(i) FS, a foreign corporation, produces apparel for USP, its U.S. parent corporation. FS purchases its materials from unrelated suppliers and produces the apparel according to designs provided by USP. The district director identifies 10 uncontrolled foreign apparel producers that operate in the same geographic market and are similar in many respect to FS. (ii) Relatively complete data is available regarding the functions performed and risks borne by the uncontrolled producers. In addition, data is sufficiently detailed to permit adjustments for differences in accounting practices. However, sufficient data is not available to determine whether it is likely that all material differences in contractual terms have been identified. For example, it is not possible to determine which parties in the uncontrolled transactions bear currency risks. Because differences in these contractual terms could materially affect price or profits, the inability to determine whether differences exist between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions will diminish the reliability of these results. Therefore, the reliability of the results of the uncontrolled transactions must be enhanced by the application of a statistical method in establishing an arm’s length range pursuant to § 1.482-1(e)(2)(iii)(B) ...

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that under its contract with FS, USP uses materials consigned by FS. UT1, UT2, and UT3, on the other hand, purchase their own materials, and their gross profit markups are determined by including the costs of materials. The fact that USP does not carry an inventory risk by purchasing its own materials while the uncontrolled producers carry inventory is a significant difference that may require an adjustment if the difference has a material effect on the gross profit markups of the uncontrolled producers. Inability to reasonably ascertain the effect of the difference on the gross profit markups will affect the reliability of the results of UT1, UT2, and UT3 ...

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that USP accounts for supervisory, general, and administrative costs as operating expenses, which are not allocated to its sales to FS. The gross profit markups of UT1, UT2, and UT3, however, reflect supervisory, general, and administrative expenses because they are accounted for as costs of goods sold. Accordingly, the gross profit markups of UT1, UT2, and UT3 must be adjusted as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(iii)(B) of this section to provide accounting consistency. If data is not sufficient to determine whether such accounting differences exist between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, the reliability of the results will be decreased ...

(i) USP, a domestic manufacturer of computer components, sells its products to FS, its foreign distributor. UT1, UT2, and UT3 are domestic computer component manufacturers that sell to uncontrolled foreign purchasers. (ii) Relatively complete data is available regarding the functions performed and risks borne by UT1, UT2, and UT3, and the contractual terms in the uncontrolled transactions. In addition, data is available to ensure accounting consistency between all of the uncontrolled manufacturers and USP. Because the available data is sufficiently complete to conclude that it is likely that all material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions have been identified, the effect of the differences are definite and reasonably ascertainable, and reliable adjustments are made to account for the differences, an arm’s length range can be established pursuant to § 1.482-1(e)(2)(iii)(A) ...

The following examples illustrate the principles of this paragraph (d) ...

The degree of consistency in accounting practices between the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables that materially affect the gross profit markup affects the reliability of the result. Thus, for example, if differences in inventory and other cost accounting practices would materially affect the gross profit markup, the ability to make reliable adjustments for such differences would affect the reliability of the results. Further, the controlled transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction should be consistent in the reporting of costs between cost of goods sold and operating expenses. The term cost of producing includes the cost of acquiring property that is held for resale ...

The reliability of the results derived from the cost plus method is affected by the completeness and accuracy of the data used and the reliability of the assumptions made to apply this method. See § 1.482-1(c) (Best method rule) ...

...

If a controlled taxpayer is comparable to a purchasing agent that does not take title to property or otherwise assume risks with respect to ownership of such goods, the commission earned by such purchasing agent, expressed as a percentage of the purchase price of the goods, may be used as the appropriate gross profit markup ...

