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 ...

...

No allocation will be made under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section if the following requirements are met – (1) Due to extraordinary events that were beyond the control of the controlled taxpayers and that could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time the controlled agreement was entered into, the aggregate actual profits or aggregate cost savings realized by the taxpayer are less than 80% or more than 120% of the prospective profits or cost savings; and (2) All of the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(ii) (B) or (C) of this section are otherwise satisfied ...

2. Examples (1) 18. The following examples are aimed at illustrating the practical application of a transfer pricing adjustment arising from the application of the HTVI guidance. The assumptions made about arm’s length arrangements and transfer pricing adjustments determined in the examples are intended for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as prescribing adjustments and arm’s length arrangements in actual cases or particular industries. The HTVI guidance must be applied in each case according to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. 19. These examples make the following assumptions: The transaction involves the transfer of an intangible (or rights therein) meeting the criteria for HTVI in paragraph 6.189, that is (i) no reliable comparables exist; and (ii) at the time the transaction was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions used in valuing the intangible, are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the level of ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer. The exemptions to the application of the HTVI approach contained in paragraph 6.193 are not applicable unless specifically discussed. As a result, the HTVI guidance is applicable and the tax administration may consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. A transfer pricing adjustment is warranted for the transaction. 20. In addition, the examples make reference to valuation techniques using the discounted value of projected income or cash flows derived from the exploitation of the transferred intangible. Neither this application guidance nor the examples below are intended to mandate the use of valuation techniques using the discounted value of projected income or cash flows for determining the arm’s length price of transactions involving HTVI. Therefore, references to such a valuation technique should not be interpreted as implying conclusions about the appropriateness of the technique in a particular case. The guidance on applying methods based on the discounted value of projected cash flows is contained in Chapter VI paragraphs 6.153-6.178, and this application guidance should be applied in a manner that is consistent with other relevant guidance contained in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Example 1 21. Company A, a resident of Country A, has patented a pharmaceutical compound. Company A has concluded pre-clinical tests for the compound and has successfully taken the compound through Phases I and II of the clinical trials. Company A transfers in Year 0 the patent rights to an affiliate, Company S, a resident of Country S. Company S will be responsible for the Phase III trials following the transfer. In order to determine the price for the patent on the partially developed drug, the parties made an estimation of expected income or cash flows that will be obtained upon exploitation of the drug once finalised over the remaining life of the patent. Assume the price so derived at the time of the transfer was 700 and that this was paid as a lump sum in Year 0. 22. In particular, the taxpayer assumed sales would not exceed 1,000 a year and that commercialisation would not commence until Year 6. The discount rate was determined by referring to external data analysing the risk of failure for drugs in a similar therapeutic category at the same stage of development. Even if the tax administration of Country A had been aware of these facts relating to the transfer of the patent rights in Year 0, it would have had little means of verifying the reasonableness of the taxpayer’s assumptions relating to sales. Scenario A 23. In Year 4, the tax administration of Country A audits Company A for Years 0-2 and obtains information that commercialisation in fact started during Year 3 since the Phase III trials were completed earlier than projected. Sales in Years 3 and 4 correspond to sales that were projected, at the time of the transfer, to be achieved in Years 6 and 7. The taxpayer cannot demonstrate that its original valuation took into account the possibility that sales would arise in earlier periods, and cannot demonstrate that such a development was unforeseeable. 24. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcome to determine that the valuation made at the time the transaction took place did not consider the possibility of sales occurring in earlier years. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of earlier sales resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 1,000 instead of 700. The revised net present value also takes into account the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed in relation to the HTVI by each of the parties before the transaction and reasonably anticipated, at the time of the transaction, to be performed, used or assumed by each of the parties after the transaction. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 1,000. Note that the value of 1,000 is not necessarily the net present value of the transferred rights based solely on the actual outcome (see paragraph 6 of this guidance). 25. In accordance with the approach to HTVI, the tax administration is entitled to make an adjustment to assess the additional profits of 300 in Year 0. Scenario B 26. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcomes to determine that the valuation made at the time the transaction took place, did not consider the possibility of sales occurring in earlier years. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of sales occurring in earlier years resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 800 instead of 700. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 800. Note that the value of 800 is not necessarily the net present value ...

