The tax authorities had issued a notice of assessment which disallowed tax deductions for royalties paid by R…Cash & C…, S.A. to its Polish parent company, O…Mark Sp. Z.o.o. R… Cash & C…, S.A. appealed to the Administrative Court, which later annulled the assessment. The tax authorities then filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgement of the Court The Court of Appeal revoked the judgement issued by the administrative court and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Extracts “It is clear from the evidence in the case file that the applicant has succeeded in demonstrating that the agreement to transfer rights is not based on effective competition, in the context of identical operations carried out by independent entities. The studies presented by the challenger do not succeed in overturning this assertion, since, as is clear from the evidence (12), they relate to operations and market segments other than the one at issue in the case. The provision for the payment of royalties for the transfer of the brands, together with the unpaid provision of management and promotion services for the brands in question by the applicant, prove that there has been a situation that deviates from full competition, with the allocation of income in a tax jurisdiction other than the State of source, without any apparent justification. The application of the profit splitting method (Article 9 of Ministerial Order 1446-C/2001 of 21 December 2001) does not deserve censure. Intangible assets are at stake, so invoking the comparability of transactions, in cases such as the present one, does not make it possible to understand the relationships established between the companies involved. It should also be noted that the Polish company receiving the royalties has minimal staff costs, and that brand amortisation costs account for 97.72% of its operating costs. As a result, the obligations arising for the defendant from the licence agreement in question are unjustified. In view of the demonstration of the deviation from the terms of an arm’s length transaction, it can be seen that the taxpayer’s declaratory obligations (articles 13 to 16 of Ministerial Order 1446-C/2001, of 21.12.200) have not been complied with, as there is a lack of elements that would justify the necessary adjustment. Therefore, the correction under examination does not deserve to be repaired and should be confirmed in the legal order. By ruling differently, the judgement under appeal was an error of judgement and should therefore be replaced by a decision dismissing the challenge.” Click here for English translation. Click here for other translation ...

“XZ Insurance SA” is the parent company in a group engaged in insurance activities in its various branches, both life and non-life, finance, investment property and services. An audit was conducted for FY 2013-2016 and in 2020 an assessment was issued in relation to both controlled transactions and other transactions. Among outher issued the tax authorities determined that “XZ Insurance SA” did not receive any royalty income from the use of the XZ trademark by to other entities of the group, both domestic and foreign. In the assessment the tax authorities determined the arm’s length royalty percentage for use of the trademarks to be on average ~0,5%. “In order to estimate the market royalty, the first aspect to be studied is the existence of an internal comparable or comparable trademark assignment contracts. And we have already stated that the absence of valid internal and external comparables has led us to resort to the use of other generally accepted valuation methods and techniques. In this respect, it should be noted that this situation is frequent when valuing transactions related to intangibles, and the Guidelines have expressly echoed this situation (in particular, in paragraphs 6.138, 6.153, 6.156, 6.157 and 6.162, which are transcribed in section 6.2 of this Report).” A complaint was filed by “XZ Insurance SA” Judgement of the TEAC The TEAC dismissed the complaint of “XZ Insurance SA” and upheld the tax assessment. Excerpts from the decision concerning the assessment of income for use of the trademarks by other group companies “On this issue, it is worth pointing out an idea that the complainant uses recurrently in its written submissions. The complainant considers that if there is no growth in the number of policies and premiums, it should not be argued that the use of the XZ brand generates a profit in the subsidiaries. However, as the Inspectorate has already replied, it is not possible to identify the increase in the profit of the brand with the increase in premiums, nor that the growth, in certain countries, of the entities is exclusively due to the value of the brand. Logically, increases and decreases in premiums are due to multiple factors, including the disposable income of the inhabitants of each country, tax regulations, civil liability legislation, among others, and we cannot share the complainant’s view that the brand does not generate a profit in the event of a decrease in premiums in the market. Furthermore, insofar as the enforceability of the royalty is conditioned by the fact that the assignment produces a profit for the company using the brand, there is greater evidence as to the usefulness of the brand in the main markets in which the group operates and in which it is most relevant: Spain, COUNTRY_1, Latin American countries, COUNTRY_2, COUNTRY_3, COUNTRY_4 and COUNTRY_5. Finally, one aspect that draws the attention of this TEAC is the contrast between what the complainant demands that the administration should do and the attitude of the administration in the inspection procedure. On the one hand, it demands that the administration carry out a detailed analysis of the valuation of the profit generated by the trademark for the group, but, on the other hand, there is a total lack of contribution on the part of the entity in providing specific information on the valuation of the trademark that could facilitate the task it demands of the administration. In fact, this information was requested by the Inspectorate, to which it replied that “there are no studies available on the value or awareness and relevance of the XZ brand in the years under inspection” (…) “It follows from the above that it has not been proven that the different entities of the group made direct contributions or contributions that would determine that, effectively, the economic ownership of the trademark should be shared. Therefore, this TEAC must consider, given the existing evidence, that both the legal and economic ownership of the trademark corresponds to the entity XZ ESPAÑA. In short, it is clear from the facts set out above that certain entities of the group used, and use, for the marketing of their services and products, a relevant and internationally established trademark, the “XZ” trademark, which gives them a prestige in the market that directly and undoubtedly has an impact on their sales figures, with the consequent increase in their economic profit. It is clear from the above that there was, in the years audited, a transfer of use of an established, international brand, valued by independent third parties (according to the ONFI report, according to …, between … and …. million euros in the years under review) and maintained from a maintenance point of view (relevant advertising and promotional expenses). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, as does the Inspectorate, that, in a transaction of this type – the assignment of the “XZ” trademark – carried out at arm’s length, a payment for the use of the intangible asset would have been made to its owner, without prejudice to the fact that the value assigned to the assignment of use of the aforementioned trademark may be disputed; but what seems clear, and this is what the TEAC states, is that it is an intangible asset whose assignment of use has value. In conclusion, the TEAC considers that the entity owning the trademark (XZ SPAIN) had an intangible asset and transferred its use, for which it should receive income; by transferring the use of the asset to group entities, both domiciled in Spain and abroad, it is appropriate to calculate that income for XZ SPAIN by applying the regime for related-party transactions.” (…) “In section 6 of the report, as we have already analysed, ONFI attempts to find external comparables, insofar as there are no internal comparables within the group, reaching the conclusion that they cannot be identified in the market analysed. Consequently, it proceeds to estimate the royalty that XZ Spain should receive, by applying other methodologies that allow an approximation to the arm’s length price, based ...