If there are material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions that would affect the gross profit markup, adjustments should be made to the gross profit markup earned in the comparable uncontrolled transaction according to the provisions of § 1.482-1(d)(2). For this purpose, consideration of the operating expenses associated with the functions performed and risks assumed may be necessary, because differences in functions performed are often reflected in operating expenses. If there are differences in functions performed, however, the effect on gross profit of such differences is not necessarily equal to the differences in the amount of related operating expenses. Specific examples of the factors that may be particularly relevant to this method include – (1) The complexity of manufacturing or assembly; (2) Manufacturing, production, and process engineering; (3) Procurement, purchasing, and inventory control activities; (4) Testing functions; (5) Selling, general, and administrative expenses; (6) Foreign currency risks; and (7) Contractual terms (e.g., scope and terms of warranties provided, sales or purchase volume, credit terms, transport terms) ...

Comparability under this method is less dependent on close physical similarity between the products transferred than under the comparable uncontrolled price method. Substantial differences in the products may, however, indicate significant functional differences between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. Thus, it ordinarily would be expected that the controlled and uncontrolled transactions involve the production of goods within the same product categories. Furthermore, significant differences in the value of the products due, for example, to the value of a trademark, may also affect the reliability of the comparison. Finally, the reliability of profit measures based on gross profit may be adversely affected by factors that have less effect on prices. For example, gross profit may be affected by a variety of other factors, including cost structures (as reflected, for example, in the age of plant and equipment), business experience (such as whether the business is in a start-up phase or is mature), or management efficiency (as indicated, for example, by expanding or contracting sales or executive compensation over time). Accordingly, if material differences in these factors are identified based on objective evidence, the reliability of the analysis may be affected ...

The degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions is determined by applying the comparability provisions of § 1.482-1(d). A producer’s gross profit provides compensation for the performance of the production functions related to the product or products under review, including an operating profit for the producer’s investment of capital and assumption of risks. Therefore, although all of the factors described in § 1.482-1(d)(3) must be considered, comparability under this method is particularly dependent on similarity of functions performed, risks borne, and contractual terms, or adjustments to account for the effects of any such differences. If possible, the appropriate gross profit markup should be derived from comparable uncontrolled transactions of the taxpayer involved in the controlled sale, because similar characteristics are more likely to be found among sales of property by the same producer than among sales by other producers. In the absence of such sales, an appropriate gross profit markup may be derived from comparable uncontrolled sales of other producers whether or not such producers are members of the same controlled group ...

...

Whether results derived from the application of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm’s length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in § 1.482-1(c) ...

...

See § 1.482-1(e)(2) for determination of an arm’s length range ...

The appropriate gross profit is computed by multiplying the controlled taxpayer’s cost of producing the transferred property by the gross profit markup, expressed as a percentage of cost, earned in comparable uncontrolled transactions ...

The cost plus method measures an arm’s length price by adding the appropriate gross profit to the controlled taxpayer’s costs of producing the property involved in the controlled transaction ...

...

The cost plus method evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm’s length by reference to the gross profit markup realized in comparable uncontrolled transactions. The cost plus method is ordinarily used in cases involving the manufacture, assembly, or other production of goods that are sold to related parties ...

...

The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that Product X is branded with a valuable trademark that is owned by P. A, B, and C distribute unbranded competing products, while D and E distribute products branded with other trademarks. D and E do not own any rights in the trademarks under which their products are sold. The value of the products that A, B, and C sold are not similar to the value of the products sold by S. The value of products sold by D and E, however, is similar to that of Product X. Although close product similarity is not as important for a reliable application of the resale price method as for the comparable uncontrolled price method, significant differences in the value of the products involved in the controlled and uncontrolled transactions may affect the reliability of the results. In addition, because in this case it is difficult to determine the effect the trademark will have on price or profits, reliable adjustments for the differences cannot be made. Because D and E have a higher level of comparability than A, B, and C with respect to S, pursuant to § 1.482-1(e)(2)(ii), only D and E may be included in an arm’s length range ...