1. Introduction 1. Action 8 of the BEPS Action Plan mandated the development of transfer pricing rules or special measures for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles aimed at preventing base erosion and profit shifting by moving intangibles among group members. 2. The outcome of this work is found in Section D.4 of the Revised Chapter VI of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, contained in the 2015 Final Report for Actions 8-10, “Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation” (BEPS TP Report) and now formally adopted as part of the Guidelines. Section D.4 addresses the treatment of hard- to-value intangibles (HTVI) for transfer pricing purposes. That Section contains an “approach consistent with the arm’s length principle that tax administrations can adopt to ensure that tax administrations can determine in which situations the pricing arrangements as set by the taxpayers are at arm’s length and are based on an appropriate weighting of the foreseeable developments or events that are relevant for the valuation of certain hard-to-value intangibles, and in which situations this is not the case” (paragraph 6.188). The HTVI approach protects tax administrations from the negative effects of information asymmetry by ensuring that tax administrations can consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. Under the approach, the taxpayer has the possibility to rebut such presumptive evidence by demonstrating the reliability of the information supporting the pricing methodology adopted at the time the controlled transaction took place. There are a number of additional exemptions that, where the conditions governing those exemptions are met, render the approach inapplicable. Importantly, where the approach applies, a tax administration is entitled to use, in evaluating the ex ante pricing arrangements, the ex post evidence about financial outcomes to inform the determination of the arm’s length pricing arrangements that would have been made between independent enterprises at the time of the transaction (see paragraph 6.192). However, the ex post evidence should not be used without considering whether the information on which the ex post results are based could or should reasonably have been considered by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into (see paragraph 6.188). 3. The BEPS TP Report mandates the development of guidance for tax administrations on the implementation of the approach to HTVI. This guidance is aimed at reaching a common understanding and practice among tax administrations on how to apply adjustments resulting from the application of the approach to HTVI. This guidance should improve consistency and reduce the risk of economic double taxation. 4. The BEPS TP Report also states that the practical application of the exemptions listed in paragraph 6.193 of the BEPS TP Report, including the measurement of materiality and time periods contained in the current exemptions, will be reviewed by 2020 in the light of further experience. 5. Tackling information asymmetry between the extensive information available to the taxpayer and the absence of information available to the tax administration, other than what the taxpayer may present, is at the heart of the reason for HTVI guidance in Section D.4 of Chapter VI of the Guidelines. When a HTVI is transferred, each of the parties involved in the transaction are likely to prepare a valuation at the time of the transaction using assumptions based on its specialised knowledge, expertise and insight into the business environment in which the intangible is developed or exploited. The problem for the tax administration is that the valuation is extremely difficult to objectively evaluate since such evaluation may be wholly based on the information provided by the taxpayer. Such information asymmetry restricts the ability of tax administrations to establish or verify, at an early stage, the developments or events that might be considered relevant for the pricing of a transaction involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, as well as the extent to which the occurrence of such developments or events, or the direction they take, might have been foreseen or reasonably foreseeable at the time the transaction was entered into. 6. The HTVI guidance aims at providing a tool for tax administrations to address this problem. In the case of intangibles which fall within the definition of HTVI found in paragraph 6.189, and under certain conditions, tax administrations are entitled to consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. Where, the actual income or cash flows are significantly higher or lower than the anticipated income or cash flows on which the pricing was based, then there is presumptive evidence (from the perspective of the tax administration) that the projected income or cash flows used in the original valuation should have been higher or lower, and that the probability-weighting of such an outcome requires scrutiny, taking into account what was known and could have been anticipated at the time of entering into the transaction involving the HTVI.. However, it would be incorrect to base the revised valuation on the actual income or cash flows without also taking into account the probability, at the time of the transaction, of the income or cash flows being achieved. 7. This evaluation of the ex ante pricing arrangements based on the ex post outcomes will necessarily consider the guidance contained in Chapters I-III and, in particular, the guidance in Chapters VI and VIII of these Guidelines. 8. In performing such evaluation, tax administrations may consider not only the ex post outcomes taken as presumptive evidence (within the limits of Section D.4 of Chapter VI of these Guidelines) about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangement, but also any other relevant information related to the HTVI transaction that becomes available to the tax administrations and that could or should reasonably have been known and considered by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into (see Section B.5 of Chapter III). 9. Importantly even if the HTVI approach is not applicable to a particular transaction, an adjustment may still be appropriate under other parts of these Guidelines, ...

3. Dispute prevention and resolution in relation to the HTVI approach 34. The purpose of this guidance is to improve consistency in the application of the HTVI approach by jurisdictions, thus reducing the risk of economic double taxation. In addition to this guidance, there may be other tools at the disposal of taxpayers to avoid instances of double taxation and enhance tax certainty in HTVI transactions. 35. In particular, Chapter IV of these Guidelines discusses in detail advance pricing arrangements (APAs), which if concluded bilaterally or multilaterally between treaty partner competent authorities provide an increased level of certainty in the jurisdictions involved, lessen the likelihood of double taxation, and may proactively prevent transfer pricing disputes. Recognising the role of APAs in preventing double taxation and providing certainty to taxpayers, paragraph 6.193 of these Guidelines prevents the application of the HTVI approach when the transfer of the HTVI is covered by a bilateral or multilateral APA in effect for the period in questions between the jurisdictions of the transferee and the transferor. 36. In this regard, the Final BEPS Report for Action 14 “Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective” (BEPS Report on Action 14) recommends as a best practice the implementation of bilateral APAs, as soon as a jurisdiction has the capacity to do so (Best Practice no. 4). Furthermore, one of the elements of the BEPS Report on Action 14 is that countries with bilateral APA programmes provide for the rollback of APAs in appropriate cases, subject to the applicable time limits where the relevant facts and circumstances in the earlier tax years are the same and subject to the verification of these facts and circumstances on audit. 37. In the event that the application of the approach to HTVI leads to double taxation, the guidance in paragraph 6.195 states that it would be important to permit resolution of such cases through access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable treaty. Accordingly, this guidance should be read in conjunction with Article 25 and its Commentary and the commitment made in the Final BEPS Report on Action 14. That Report describes the minimum standard on dispute resolution to which the members of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS have committed, which consists of specific measures to remove obstacles to an effective and efficient mutual agreement procedure. 38. In the context of the HTVI approach it is especially relevant that under Article 25 the mutual agreement procedure “can be set in motion by the taxpayer without waiting until the taxation considered by him to be not in accordance with the Convention has been charged against or notified to him. To be able to set the procedure in motion, he must, and it is sufficient if he does, establish that the actions of one or both of the Contracting States will result in such taxation, and that this taxation appears as a risk which is not merely possible but probable” (see paragraph 14 of the Commentary to Article 25 of the Model Tax Convention). This possibility under the applicable tax treaty may alleviate some of the concerns arising in relation to timing issues and reduce the instances of unresolved double taxation. 39. Finally, one of the best practices recommended in the BEPS Report on Action 14 and that is relevant for HTVI transactions is that, subject to the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 25, countries implement appropriate procedures to permit, in certain cases and after an initial tax assessment, taxpayer requests for the multiyear resolution through the MAP of recurring issues with respect to filed tax years, where the relevant facts and circumstances are the same and subject to the verification of such facts and circumstances on audit ...

In addition, where the intangible being transferred as a result of the restructuring meets the criteria for being considered a hard-to value-intangible in paragraph 6.189, then the guidance in Section D.4 of Chapter VI is applicable ...

