The present value of the PCT Payor’s licensing alternative may be determined using the comparable uncontrolled transaction method, as described in § 1.482-4(c)(1) and (2). In this case, the present value of the PCT Payor’s licensing alternative is the present value of the stream, over what would be the duration of the CSA Activity under the cost sharing alternative, of the reasonably anticipated residuals of the divisional profits or losses that would be achieved under the cost sharing alternative, minus operating cost contributions that would be made under the cost sharing alternative, minus the licensing payments as determined under the comparable uncontrolled transaction method ...

The comparable uncontrolled transaction (CUT) method described in § 1.482-4(c), and the comparable uncontrolled services price (CUSP) method described in § 1.482-9(c), may be applied to evaluate whether the amount charged in a PCT is arm’s length by reference to the amount charged in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. Although all of the factors entering into a best method analysis described in § 1.482-1(c) and (d) must be considered, comparability and reliability under this method are particularly dependent on similarity of contractual terms, degree to which allocation of risks is proportional to reasonably anticipated benefits from exploiting the results of intangible development, similar period of commitment as to the sharing of intangible development risks, and similar scope, uncertainty, and profit potential of the subject intangible development, including a similar allocation of the risks of any existing resources, capabilities, or rights, as well as of the risks of developing other resources, capabilities, or rights that would be reasonably anticipated to contribute to exploitation within the parties’ divisions, that is consistent with the actual allocation of risks between the controlled participants as provided in the CSA in accordance with this section. When applied in the manner described in § 1.482-4(c) or 1.482-9(c), the CUT or CUSP method will typically yield an arm’s length total value for the platform contribution that is the subject of the PCT. That value must then be multiplied by each PCT Payor’s respective RAB share in order to determine the arm’s length PCT Payment due from each PCT Payor. The reliability of a CUT or CUSP that yields a value for the platform contribution only in the PCT Payor’s division will be reduced to the extent that value is not consistent with the total worldwide value of the platform contribution multiplied by the PCT Payor’s RAB share ...

In determining the true taxable income of a controlled taxpayer, the standard to be applied in every case is that of a taxpayer dealing at arm’s length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. A controlled transaction meets the arm’s length standard if the results of the transaction are consistent with the results that would have been realized if uncontrolled taxpayers had engaged in the same transaction under the same circumstances (arm’s length result). However, because identical transactions can rarely be located, whether a transaction produces an arm’s length result generally will be determined by reference to the results of comparable transactions under comparable circumstances. See § 1.482-1(d)(2) (Standard of comparability). Evaluation of whether a controlled transaction produces an arm’s length result is made pursuant to a method selected under the best method rule described in § 1.482-1(c) ...

...

It is important to note, however, that in many cases where the tested party uses such intangibles, parties to comparable uncontrolled transactions will also have the same types of intangibles at their disposal. Thus, in the distribution company case, an uncontrolled entity engaged in providing distribution services in the tested party’s industry and market is also likely to have knowledge of and contacts with potential customers, collect customer data, have its own effective logistical systems, and in other respects have similar intangibles to the tested party. Where that is the case, the level of comparability may be sufficiently high that it is possible to rely on prices paid or margins earned by the potential comparables as an appropriate measure of arm’s length compensation for both the functions performed and the intangibles owned by the tested party ...

It is important to note, however, that in many cases where the tested party uses such intangibles, parties to comparable uncontrolled transactions will also have the same types of intangibles at their disposal. Thus, in the distribution company case, an uncontrolled entity engaged in providing distribution services in the tested party’s industry and market is also likely to have knowledge of and contacts with potential customers, collect customer data, have its own effective logistical systems, and in other respects have similar intangibles to the tested party. Where that is the case, the level of comparability may be sufficiently high that it is possible to rely on prices paid or margins earned by the potential comparables as an appropriate measure of arm’s length compensation for both the functions performed and the intangibles owned by the tested party ...