The facts are the same as Example 5, except that sufficient data is not available to determine whether any of the uncontrolled distributors provide warranties or to determine the payment terms of the contracts. Because differences in these contractual terms could materially affect price or profits, the inability to determine whether these differences exist between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions diminishes the reliability of the results of the uncontrolled comparables. However, the reliability of the results may be enhanced by the application of a statistical method when establishing an arm’s length range pursuant to § 1.482-1(e)(2)(iii)(B) ...

(i) USP, a U.S. corporation, manufactures Product X, an unbranded widget, and sells it to FSub, its wholly owned foreign subsidiary. FSub acts as a distributor of Product X in country M, and sells it to uncontrolled parties in that country. Uncontrolled distributors A, B, C, D, and E distribute competing products of approximately similar value in country M. All such products are unbranded. (ii) Relatively complete data is available regarding the functions performed and risks borne by the uncontrolled distributors and the contractual terms under which they operate in the uncontrolled transactions. In addition, data is available to ensure accounting consistency between all of the uncontrolled distributors and FSub. Because the available data is sufficiently complete and accurate to conclude that it is likely that all material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions have been identified, such differences have a definite and reasonably ascertainable effect, and reliable adjustments are made to account for such differences, the results of each of the uncontrolled distributors may be used to establish an arm’s length range pursuant to § 1.482-1(e)(2)(iii)(A) ...

USSub, a U.S. corporation, is the exclusive distributor of widgets for its foreign parent. To determine whether the gross profit margin of 25% earned by USSub is an arm’s length result, the district director considers applying the resale price method. There are several uncontrolled distributors that perform similar functions under similar circumstances in uncontrolled transactions. However, the uncontrolled distributors treat certain costs such as discounts and insurance as cost of goods sold, while USSub treats such costs as operating expenses. In such cases, accounting reclassifications, pursuant to § 1.482-3(c)(3)(iii)(B), must be made to ensure consistent treatment of such material items. Inability to make such accounting reclassifications will decrease the reliability of the results of the uncontrolled transactions ...

FP, a foreign manufacturer, sells Product to USSub, its U.S. subsidiary, which in turn sells Product to its domestic affiliate Sister. Sister sells Product to unrelated buyers. In this case, the applicable resale price is the price at which Sister sells Product in uncontrolled transactions. The determination of the appropriate gross profit margin for the sale from FP to USSub will take into account the functions performed by USSub and Sister, as well as other relevant factors described in § 1.482-1(d)(3) ...

(i) S, a U.S. corporation, is the exclusive distributor for FP, its foreign parent. There are no changes in the beginning and ending inventory for the year under review. S’s total reported cost of goods sold is $800, consisting of $600 for property purchased from FP and $200 of other costs of goods sold incurred to unrelated parties. S’s applicable resale price and reported gross profit are as follows: Applicable resale price $1000 Cost of goods sold: Cost of purchases from FP 600 Costs incurred to unrelated parties 200 Reported gross profit 200 (ii) The district director determines that the appropriate gross profit margin is 25%. Therefore, S’s appropriate gross profit is $250 (i.e., 25% of the applicable resale price of $1000). Because S is incurring costs of sales to unrelated parties, an arm’s length price for property purchased from FP must be determined under a two-step process. First, the appropriate gross profit ($250) is subtracted from the applicable resale price ($1000). The resulting amount ($750) is then reduced by the costs of sales incurred to unrelated parties ($200). Therefore, an arm’s length price for S’s cost of sales of FP’s product in this case equals $550 (i.e., $750 minus $200) ...

A controlled taxpayer sells property to another member of its controlled group that resells the property in uncontrolled sales. There are no changes in the beginning and ending inventory for the year under review. Information regarding an uncontrolled comparable is sufficiently complete to conclude that it is likely that all material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions have been identified and adjusted for. If the applicable resale price of the property involved in the controlled sale is $100 and the appropriate gross profit margin is 20%, then an arm’s length result of the controlled sale is a price of $80 ($100 minus (20% × $100)) ...