Difficulties can arise in the context of business restructuring where the valuation of an intangible or rights in an intangible at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain. In these cases, the question arises as to 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. To this aim, the guidance in Section D.3 of Chapter VI is relevant ...

As indicated in paragraph 8.33, the guidance in Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles may equally apply in situations involving CCAs. This will be the case if the objective of the CCA is to develop a new intangible that is hard to value at the start of the development project, but also in valuing contributions involving pre-existing intangibles. Where the arrangements viewed in their totality lack commercial rationality in accordance with the criteria in Section D.2 of Chapter I, the CCA may be disregarded ...

Company A based in country A and Company B based in country B are members of an MNE group and have concluded a CCA to develop intangibles. Company B has entitlement under the CCA to exploit the intangibles in country B, and Company A has entitlement under the CCA to exploit the intangibles in the rest of the world. The parties anticipate that Company A will have 75% of total sales and Company B 25% of total sales, and that their share of expected benefits from the CCA is 75:25. Both A and B have experience of developing intangibles and have their own research and development personnel. They each control their development risk under the CCA within the terms set out in paragraphs 8.14 to 8.16. Company A contributes pre-existing intangibles to the CCA that it has recently acquired from a third-party. Company B contributes proprietary analytical techniques that it has developed to improve efficiency and speed to market. Both of these pre-existing contributions should be valued under the guidance provided in Chapters I – III and VI. Current contributions in the form of day-to-day research will be performed 80% by Company B and 20% by Company A under the guidance of a leadership team made up of personnel from both companies in the ratio 90:10 in favour of Company A. These two kinds of current contributions should separately be analysed and valued under the guidance provided in Chapters I – III and VI. When the expected benefits of a CCA consist of a right in an intangible that is hard to value at the start of the development project or if pre-existing intangibles that are hard to value are part of the contributions to the CCA project, the guidance in Sections D.3 and D.4 of Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles is applicable to value the contributions of each of the participants to the CCA ...

To the extent that a material part or all of the benefits of a CCA activity are expected to be realised in the future and not solely in the year the costs are incurred, most typically for development CCAs, the allocation of contributions will take account of projections about the participants’ shares of those benefits. The use of projections may raise problems for tax administrations in verifying the assumptions based on which projections have been made and in dealing with cases where the projections vary markedly from the actual results. These problems may be exacerbated where the CCA activity ends several years before the expected benefits actually materialise. It may be appropriate, particularly where benefits are expected to be realised in the future, for a CCA to provide for possible adjustments of proportionate shares of contributions over the term of the CCA on a prospective basis to reflect changes in relevant circumstances resulting in changes in relative shares of benefits. In situations where the actual shares of benefits differ markedly from projections, tax administrations might be prompted to enquire whether the projections made would have been considered acceptable by independent enterprises in comparable circumstances, taking into account all the developments that were reasonably foreseeable by the participants, without using hindsight. When the expected benefits of a CCA consist of a right in an intangible that is hard to value at the start of the development project or if pre-existing intangibles that are hard to value are part of the contributions to the CCA project, the guidance in Sections D.3 and D.4 of Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles is applicable to value the contributions of each of the participants to the CCA ...

It would be important to permit resolution of cases of double taxation arising from application of the approach for HTVI through access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable Treaty ...

The first exemption means that, although the ex post evidence about financial outcomes provides relevant information for tax administrations to consider the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements, in circumstances where the taxpayer can satisfactorily demonstrate what was foreseeable at the time of the transaction and reflected in the pricing assumptions, and that the developments leading to the difference between projections and outcomes arose from unforeseeable events, tax administrations will not be entitled to make adjustments to the ex ante pricing arrangements based on ex post outcomes. For example, if the evidence of financial outcomes shows that sales of products exploiting the transferred intangible reached 1 000 a year, but the ex ante pricing arrangements were based on projections that considered sales reaching a maximum of only 100 a year, then the tax administration should consider the reasons for sales reaching such higher volumes. If the higher volumes were due to, for example, an exponentially higher demand for the products incorporating the intangible caused by a natural disaster or some other unexpected event that was clearly unforeseeable at the time of the transaction or appropriately given a very low probability of occurrence, then the ex ante pricing should be recognised as being at arm’s length, unless there is evidence other than the ex post financial outcomes indicating that price setting did not take place on an arm’s length basis ...

This approach will not apply to transactions involving the transfer or use of HTVI falling within the scope of paragraph 6.189, when at least one of the following exemptions applies: i) The taxpayer provides: Details of the ex ante projections used at the time of the transfer to determine the pricing arrangements, including how risks were accounted for in calculations to determine the price (e.g. probability-weighted), and the appropriateness of its consideration of reasonably foreseeable events and other risks, and the probability of occurrence; and, Reliable evidence that any significant difference between the financial projections and actual outcomes is due to: a) unforeseeable developments or events occurring after the determination of the price that could not have been anticipated by the associated enterprises at the time of the transaction; or b) the playing out of probability of occurrence of foreseeable outcomes, and that these probabilities were not significantly overestimated or underestimated at the time of the transaction; ii) The transfer of the HTVI is covered by a bilateral or multilateral advance pricing arrangement in effect for the period in question between the countries of the transferee and the transferor. iii) Any significant difference between the financial projections and actual outcomes mentioned in i)2 above does not have the effect of reducing or increasing the compensation for the HTVI by more than 20% of the compensation determined at the time of the transaction. iv) A commercialisation period of five years has passed following the year in which the HTVI first generated unrelated party revenues for the transferee and in which commercialisation period any significant difference between the financial projections and actual outcomes mentioned in i)2 above was not greater than 20% of the projections for that period ...