Calculation of the equivalent royalty amount. (i) FSub is the foreign subsidiary of USP, a U.S. company. USP licenses FSub the right to produce and sell the whopperchopper, a patented new kitchen appliance, for the foreign market. The license is for a period of five years, and payment takes the form of a single lump-sum charge of $500,000 that is paid at the beginning of the period. (ii) The equivalent royalty amount for this license is determined by deriving an equivalent royalty rate equal to the lump-sum payment divided by the present discounted value of FSub’s projected sales of whopperchoppers over the life of the license. Based on the riskiness of the whopperchopper business, an appropriate discount rate is determined to be 10 percent. Projected sales of whopperchoppers for each year of the license are as follows: Year Projected sales 1 $2,500,000 2 2,600,000 3 2,700,000 4 2,700,000 5 2,750,000 (iii) Based on this information, the present discounted value of the projected whopperchopper sales is approximately $10 million, yielding an equivalent royalty rate of approximately 5%. Thus, the equivalent royalty amounts for each year are as follows: Year Projected sales Equivalent royalty amount 1 $2,500,000 $125,000 2 2,600,000 130,000 3 2,700,000 135,000 4 2,700,000 135,000 5 2,750,000 137,500 (iv) If in any of the five taxable years the equivalent royalty amount is determined not to be an arm’s length amount, a periodic adjustment may be made pursuant to § 1.482-4(f)(2)(i). The adjustment in such case would be equal to the difference between the equivalent royalty amount and the arm’s length royalty in that taxable year ...

The following example illustrates the principle of this paragraph (f)(5) ...

No periodic adjustment will be made under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section if any of the exceptions to periodic adjustments provided in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section apply ...

If an intangible is transferred in a controlled transaction for a lump sum, that amount must be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible. A lump sum is commensurate with income in a taxable year if the equivalent royalty amount for that taxable year is equal to an arm’s length royalty. The equivalent royalty amount for a taxable year is the amount determined by treating the lump sum as an advance payment of a stream of royalties over the useful life of the intangible (or the period covered by an agreement, if shorter), taking into account the projected sales of the licensee as of the date of the transfer. Thus, determining the equivalent royalty amount requires a present value calculation based on the lump sum, an appropriate discount rate, and the projected sales over the relevant period. The equivalent royalty amount is subject to periodic adjustments under § 1.482-4(f)(2)(i) to the same extent as an actual royalty payment pursuant to a license agreement ...