The degree of consistency in accounting practices between the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables that materially affect the gross profit margin affects the reliability of the result. Thus, for example, if differences in inventory and other cost accounting practices would materially affect the gross profit margin, the ability to make reliable adjustments for such differences would affect the reliability of the results. Further, the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparable should be consistent in the reporting of items (such as discounts, returns and allowances, rebates, transportation costs, insurance, and packaging) between cost of goods sold and operating expenses ...

The reliability of the results derived from the resale price method is affected by the completeness and accuracy of the data used and the reliability of the assumptions made to apply this method. See § 1.482-1(c) (Best method rule) ...

...

If there are material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions that would affect the gross profit margin, adjustments should be made to the gross profit margin earned with respect to the uncontrolled transaction according to the comparability provisions of § 1.482-1(d)(2). For this purpose, consideration of operating expenses associated with functions performed and risks assumed may be necessary, because differences in functions performed are often reflected in operating expenses. If there are differences in functions performed, however, the effect on gross profit of such differences is not necessarily equal to the differences in the amount of related operating expenses. Specific examples of the factors that may be particularly relevant to this method include – (1) Inventory levels and turnover rates, and corresponding risks, including any price protection programs offered by the manufacturer; (2) Contractual terms (e.g., scope and terms of warranties provided, sales or purchase volume, credit terms, transport terms); (3) Sales, marketing, advertising programs and services, (including promotional programs, rebates, and co-op advertising); (4) The level of the market (e.g., wholesale, retail, etc.); and (5) Foreign currency risks ...

Comparability under this method is less dependent on close physical similarity between the products transferred than under the comparable uncontrolled price method. For example, distributors of a wide variety of consumer durables might perform comparable distribution functions without regard to the specific durable goods distributed. Substantial differences in the products may, however, indicate significant functional differences between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. Thus, it ordinarily would be expected that the controlled and uncontrolled transactions would involve the distribution of products of the same general type (e.g., consumer electronics). Furthermore, significant differences in the value of the distributed goods due, for example, to the value of a trademark, may also affect the reliability of the comparison. Finally, the reliability of profit measures based on gross profit may be adversely affected by factors that have less effect on prices. For example, gross profit may be affected by a variety of other factors, including cost structures (as reflected, for example, in the age of plant and equipment), business experience (such as whether the business is in a start-up phase or is mature), or management efficiency (as indicated, for example, by expanding or contracting sales or executive compensation over time). Accordingly, if material differences in these factors are identified based on objective evidence, the reliability of the analysis may be affected ...

The degree of comparability between an uncontrolled transaction and a controlled transaction is determined by applying the comparability provisions of § 1.482-1(d). A reseller’s gross profit provides compensation for the performance of resale functions related to the product or products under review, including an operating profit in return for the reseller’s investment of capital and the assumption of risks. Therefore, although all of the factors described in § 1.482-1(d)(3) must be considered, comparability under this method is particularly dependent on similarity of functions performed, risks borne, and contractual terms, or adjustments to account for the effects of any such differences. If possible, appropriate gross profit margins should be derived from comparable uncontrolled purchases and resales of the reseller involved in the controlled sale, because similar characteristics are more likely to be found among different resales of property made by the same reseller than among sales made by other resellers. In the absence of comparable uncontrolled transactions involving the same reseller, an appropriate gross profit margin may be derived from comparable uncontrolled transactions of other resellers ...

Whether results derived from applications of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm’s length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in § 1.482-1(c). The application of these factors under the resale price method is discussed in paragraphs (c)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this section ...

See § 1.482-1(e)(2) for determination of the arm’s length range ...

The appropriate gross profit is computed by multiplying the applicable resale price by the gross profit margin (expressed as a percentage of total revenue derived from sales) earned in comparable uncontrolled transactions ...