In these circumstances, the tax administration can consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. However, the consideration of ex post evidence should be based on a determination that such evidence is necessary to be taken into account to assess the reliability of the information on which ex ante pricing has been based. Where the tax administration is able to confirm the reliability of the information on which ex ante pricing has been based, notwithstanding the approach described in this section, then adjustments based on ex post profit levels should not be made. In evaluating the ex ante pricing arrangements, the tax administration is entitled to use the ex post evidence about financial outcomes to inform the determination of the arm’s length pricing arrangements, including any contingent pricing arrangements, that would have been made between independent enterprises at the time of the transaction, considering the guidance in paragraph 6.185. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the guidance in Section B.5 of Chapter III, a multi-year analysis of the information for the application of this approach may be appropriate ...

For such intangibles, information asymmetry between taxpayer and tax administrations, including what information the taxpayer took into account in determining the pricing of the transaction, may be acute and may exacerbate the difficulty encountered by tax administrations in verifying the arm’s length basis on which pricing was determined for the reasons discussed in paragraph 6.186. As a result, it will prove difficult for a tax administration to perform a risk assessment for transfer pricing purposes, to evaluate the reliability of the information on which pricing has been based by the taxpayer, or to consider whether the intangible or rights in intangibles have been transferred at undervalue or overvalue compared to the arm’s length price, until ex post outcomes are known in years subsequent to the transfer ...

Transactions involving the transfer or the use of HTVI in paragraph 6.189 may exhibit one or more of the following features: The intangible is only partially developed at the time of the transfer. The intangible is not expected to be exploited commercially until several years following the transaction. The intangible does not itself fall within the definition of HTVI in paragraph 6.189 but is integral to the development or enhancement of other intangibles which fall within that definition of HTVI. The intangible is expected to be exploited in a manner that is novel at the time of the transfer and the absence of a track record of development or exploitation of similar intangibles makes projections highly uncertain. The intangible, meeting the definition of HTVI under paragraph 6.189, has been transferred to an associated enterprise for a lump sum payment. The intangible is either used in connection with or developed under a CCA or similar arrangements ...

The term hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI) covers intangibles or rights in intangibles for which, at the time of their transfer between associated enterprises, (i) no reliable comparables exist, and (ii) at the time the transactions was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions used in valuing the intangible are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the level of ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer ...

In response to the considerations discussed above, this section contains an approach consistent with the arm’s length principle that tax administrations can adopt to ensure that tax administrations can determine in which situations the pricing arrangements as set by the taxpayers are at arm’s length and are based on an appropriate weighting of the foreseeable developments or events that are relevant for the valuation of certain hard-to-value intangibles, and in which situations this is not the case. Under this approach, ex post evidence provides presumptive evidence as to the existence of uncertainties at the time of the transaction, whether the taxpayer appropriately took into account reasonably foreseeable developments or events at the time of the transaction, and the reliability of the information used ex ante in determining the transfer price for the transfer of such intangibles or rights in intangibles. Such presumptive evidence may be subject to rebuttal as stated in paragraphs 6.193 and 6.194, if it can be demonstrated that it does not affect the accurate determination of the arm’s length price. This situation should be distinguished from the situation in which hindsight is used by taking ex post results for tax assessment purposes without considering whether the information on which the ex post results are based could or should reasonably have been known and considered by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into ...

In these situations involving the transfer of an intangible or rights in an intangible ex post outcomes can provide a pointer to tax administrations about the arm’s length nature of the ex ante pricing arrangement agreed upon by the associated enterprises, and the existence of uncertainties at the time of the transaction. If there are differences between the ex ante projections and the ex post results which are not due to unforeseeable developments or events, the differences may give an indication that the pricing arrangement agreed upon by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into may not have adequately taken into account the relevant developments or events that might have been expected to affect the value of the intangible and the pricing arrangements adopted ...

A tax administration may find it difficult to establish or verify what developments or events might be considered relevant for the pricing of a transaction involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, and the extent to which the occurrence of such developments or events, or the direction they take, might have been foreseen or reasonably foreseeable at the time the transaction was entered into. The developments or events that might be of relevance for the valuation of an intangible are in most cases strongly connected to the business environment in which that intangible is developed or exploited. Therefore, the assessment of which developments or events are relevant and whether the occurrence and direction of such developments or events might have been foreseen or reasonably foreseeable requires specialised knowledge, expertise and insight into the business environment in which the intangible is developed or exploited. In addition, the assessments that are prudent to undertake when evaluating the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles in an uncontrolled transaction, may not be seen as necessary or useful for other than transfer pricing purposes by the MNE group when a transfer takes place within the group, with the result that those assessments may not be comprehensive. For example, an enterprise may transfer intangibles at an early stage of development to an associated enterprise, set a royalty rate that does not reflect the value of the intangible at the time of the transfer, and later take the position that it was not possible at the time of the transfer to predict the subsequent success of the product with full certainty. The difference between the ex ante and ex post value of the intangible would therefore be claimed by the taxpayer to be attributable to more favourable developments than anticipated. The general experience of tax administrations in these situations is that they may not have the specific business insights or access to the information to be able to examine the taxpayer’s claim and to demonstrate that the difference between the ex ante and ex post value of the intangible is due to non-arm’s length pricing assumptions made by the taxpayer. Instead, tax administrations seeking to examine the taxpayer’s claim are largely dependent on the insights and information provided by that taxpayer. These situations associated with information asymmetry between taxpayers and tax administrations can give rise to transfer pricing risk. See paragraph 6.191 ...

If independent enterprises in comparable circumstances would have agreed on the inclusion of a mechanism to address high uncertainty in valuing the intangible (e.g. a price adjustment clause), the tax administration should be permitted to determine the pricing of a transaction involving an intangible or rights in an intangible on the basis of such mechanism. Similarly, if independent enterprises in comparable circumstances would have considered subsequent events so fundamental that their occurrence would have led to a prospective renegotiation of the pricing of a transaction, such events should also lead to a modification of the pricing of the transaction between associated enterprises ...