...

The arm’s length consideration for the controlled transfer of an intangible is not limited by the consideration paid in any uncontrolled transactions that do not meet the requirements of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method described in paragraph (c) of this section. Similarly, the arm’s length consideration for an intangible is not limited by the prevailing rates of consideration paid for the use or transfer of intangibles within the same or similar industry ...

The other question is how the return attributable to marketing activities can be identified. A marketing intangible may obtain value as a consequence of advertising and other promotional expenditures, which can be important to maintain the value of the trademark. However, it can be difficult to determine what these expenditures have contributed to the success of a product. For instance, it can be difficult to determine what advertising and marketing expenditures have contributed to the production or revenue, and to what degree. It is also possible that a new trademark or one newly introduced into a particular market may have no value or little value in that market and its value may change over the years as it makes an impression on the market (or perhaps loses its impact). A dominant market share may to some extent be attributable to marketing efforts of a distributor. The value and any changes will depend to an extent on how effectively the trademark is promoted in the particular market. More fundamentally, in many cases higher returns derived from the sale of trademarked products may be due as much to the unique characteristics of the product or its high quality as to the success of advertising and other promotional expenditures. The actual conduct of the parties over a period of years should be given significant weight in evaluating the return attributable to marketing activities. See paragraphs 3.75-3.79 (multiple year data) ...

Where the distributor actually bears the cost of its marketing activities (i.e. there is no arrangement for the owner to reimburse the expenditures), the issue is the extent to which the distributor is able to share in the potential benefits from those activities. In general, in arm’s length transactions the ability of a party that is not the legal owner of a marketing intangible to obtain the future benefits of marketing activities that increase the value of that intangible will depend principally on the substance of the rights of that party. For example, a distributor may have the ability to obtain benefits from its investments in developing the value of a trademark from its turnover and market share where it has a long-term contract of sole distribution rights for the trademarked product. In such cases, the distributor’s share of benefits should be determined based on what an independent distributor would obtain in comparable circumstances. In some cases, a distributor may bear extraordinary marketing expenditures beyond what an independent distributor with similar rights might incur for the benefit of its own distribution activities. An independent distributor in such a case might obtain an additional return from the owner of the trademark, perhaps through a decrease in the purchase price of the product or a reduction in royalty rate ...

As regards the first issue – whether the marketer is entitled to a return on the marketing intangibles above a normal return on marketing activities – the analysis requires an assessment of the obligations and rights implied by the agreement between the parties. It will often be the case that the return on marketing activities will be sufficient and appropriate. One relatively clear case is where a distributor acts merely as an agent, being reimbursed for its promotional expenditures by the owner of the marketing intangible. In that case, the distributor would be entitled to compensation appropriate to its agency activities alone and would not be entitled to share in any return attributable to the marketing intangible ...

Difficult transfer pricing problems can arise when marketing activities are undertaken by enterprises that do not own the trademarks or tradenames that they are promoting (such as a distributor of branded goods). In such a case, it is necessary to determine how the marketer should be compensated for those activities. The issue is whether the marketer should be compensated as a service provider, i.e. for providing promotional services, or whether there are any cases in which the marketer should share in any additional return attributable to the marketing intangibles. A related question is how the return attributable to the marketing intangibles can be identified ...

It is recognised that tax administrations may not be able to conduct an audit of a taxpayer’s return until several years after it has been filed. In such a case, a tax administration would be entitled to adjust the amount of consideration with respect to all open years up to the time when the audit takes place, on the basis of the information that independent enterprises would have used in comparable circumstances to set the pricing ...

If independent enterprises would have insisted on a price adjustment clause in comparable circumstances, the tax administration should be permitted to determine the pricing on the basis of such a clause. Similarly, if independent enterprises would have considered unforeseeable subsequent developments so fundamental that their occurrence would have led to a prospective renegotiation of the pricing of a transaction, such developments should also lead to a modification of the pricing of a comparable controlled transaction between associated enterprises ...

