interpretation of the law made by the Supreme Administrative Court. In a very comprehensive judgment, the Court ruled on a wide range of issues, including Whether and how to take into account income received for other activities (marketing services) when determining the arm’s length income. The choice and application of transfer pricing methods The objectives and standards of a compability analysis and benchmarking study conducted by the tax authority The use of statistical methods (IQR) when the number of comparables in a benchmark is limited. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

German legislation on transfer pricing has been updated to align the rules with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2017. The new amendments are effective as of fiscal year 2022. The rules includes revised content on Substance over form Risk analysis Best method rule Use of interquartile range Aggregation of transactions Determination of actual ownership vs legal ownership DEMPE functions Valuation of Hard to value intangibles Unofficial translation of the new amendments to the German TP legislation Article 5 Amendment of the Foreign Tax Act The Foreign Tax Act of 8 September 1972 (BGBl. I p. 1713), as last amended by Article 4 of the Act of 25 March 2019 (BGBl. I p. 357), shall be amended as follows: section 1 shall be amended as follows: (a) Paragraph 1 shall be amended as follows: aa) In sentence 1, the words “related” shall be replaced by the word “related”. bb) In sentence 2, the words “and within the meaning of § 1a” shall be inserted after the word “provision”. (b) Paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following paragraphs 3 to 3c: “(3) For the determination of the transfer prices (arm’s length prices) corresponding to the arm’s length principle for a business relationship within the meaning of paragraph 1 sentence 1, the actual circumstances underlying the respective business transaction shall be decisive. In particular, it shall be taken into account which functions are performed by which person involved in the business transaction in relation to the respective business transaction, which risks are assumed in this respect and which assets are used for this purpose (function and risk analysis). The relationships within the meaning of sentences 1 and 2 shall form the standard for determining the comparability of the business transaction to be examined with business transactions between unrelated third parties (comparability analysis); the relationships on which these business transactions are based shall be decisive in the corresponding application of sentences 1 and 2, insofar as this is possible. The circumstances at the time of the agreement of the business transaction shall be taken into account. The arm’s length price shall in principle be determined according to the most appropriate transfer pricing method with regard to the comparability analysis and the availability of values for comparable transactions of independent third parties. Differences between the ratios of the arm’s length transactions used for comparison and the ratios underlying the transaction under review that may affect the application of the transfer pricing method shall be eliminated by appropriate adjustments, if possible; this shall only apply if comparability is thereby enhanced. If no comparative values can be determined, a hypothetical arm’s length comparison shall be carried out for the determination of the arm’s length price in compliance with paragraph 1 sentence 3 from the perspective of the supplier and the respective service recipient using economically recognised valuation methods. (3a) The application of the arm’s length principle regularly leads to a range of values. This range shall be narrowed if differences in comparability remain after application of paragraph 3 sentence 6. If these values themselves do not offer any indications for a certain narrowing, the quarter of the smallest and the quarter of the largest values shall be disregarded from this range. If the value used by the taxpayer to determine his income lies outside the range pursuant to sentence 1 or the narrowed range, the median shall be decisive if the taxpayer does not credibly demonstrate that another value complies with the arm’s length principle. When applying the hypothetical arm’s length principle according to paragraph 3, sentence 7, a range of agreement regularly results from the minimum price of the supplier and the maximum price of the service recipient. In the cases of sentence 5, the mean value of the agreement range shall be used as a basis if the taxable person does not credibly demonstrate that another value within the agreement range complies with the arm’s length principle. (3b) If a function, including the associated opportunities and risks as well as the assets or other benefits transferred along with the function, is transferred and paragraph 3 sentence 7 is to be applied to the transferred function because no comparative data can be determined for the transfer of the function as a whole (transfer package), the agreement range shall be determined on the basis of the transfer package. This may be waived if the taxpayer can credibly demonstrate that neither significant intangible assets nor other benefits were the subject of the transfer of function. This applies if the receiving company performs the transferred function exclusively vis-à-vis the transferring company and the consideration to be recognised for the performance of the function and the provision of the corresponding services is to be determined according to the cost-plus method. (3c. A transfer or assignment for use of an intangible asset shall be remunerated if it is made on the basis of a business relationship as defined in paragraph 4 and it has a financial effect on the transferee, the user, the transferor or the assignor. Intangible assets are assets that are neither tangible assets nor equity interests nor financial assets which may be the subject of a transaction without being individually transferable; and which can give a person an actual or legal position over that asset. The identification of the ownership or holder of an intangible asset, including rights derived from such an asset, is the starting point for determining which party to the transaction is entitled to the revenue arising from any disposition of that intangible asset. To the extent that a related party of the owner or holder of the intangible asset performs functions, uses assets or assumes risks in connection with the development or creation, enhancement, maintenance, protection or any form of exploitation of the intangible asset, those functions shall be appropriately compensated by the owner or holder of the related party. The financing of the development or creation, maintenance or protection of an intangible asset shall be appropriately remunerated and shall not give rise ...