Also, independent enterprises may determine to assume the risk of unpredictable subsequent developments. However, the occurrence of major events or developments unforeseen by the parties at the time of the transaction or the occurrence of foreseen events or developments considered to have a low probability of occurrence which change the fundamental assumptions upon which the pricing was determined may lead to renegotiation of the pricing arrangements by agreement of the parties where it is to their mutual benefit. For example, a 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 or sell the drug at all, in which case the licensee will have an interest in renegotiating the agreement. It may be the case that the licensor has an interest in keeping the drug on the market and in retaining the same licensee to manufacture or sell the drug because of the skills and expertise of the licensee or the existence of a long-standing co-operative relationship between them. Under these circumstances, the parties might prospectively renegotiate to their mutual benefit all or part of the agreement and set a lower royalty rate. In any event, whether renegotiation would take place, would depend upon all the facts and circumstances of each case ...

In other cases, independent enterprises might find that pricing based on anticipated benefits alone does not provide adequate protection against the risks posed by the high uncertainty in valuing the intangible. In such cases independent enterprises might, for instance, adopt shorter-term agreements, include price adjustment clauses in the terms of the agreement, or adopt a payment structure involving contingent payments to protect against subsequent developments that might not be sufficiently predictable. For these purposes, a contingent pricing arrangement is any pricing arrangement in which the quantum or timing of payments is dependent on contingent events, including the achievement of predetermined financial thresholds such as sales or profits, or of predetermined development stages (e.g. royalty or periodic milestone payments). For example, a royalty rate could be set to increase as the sales of the licensee increase, or additional payments could be required at such time as certain development targets are successfully achieved. For a transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles at a stage when they are not ready to be commercialised but require further development, payment terms adopted by independent parties on initial transfer might include the determination of additional contingent amounts that would become payable only on the achievement of specified milestone stages in their further development ...

Depending on the facts and circumstances, there is a variety of mechanisms that independent enterprises might adopt to address high uncertainty in the valuation of the intangible at the time of the transaction. For example, 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 subsequent developments are sufficiently predictable and therefore the projections of anticipated benefits are sufficiently reliable to fix the pricing for the transaction at the outset on the basis of those projections ...

Intangibles or rights in intangibles may have specific features complicating the search for comparables and in some cases making it difficult to determine the value of an intangible at the time of the transaction. When valuation of an intangible or rights in an intangible at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain, the question arises as to 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. To this aim, the guidance and recommended process in Section D of Chapter I and the principles in Chapter III as supplemented by the guidance in this chapter for conducting a comparability analysis are relevant ...

It should be recognised in determining and evaluating discount rates that in some instances, particularly those associated with the valuation of intangibles still in development, intangibles may be among the most risky components of a taxpayer’s business. It should also be recognised that some businesses are inherently more risky than others and some cash flow streams are inherently more volatile than others. For example, the likelihood that a projected level of research and development expense will be incurred may be higher than the likelihood that a projected level of revenues will ultimately be generated. The discount rate or rates should reflect the level of risk in the overall business and the expected volatility of the various projected cash flows under the circumstances of each individual case ...

Caution should be exercised in applying profit split approaches to determine estimates of the contributions of the parties to the creation of income in years following the transfer, or an arm’s length allocation of future income, with respect to partially developed intangibles. The contribution or value of work undertaken prior to the transfer may bear no relationship to the cost of that work. For example, a chemical compound with potentially blockbuster pharmaceutical indications might be developed in the laboratory at relatively little cost. In addition, a variety of difficult to evaluate factors would need to be taken into account in such a profit split analysis. These would include the relative riskiness and value of research contributions before and after the transfer, the relative risk and its effect on value, for other development activities carried out before and after the transfer, the appropriate amortisation rate for various contributions to the intangible value, assumptions regarding the time at which any potential new products might be introduced, and the value of contributions other than intangibles to the ultimate generation of profit. Income and cash flow projections in such situations can sometimes be especially speculative. These factors can combine to call the reliability of such an application of a profit split analysis into question. See Section D.4 on hard-to-value intangibles ...

Resolution of this question requires a careful analysis of which entity or entities in the MNE group in fact assume the economically significant risks as identified when delineating the actual transaction (see Section D. 1 of Chapter I). As this analytical framework indicates, the party actually assuming the economically significant risks may or may not be the associated enterprise contractually assuming these risks, such as the legal owner of the intangible, or may or may not be the funder of the investment. A party which is not allocated the risks that give rise to the deviation between the anticipated and actual outcomes under the principles of Sections D. 1.2.1.4 to D. 1.2.1.6 of Chapter I will not be entitled to the differences between actual and anticipated profits or required to bear losses that are caused by these differences if such risk materialises, unless these parties are performing the important functions as reflected in paragraph 6.56 or contributing to the control over the economically significant risks as established in paragraph 1.105, and it is determined that arm’s length remuneration of these functions would include a profit sharing element. In addition, consideration must be given to whether the ex ante remuneration paid to members of the MNE group for their functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed is, in fact, consistent with the arm’s length principle. Care should be taken to ascertain, for example, whether the group in fact underestimated or overestimated anticipated profits, thereby giving rise to underpayments or overpayments (determined on an ex ante basis) to some group members for their contributions. Transactions for which valuation is highly uncertain at the time of the transaction are particularly susceptible to such under or overestimations of value. This is further discussed in Section D.4 ...

The reasoning that is found at paragraphs 6.181-6.185, which provide guidance on the arm’s length pricing of transactions involving intangibles for which valuation is highly uncertain at the time of the transactions, applies by analogy to other types of transactions with valuation uncertainties. The main question is to determine whether the valuation was sufficiently uncertain at the outset that the parties at arm’s length would have required a price adjustment mechanism, or whether the change in value was so fundamental a development that it would have led to a renegotiation of the transaction. Where this is the case, the tax administration would be justified in determining the arm’s length price for the transaction on the basis of the adjustment clause or re-negotiation that would be provided at arm’s length in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. In other circumstances, where there is no reason to consider that the valuation was sufficiently uncertain at the outset that the parties would have required a price adjustment clause or would have renegotiated the terms of the agreement, there is no reason for tax administrations to make such an adjustment as it would represent an inappropriate use of hindsight. The mere existence of uncertainty should not require an ex post adjustment without a consideration of what independent enterprises would have done or agreed between them ...