The applicable resale price is equal to either the resale price of the particular item of property involved or the price at which contemporaneous resales of the same property are made. If the property purchased in the controlled sale is resold to one or more related parties in a series of controlled sales before being resold in an uncontrolled sale, the applicable resale price is the price at which the property is resold to an uncontrolled party, or the price at which contemporaneous resales of the same property are made. In such case, the determination of the appropriate gross profit will take into account the functions of all members of the group participating in the series of controlled sales and final uncontrolled resales, as well as any other relevant factors described in § 1.482-1(d)(3) ...

The resale price method measures an arm’s length price by subtracting the appropriate gross profit from the applicable resale price for the property involved in the controlled transaction under review ...

...

The resale price method evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm’s length by reference to the gross profit margin realized in comparable uncontrolled transactions. The resale price method measures the value of functions performed, and is ordinarily used in cases involving the purchase and resale of tangible property in which the reseller has not added substantial value to the tangible goods by physically altering the goods before resale. For this purpose, packaging, repackaging, labelling, or minor assembly do not ordinarily constitute physical alteration. Further the resale price method is not ordinarily used in cases where the controlled taxpayer uses its intangible property to add substantial value to the tangible goods ...

A Korean subsidiary in the “Semiconductor-group” was active in distribution and sales services. At issue was which transfer pricing method was the most appropriate for determining the arm’s length remuneration for these activities in FY 2013. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the claims of the company and upheld the decision of the tax authorities. Excerpt “However, the following circumstances that can be comprehensively acknowledged in the foregoing evidence and description in Evidence A No. 21, namely, (1) OECD Transfer Price Taxation Guidelines 2.101 stipulate that in order for a Gross Margin Ratio to be applied, a taxpayer shall not perform other important functions (manufacturing functions, etc.) that must be compensated using other transfer price methods or financial indicators in a related transaction, which are very sensitive to cost classification, such as operating expenses and other expenses, and thus may cause problems of comparability and irrelevant costs; and (2) Charles H. Berry, which devised the Gross Margin Method of the Transactional Net Margin Method, stated in the paper “Berry Ratios” that, in a case where a company performs other functions in addition to simple sales activities, the distinction between the cost of sales and the cost of operations is unclear and thus the gross margin ratio of sales can be artificially changed, and thus the Gross Margin Method of the Transactional Net Margin Method may not be applied. (3) Although the Plaintiff may perform a service installation and guarantee business, part sales business, in light of the above laws, it is difficult to apply the gross profit margin method among the transactional net margin methods to the Plaintiff’s sales support service transactions (even if the gross profit margin method among the Transactional Net Margin Methods can be applied, as the Plaintiff claims, the following circumstances that can comprehensively acknowledge the purpose of the entire pleadings in each of the descriptions of A Nos. 18 and 19, that is, (1), the codes of 508 companies extracted by the Plaintiff according to the industrial classification codes of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification are “46539: Other industrial machinery and equipment wholesale business, 46592: Medical, Precision and Scientific Equipment wholesale business, 46594: Machinery and equipment for electricity, wholesale business, 46599, and other wholesale business,” (1) In the case of the Plaintiff’s direct comparison of the technical support services and the wholesale business of the Plaintiff, which can be directly determined by the method (1) Four comparable companies were selected, and the difference in the degree of holding inventory assets, trade receivables, and purchase obligations was adjusted for comparability. Considering the characteristics of the Plaintiff in which inventory assets, trade receivables, and purchase obligations do not exist, it is difficult to deem that such adjustment is an ordinary net profit margin that can be generally accepted. Therefore, we do not accept the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The applicant, ARROW International CR, a.s., seeks a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court annulling the judgment of the Regional Court, and referring the case back to that court for further proceedings. The question of whether the applicant carried out business transactions in the tax year 2005/2006 with a related party (Arrow International, Inc., hereinafter referred to as ‘Arrow US’) in a manner which did not comply with the principles of normal business relations and whether, as a result, the applicant’s basis for calculating the corporate income tax rebate was unjustifiably increased and the special