It is recognised that a tax administration may find it difficult, particularly in the case of an uncooperative taxpayer, to establish what profits were reasonably foreseeable at the time that the transaction was entered into. For example, such a taxpayer, at an early stage, may transfer intangibles to an affiliate, set a royalty that does not reflect the subsequently demonstrated value of the intangible for tax or other purposes, and later take the position that it was not possible at the time of the transfer to predict the subsequent success of the product. In such a case, the subsequent developments might prompt a tax administration to inquire what independent enterprises would have done on the basis of information reasonably available at the time of the transaction. In particular, consideration should be paid to whether the associated enterprises intended to and did make projections that independent enterprises would have considered adequate, taking into account the reasonably foreseeable developments and in light of the risk of unforeseeable developments, and whether independent enterprises would have insisted on some additional protections against the risk of high uncertainty in valuation ...

When tax administrations evaluate the pricing of a controlled transaction involving intangible property where valuation is highly uncertain at the outset, the arrangements that would have been made in comparable circumstances by independent enterprises should be followed. Thus, if independent enterprises would have fixed the pricing based upon a particular projection, the same approach should be used by the tax administration in evaluating the pricing. In such a case, the tax administration could, for example, inquire into whether the associated enterprises made adequate projections, taking into account all the developments that were reasonably foreseeable, without using hindsight ...

In other cases, independent enterprises might not find that pricing based on anticipated benefits alone provides an adequate protection against the risks posed by the high uncertainty in valuing the intangible property. In such cases, independent enterprises might adopt shorter-term agreements or include price adjustment clauses in the terms of the agreement, to protect against subsequent developments that might not be predictable. For example, a royalty rate could be set to increase as the sales of the licensee increase. Also, independent enterprises may determine to bear the risk of unpredictable subsequent developments to a certain degree, however with the joint understanding that major unforeseen developments changing the fundamental assumptions upon which the pricing was determined would lead to the renegotiation of the pricing arrangements by mutual agreement of the parties. For example, such renegotiation might occur at arm’s length if a royalty rate based on sales for a patented drug turned out to be vastly excessive due to an unexpected development of an alternative low-cost treatment. The excessive royalty might remove the incentive of the licensee to manufacture the drug at all, in which case the agreement might be renegotiated (although whether this in fact would happen would depend upon all the facts and circumstances) ...

Depending on the facts and circumstances, there are a variety of steps that independent enterprises might undertake to deal with high uncertainty in valuation when pricing a transaction. One possibility is to use anticipated benefits (taking into account all relevant economic factors) as a means for establishing the pricing at the outset of the transaction. In determining the anticipated benefits, independent enterprises would take into account the extent to which subsequent developments are foreseeable and predictable. In some cases, independent enterprises might find that the projections of anticipated benefits are sufficiently reliable to fix the pricing for the transaction at the outset on the basis of those projections, without reserving the right to make future adjustments ...

As stated at the outset of this section, intangible property may have a special character complicating the search for comparables and in some cases making value difficult to determine at the time of a controlled transaction involving the property. When valuation of intangible property at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain, the question is raised how arm’s length pricing should be determined. The question should be resolved, both by taxpayers and tax administrations, by reference to what independent enterprises would have done in comparable circumstances to take account of the valuation uncertainty in the pricing of the transaction. (An example illustrating the application of the arm’s length principle to intangible property with highly uncertain valuation is found in the Annex to Chapter VI.) ...

In assessing whether the conditions of a transaction involving intangible property reflect arm’s length transactions, the amount, nature, and incidence of the costs incurred in developing or maintaining the intangible property might be examined as an aid to determining comparability or possibly relative value of the contributions of each party, particularly where a profit split method is used. However, there is no necessary link between costs and value. In particular, the actual fair market value of intangible property is frequently not measurable in relation to the costs involved in developing and maintaining the property. One reason is that intangible property, such as patents and know-how, may be the result of long-lasting and expensive R&D. The actual size of R&D budgets depends on a variety of factors, including the policy of competitors or potential competitors, the expected profitability of the research activity, and the trend of profits; or considerations based on some relation to turnover, or an assessment of the yield from R&D activity in the past as a basis for fixing future expenditure levels. R&D budgets may be sought to be covered by product sales even though the products in question may not be a direct or even perhaps an indirect result of the R&D. Another reason is that intangible property may require ongoing R&D and quality control that may benefit a range of products ...