The question arises whether and if so how to take account in the transfer pricing analysis of future events that were unpredictable at the time of the testing of a controlled transaction, in particular where valuation at that time was highly uncertain. 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 ...

As set out in paragraphs 6.148 to 6.149 and 6.152, in some cases, the transactional profit split method may be the most appropriate method for a transfer of fully developed intangibles (including rights in intangibles) where it is not possible to identify reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions. The transactional profit split method may also be appropriate for transfers of partially developed intangibles. Example 5 in Annex II to Chapter II provides an illustration. See paragraphs 6.150 to 6.151. Where the intangibles transferred are hard-to-value intangibles, the provisions of Section D.4 of Chapter VI should be considered ...

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 ...

A new report from the OECD contains guidance for tax administration on the application of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI), under BEPS Action 8. This new guidance present the principles that should underlie the application of the HTVI approach by tax administration, with the aim of improving consistency and reduce the risk of economic double taxation. The new guidance also includes a number of examples clarifying the application of the HTVI approach in different scenarios; and addresses the interaction between the HTVI approach and the access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable tax treaty ...

This June 2018 report contains guidance for tax administrations on the application of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI). The HTVI approach was adopted as part of the Actions 8-10 Report in 2015 and it was subsequently incorporated in Chapter VI of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. The guidance  is aimed at reaching a common understanding and practice among tax administrations on how to apply adjustments resulting from the application of the approach to HTVI. The guidance includes a number of examples to clarify the application of the HTVI approach in different scenarios and addresses the interaction between the HTVI approach and the access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable tax treaty. This guidance has formally been incorporated into the Transfer Pricing Guidelines as an annex to Chapter VI ...

3. Dispute prevention and resolution in relation to the HTVI approach 34. The purpose of this guidance is to improve consistency in the application of the HTVI approach by jurisdictions, thus reducing the risk of economic double taxation. In addition to this guidance, there may be other tools at the disposal of taxpayers to avoid instances of double taxation and enhance tax certainty in HTVI transactions. 35. In particular, Chapter IV of these Guidelines discusses in detail advance pricing arrangements (APAs), which if concluded bilaterally or multilaterally between treaty partner competent authorities provide an increased level of certainty in the jurisdictions involved, lessen the likelihood of double taxation, and may proactively prevent transfer pricing disputes. Recognising the role of APAs in preventing double taxation and providing certainty to taxpayers, paragraph 6.193 of these Guidelines prevents the application of the HTVI approach when the transfer of the HTVI is covered by a bilateral or multilateral APA in effect for the period in questions between the jurisdictions of the transferee and the transferor. 36. In this regard, the Final BEPS Report for Action 14 “Making Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective” (BEPS Report on Action 14) recommends as a best practice the implementation of bilateral APAs, as soon as a jurisdiction has the capacity to do so (Best Practice no. 4). Furthermore, one of the elements of the BEPS Report on Action 14 is that countries with bilateral APA programmes provide for the rollback of APAs in appropriate cases, subject to the applicable time limits where the relevant facts and circumstances in the earlier tax years are the same and subject to the verification of these facts and circumstances on audit. 37. In the event that the application of the approach to HTVI leads to double taxation, the guidance in paragraph 6.195 states that it would be important to permit resolution of such cases through access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable treaty. Accordingly, this guidance should be read in conjunction with Article 25 and its Commentary and the commitment made in the Final BEPS Report on Action 14. That Report describes the minimum standard on dispute resolution to which the OECD and G20 countries have committed, which consists of specific measures to remove obstacles to an effective and efficient mutual agreement procedure. 38. In the context of the HTVI approach it is especially relevant that under Article 25 the mutual agreement procedure “can be set in motion by the taxpayer without waiting until the taxation considered by him to be not in accordance with the Convention has been charged against or notified to him. To be able to set the procedure in motion, he must, and it is sufficient if he does, establish that the actions of one or both of the Contracting States will result in such taxation, and that this taxation appears as a risk which is not merely possible but probable” (see paragraph 14 of the Commentary to Article 25 of the Model Tax Convention). This possibility under the applicable tax treaty may alleviate some of the concerns arising in relation to timing issues and reduce the instances of unresolved double taxation. 39. Finally, one of the best practices recommended in the BEPS Report on Action 14 and that is relevant for HTVI transactions is that, subject to the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 25, countries implement appropriate procedures to permit, in certain cases and after an initial tax assessment, taxpayer requests for the multiyear resolution through the MAP of recurring issues with respect to filed tax years, where the relevant facts and circumstances are the same and subject to the verification of such facts and circumstances on audit ...

