In addition, If the transactional profit split method is used to set transfer pricing in controlled transactions at the outset, it would be reasonable to expect the life-time of the arrangement and the criteria or profit splitting factors to be agreed in advance of the transaction, The person using the transactional profit split method (taxpayer or tax administration) should be prepared to explain why it is regarded as the most appropriate method in the circumstances of the case, as well as the way it is implemented, and in particular the criteria or profit splitting factors used to split the relevant profits, and The determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should generally be used consistently over the life-time of the arrangement, including during loss years, unless the rationale for using differing relevant profits or profit splitting factors over time is supported by the facts and circumstances and is documented ...

A contractual assumption of risk constitutes an ex ante agreement to bear some or all of the potential costs associated with the ex post materialisation of downside outcomes of risk in return for some or all of the potential benefit associated with the ex post materialisation of positive outcomes. Importantly, ex ante contractual assumption of risk should provide clear evidence of a commitment to assume risk prior to the materialisation of risk outcomes. Such evidence is a very important part of the tax administration’s transfer pricing analysis of risks in commercial or financial relations, since, in practice, an audit performed by the tax administration may occur years after the making of such up-front decisions by the associated enterprises and when outcomes are known. The purported assumption of risk by associated enterprises when risk outcomes are certain is by definition not an assumption of risk, since there is no longer any risk. Similarly, ex post reallocations of risk by a tax administration when risk outcomes are certain may, unless based on the guidance elsewhere in these Guidelines and in particular Section D.1.2.1, be inappropriate ...

In addition, If the transactional profit split method is used to set transfer pricing in controlled transactions at the outset, it would be reasonable to expect the life-time of the arrangement and the criteria or profit splitting factors to be agreed in advance of the transaction, The person using the transactional profit split method (taxpayer or tax administration) should be prepared to explain why it is regarded as the most appropriate method in the circumstances of the case, as well as the way it is implemented, and in particular the criteria or profit splitting factors used to split the relevant profits, and The determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should generally be used consistently over the life-time of the arrangement, including during loss years, unless the rationale for using differing relevant profits or profit splitting factors over time is supported by the facts and circumstances and is documented ...

A contractual assumption of risk constitutes an ex ante agreement to bear some or all of the potential costs associated with the ex post materialisation of downside outcomes of risk in return for some or all of the potential benefit associated with the ex post materialisation of positive outcomes. Importantly, ex ante contractual assumption of risk should provide clear evidence of a commitment to assume risk prior to the materialisation of risk outcomes. Such evidence is a very important part of the tax administration’s transfer pricing analysis of risks in commercial or financial relations, since, in practice, an audit performed by the tax administration may occur years after the making of such up-front decisions by the associated enterprises and when outcomes are known. The purported assumption of risk by associated enterprises when risk outcomes are certain is by definition not an assumption of risk, since there is no longer any risk. Similarly, ex post reallocations of risk by a tax administration when risk outcomes are certain may, unless based on the guidance elsewhere in these Guidelines and in particular Section D.1.2.1, be inappropriate ...