In cases involving highly valuable intangible property, it may be difficult to find comparable uncontrolled transactions. It therefore may be difficult to apply the traditional transaction methods and the transactional net margin method, particularly where both parties to the transaction own valuable intangible property or unique assets used in the transaction that distinguish the transaction from those of potential competitors. In such cases the profit split method may be relevant although there may be practical problems in its application ...

For example, it may be the case that a branded athletic shoe transferred in a controlled transaction is comparable to an athletic shoe transferred under a different brand name in an uncontrolled transaction both in terms of the quality and specification of the shoe itself and also in terms of the consumer acceptability and other characteristics of the brand name in that market. Where such a comparison is not possible, some help also may be found, if adequate evidence is available, by comparing the volume of sales and the prices chargeable and profits realised for trademarked goods with those for similar goods that do not carry the trademark. It therefore may be possible to use sales of unbranded products as comparable transactions to sales of branded products that are otherwise comparables, but only to the extent that adjustments can be made to account for any value added by the trademark. For example, branded athletic shoe “A” may be comparable to an unbranded shoe in all respects (after adjustments) except for the brand name itself. In such a case, the premium attributable to the brand might be determined by comparing an unbranded shoe with different features, transferred in an uncontrolled transaction, to its branded equivalent, also transferred in an uncontrolled transaction. Then it may be possible to use this information as an aid in determining the price of branded shoe “A”, although adjustments may be necessary for the effect of the difference in features on the value of the brand. However, adjustments may be particularly difficult where a trademarked product has a dominant market position such that the generic product is in essence trading in a different market, particularly where sophisticated products are involved ...

In the sale of goods incorporating intangible property, it may also be possible to use the CUP or resale price method following the principles in Chapter II. When marketing intangibles (e.g. a trademark) are involved, the analysis of comparability should consider the value added by the trademark, taking into account consumer acceptability, geographical significance, market shares, sales volume, and other relevant factors. When trade intangibles are involved, the analysis of comparability should moreover consider the value attributable to such intangibles (patent protected or otherwise exclusive intangibles) and the importance of the ongoing R&D functions ...

In establishing arm’s length pricing in the case of a sale or license of intangible property, it is possible to use the CUP method where the same owner has transferred or licensed comparable intangible property under comparable circumstances to independent enterprises. The amount of consideration charged in comparable transactions between independent enterprises in the same industry can also be a guide, where this information is available, and a range of pricing may be appropriate. Offers to independent parties or genuine bids of competing licensees also may be taken into account. If the associated enterprise sub-licenses the property to independent parties, it may also be possible to use some form of the resale price method to analyse the terms of the controlled transaction ...

Other factors for patents include the process of production for which the property is used, and the value that the process contributes to the final product. For example, where a patented invention covers only one component of a device, it could be inappropriate to calculate the royalty for the invention by reference to the selling price for the complete product. In such a case, a royalty based on a proportion of the selling price would have to take into account the relative value of the component to the other components of the product. Also, in analysing functions performed (including assets used and risks assumed) for transactions involving intangible property, the risks considered should include product and environmental liability, which have become increasingly important ...

When the intangible property involved is a patent, the analysis of comparability should also take into account the nature of the patent (e.g. product or process patent) and the degree and duration of protection afforded under the patent laws of the relevant countries, bearing in mind that new patents may be developed speedily on the basis of old ones, so that the effective protection of the intangible property may be prolonged considerably. Not only the duration of the legal protection but also the length of the period during which patents are likely to maintain their economic value is important. An entirely new and distinctive “breakthrough” patent may make existing patents rapidly obsolete and will command a higher price than one either designed to improve a process already governed by an existing patent or one for which substitutes are readily available ...

In applying the arm’s length principle to controlled transactions involving intangible property, some special factors relevant to comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions should be considered. These factors include the expected benefits from the intangible property (possibly determined through a net present value calculation). Other factors include: any limitations on the geographic area in which rights may be exercised; export restrictions on goods produced by virtue of any rights transferred; the exclusive or non-exclusive character of any rights transferred; the capital investment (to construct new plants or to buy special machines), the start-up expenses and the development work required in the market; the possibility of sub-licensing, the licensee’s distribution network, and whether the licensee has the right to participate in further developments of the property by the licensor ...