2. Examples (1) 18. The following examples are aimed at illustrating the practical application of a transfer pricing adjustment arising from the application of the HTVI guidance. The assumptions made about arm’s length arrangements and transfer pricing adjustments determined in the examples are intended for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as prescribing adjustments and arm’s length arrangements in actual cases or particular industries. The HTVI guidance must be applied in each case according to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. 19. These examples make the following assumptions: The transaction involves the transfer of an intangible (or rights therein) meeting the criteria for HTVI in paragraph 6.189, that is (i) no reliable comparables exist; and (ii) at the time the transaction was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions used in valuing the intangible, are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the level of ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer. The exemptions to the application of the HTVI approach contained in paragraph 6.193 are not applicable unless specifically discussed. As a result, the HTVI guidance is applicable and the tax administration may consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. A transfer pricing adjustment is warranted for the transaction. 20. In addition, the examples make reference to valuation techniques using the discounted value of projected income or cash flows derived from the exploitation of the transferred intangible. Neither this application guidance nor the examples below are intended to mandate the use of valuation techniques using the discounted value of projected income or cash flows for determining the arm’s length price of transactions involving HTVI. Therefore, references to such a valuation technique should not be interpreted as implying conclusions about the appropriateness of the technique in a particular case. The guidance on applying methods based on the discounted value of projected cash flows is contained in Chapter VI paragraphs 6.153-6.178, and this application guidance should be applied in a manner that is consistent with other relevant guidance contained in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Example 1 21. Company A, a resident of Country A, has patented a pharmaceutical compound. Company A has concluded pre-clinical tests for the compound and has successfully taken the compound through Phases I and II of the clinical trials. Company A transfers in Year 0 the patent rights to an affiliate, Company S, a resident of Country S. Company S will be responsible for the Phase III trials following the transfer. In order to determine the price for the patent on the partially developed drug, the parties made an estimation of expected income or cash flows that will be obtained upon exploitation of the drug once finalised over the remaining life of the patent. Assume the price so derived at the time of the transfer was 700 and that this was paid as a lump sum in Year 0. 22. In particular, the taxpayer assumed sales would not exceed 1,000 a year and that commercialisation would not commence until Year 6. The discount rate was determined by referring to external data analysing the risk of failure for drugs in a similar therapeutic category at the same stage of development. Even if the tax administration of Country A had been aware of these facts relating to the transfer of the patent rights in Year 0, it would have had little means of verifying the reasonableness of the taxpayer’s assumptions relating to sales. Scenario A 23. In Year 4, the tax administration of Country A audits Company A for Years 0-2 and obtains information that commercialisation in fact started during Year 3 since the Phase III trials were completed earlier than projected. Sales in Years 3 and 4 correspond to sales that were projected, at the time of the transfer, to be achieved in Years 6 and 7. The taxpayer cannot demonstrate that its original valuation took into account the possibility that sales would arise in earlier periods, and cannot demonstrate that such a development was unforeseeable. 24. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcome to determine that the valuation made at the time the transaction took place did not consider the possibility of sales occurring in earlier years. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of earlier sales resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 1,000 instead of 700. The revised net present value also takes into account the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed in relation to the HTVI by each of the parties before the transaction and reasonably anticipated, at the time of the transaction, to be performed, used or assumed by each of the parties after the transaction. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 1,000. Note that the value of 1,000 is not necessarily the net present value of the transferred rights based solely on the actual outcome (see paragraph 6 of this guidance). 25. In accordance with the approach to HTVI, the tax administration is entitled to make an adjustment to assess the additional profits of 300 in Year 0. Scenario B 26. The tax administration uses the presumptive evidence provided by the ex post outcomes to determine that the valuation made at the time the transaction took place, did not consider the possibility of sales occurring in earlier years. The taxpayer’s original valuation is revised to include the appropriately risk-adjusted possibility of sales occurring in earlier years resulting in a revised net present value of the drug in Year 0 of 800 instead of 700. Therefore, assume for the purposes of the example that the arm’s length price anticipated in Year 0 should have been 800. Note that the value of 800 is not necessarily the net present value ...

1. Introduction 1. Action 8 of the BEPS Action Plan mandated the development of transfer pricing rules or special measures for transfers of hard-to-value intangibles aimed at preventing base erosion and profit shifting by moving intangibles among group members. 2. The outcome of this work is found in Section D.4 of the Revised Chapter VI of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, contained in the 2015 Final Report for Actions 8-10, “Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation” (BEPS TP Report) and now formally adopted as part of the Guidelines. Section D.4 addresses the treatment of hard- to-value intangibles (HTVI) for transfer pricing purposes. That Section contains an “approach consistent with the arm’s length principle that tax administrations can adopt to ensure that tax administrations can determine in which situations the pricing arrangements as set by the taxpayers are at arm’s length and are based on an appropriate weighting of the foreseeable developments or events that are relevant for the valuation of certain hard-to-value intangibles, and in which situations this is not the case” (paragraph 6.188). The HTVI approach protects tax administrations from the negative effects of information asymmetry by ensuring that tax administrations can consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. Under the approach, the taxpayer has the possibility to rebut such presumptive evidence by demonstrating the reliability of the information supporting the pricing methodology adopted at the time the controlled transaction took place. There are a number of additional exemptions that, where the conditions governing those exemptions are met, render the approach inapplicable. Importantly, where the approach applies, a tax administration is entitled to use, in evaluating the ex ante pricing arrangements, the ex post evidence about financial outcomes to inform the determination of the arm’s length pricing arrangements that would have been made between independent enterprises at the time of the transaction (see paragraph 6.192). However, the ex post evidence should not be used without considering whether the information on which the ex post results are based could or should reasonably have been considered by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into (see paragraph 6.188). 3. The BEPS TP Report mandates the development of guidance for tax administrations on the implementation of the approach to HTVI. This guidance is aimed at reaching a common understanding and practice among tax administrations on how to apply adjustments resulting from the application of the approach to HTVI. This guidance should improve consistency and reduce the risk of economic double taxation. 4. The BEPS TP Report also states that the practical application of the exemptions listed in paragraph 6.193 of the BEPS TP Report, including the measurement of materiality and time periods contained in the current exemptions, will be reviewed by 2020 in the light of further experience. 5. Tackling information asymmetry between the extensive information available to the taxpayer and the absence of information available to the tax administration, other than what the taxpayer may present, is at the heart of the reason for HTVI guidance in Section D.4 of Chapter VI of the Guidelines. When a HTVI is transferred, each of the parties involved in the transaction are likely to prepare a valuation at the time of the transaction using assumptions based on its specialised knowledge, expertise and insight into the business environment in which the intangible is developed or exploited. The problem for the tax administration is that the valuation is extremely difficult to objectively evaluate since such evaluation may be wholly based on the information provided by the taxpayer. Such information asymmetry restricts the ability of tax administrations to establish or verify, at an early stage, the developments or events that might be considered relevant for the pricing of a transaction involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, as well as the extent to which the occurrence of such developments or events, or the direction they take, might have been foreseen or reasonably foreseeable at the time the transaction was entered into. 6. The HTVI guidance aims at providing a tool for tax administrations to address this problem. In the case of intangibles which fall within the definition of HTVI found in paragraph 6.189, and under certain conditions, tax administrations are entitled to consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. Where, the actual income or cash flows are significantly higher or lower than the anticipated income or cash flows on which the pricing was based, then there is presumptive evidence (from the perspective of the tax administration) that the projected income or cash flows used in the original valuation should have been higher or lower, and that the probability-weighting of such an outcome requires scrutiny, taking into account what was known and could have been anticipated at the time of entering into the transaction involving the HTVI.. However, it would be incorrect to base the revised valuation on the actual income or cash flows without also taking into account the probability, at the time of the transaction, of the income or cash flows being achieved. 7. This evaluation of the ex ante pricing arrangements based on the ex post outcomes will necessarily consider the guidance contained in Chapters I-III and, in particular, the guidance in Chapters VI and VIII of these Guidelines. 8. In performing such evaluation, tax administrations may consider not only the ex post outcomes taken as presumptive evidence (within the limits of Section D.4 of Chapter VI of these Guidelines) about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangement, but also any other relevant information related to the HTVI transaction that becomes available to the tax administrations and that could or should reasonably have been known and considered by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into (see Section B.5 of Chapter III). 9. Importantly even if the HTVI approach is not applicable to a particular transaction, an adjustment may still be appropriate under other parts of these Guidelines, ...