condition for applying the tax rebate under Article 35a(2)(d) of Act No 586/1992 Coll. was breached is decisive for the assessment of the merits of the present case, on income taxes, as in force until 31 December 2006 (‘the Income Tax Act’). Pursuant to Section 35(6) of the same Act, such an act has the effect that the entitlement to the discount ceases and the taxpayer is obliged to file additional returns for all tax periods in which the discount was claimed. The applicant was therefore also under that obligation in respect of the tax year 2002, for which it was additionally assessed by the decisions of the administrative authorities in the amount of CZK 7 505 031 (‘the tax’). According to the contents of the administrative file, the Financial Directorate concluded that the part of the applicant’s activities which consisted in the distribution of medical devices from the Arrow group to customers in the Czech Republic, whereby the goods distributed by the applicant were purchased from Arrow US, did not comply with the principles of normal business relations. On this distribution, the applicant achieved a gross profit margin of 171,45 % in the tax year 2005/2006, whereas other distributors of similar goods found by the tax authority achieved average gross profit margins ranging from 28,40 % to 80,60 %. In each case, the tax authorities found that the goods which the applicant had purchased for redistribution in the Czech Republic from Arrow US at a certain price had previously been sold by the applicant itself – as goods manufactured by it – to Arrow US at a higher price than the price at which it then bought them from Arrow US. Furthermore, the tax authorities found that the applicant’s gross profit margin in 2005/2006, the last period of the investment incentive, had increased significantly compared to the previous and subsequent tax periods, roughly three to four times. The Financial Directorate found that the distribution of Arrow medical devices in the Czech Republic was an activity separable from the applicant’s other activities (production of medical devices for the Arrow group or central purchasing of medical devices for the Arrow group from other manufacturers in the Czech Republic) from an economic point of view. The conclusion that the distribution of Arrow medical devices in the Czech Republic is separable from the applicant’s other activities was also reached by the Financial Directorate taking into account the fact that this activity is significantly less important for the applicant from an economic point of view than the other activities (the two types of distribution activities together accounted for only 6 % of the applicant’s total turnover, while the rest of the turnover was accounted for by the production of medical devices for the Arrow group). Thus, the Directorate of Finance treated the distribution of medical devices of the Arrow group in the Czech Republic as a separate activity for the applicant and as such assessed it separately in terms of the prices negotiated between the applicant and Arrow US in the context of that activity, which differed from the prices (and the gross profit margins based thereon) of other distributors of medical devices in the Czech Republic according to the criterion of the gross profit margins achieved therein. Thus, in considering whether the applicant had breached the special conditions for the application of the tax rebate pursuant to Article 35a(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, the Financial Directorate considered only the prices (and the markups based thereon) achieved in the context of that one of the applicant’s activities, since it considered that it should be regarded as an economically relatively separate activity, not sufficiently linked to the applicant’s other activities and, on the contrary, separable from them in those respects. It therefore did not accept that the applicant’s activities should be considered as a whole (the sum of all their activities taken together) in the sense that, for the purposes of examining whether there has been a breach of the conditions of that provision, it is possible for significant profits from one activity to be offset by smaller profits from other activities, so that the overall profitability of the applicant’s business remains within the limits of what is normal for other comparable operators. The Regional Court agreed with those conclusions of the tax authorities and therefore dismissed the action brought by ARROW International CR, a.s. as unfounded. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal and decided in favour of the tax authorities. “In the present case, the tax authority bore its burden of proof to establish that the complainant’s business operations involved transactions with the persons referred to in section 23(7) of the Income Tax Act which, by their specific objectively identifiable features, appeared outwardly, on the basis of rational consideration, not to correspond to the economic principles of normal business relations. First of all, it established that the three types of activity of the applicant, which could be regarded as relatively independent of each other in terms of the conditions of their technical implementation (independent in the sense that, in principle, each of them could be carried out independently in such a way that – in the abstract – it could make economic sense in itself, and that none of them necessarily required, in itself, either for production or commercial reasons, legal or otherwise, to operate ...