As set out in paragraphs 6.148 to 6.149 and 6.152, in some cases, the transactional profit split method may be the most appropriate method for a transfer of fully developed intangibles (including rights in intangibles) where it is not possible to identify reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions. The transactional profit split method may also be appropriate for transfers of partially developed intangibles. Example 5 in Annex II to Chapter II provides an illustration. See paragraphs 6.150 to 6.151. Where the intangibles transferred are hard-to-value intangibles, the provisions of section D.4 of Chapter VI should be considered ...

In addition, where the intangible being transferred as a result of the restructuring meets the criteria for being considered a hard-to value-intangible in paragraph 6.189, then the guidance in Section D.4 of Chapter VI is applicable ...

Difficulties can arise in the context of business restructuring where the valuation of an intangible or rights in an intangible at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain. In these cases, the question arises as to 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. To this aim, the guidance in Section D.3 of Chapter VI is relevant ...

As indicated in paragraph 8.33, the guidance in Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles may equally apply in situations involving CCAs. This will be the case if the objective of the CCA is to develop a new intangible that is hard to value at the start of the development project, but also in valuing contributions involving pre-existing intangibles. Where the arrangements viewed in their totality lack commercial rationality in accordance with the criteria in Section D.2 of Chapter I, the CCA may be disregarded ...

Company A based in country A and Company B based in country B are members of an MNE group and have concluded a CCA to develop intangibles. Company B has entitlement under the CCA to exploit the intangibles in country B, and Company A has entitlement under the CCA to exploit the intangibles in the rest of the world. The parties anticipate that Company A will have 75% of total sales and Company B 25% of total sales, and that their share of expected benefits from the CCA is 75:25. Both A and B have experience of developing intangibles and have their own research and development personnel. They each control their development risk under the CCA within the terms set out in paragraphs 8.14 to 8.16. Company A contributes pre-existing intangibles to the CCA that it has recently acquired from a third-party. Company B contributes proprietary analytical techniques that it has developed to improve efficiency and speed to market. Both of these pre-existing contributions should be valued under the guidance provided in Chapters I – III and VI. Current contributions in the form of day-to-day research will be performed 80% by Company B and 20% by Company A under the guidance of a leadership team made up of personnel from both companies in the ratio 90:10 in favour of Company A. These two kinds of current contributions should separately be analysed and valued under the guidance provided in Chapters I – III and VI. When the expected benefits of a CCA consist of a right in an intangible that is hard to value at the start of the development project or if pre-existing intangibles that are hard to value are part of the contributions to the CCA project, the guidance in Sections D.3 and D.4 of Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles is applicable to value the contributions of each of the participants to the CCA ...

To the extent that a material part or all of the benefits of a CCA activity are expected to be realised in the future and not solely in the year the costs are incurred, most typically for development CCAs, the allocation of contributions will take account of projections about the participants’ shares of those benefits. The use of projections may raise problems for tax administrations in verifying the assumptions based on which projections have been made and in dealing with cases where the projections vary markedly from the actual results. These problems may be exacerbated where the CCA activity ends several years before the expected benefits actually materialise. It may be appropriate, particularly where benefits are expected to be realised in the future, for a CCA to provide for possible adjustments of proportionate shares of contributions over the term of the CCA on a prospective basis to reflect changes in relevant circumstances resulting in changes in relative shares of benefits. In situations where the actual shares of benefits differ markedly from projections, tax administrations might be prompted to enquire whether the projections made would have been considered acceptable by independent enterprises in comparable circumstances, taking into account all the developments that were reasonably foreseeable by the participants, without using hindsight. When the expected benefits of a CCA consist of a right in an intangible that is hard to value at the start of the development project or if pre-existing intangibles that are hard to value are part of the contributions to the CCA project, the guidance in Sections D.3 and D.4 of Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles is applicable to value the contributions of each of the participants to the CCA ...

It would be important to permit resolution of cases of double taxation arising from application of the approach for HTVI through access to the mutual agreement procedure under the applicable Treaty ...

The first exemption means that, although the ex post evidence about financial outcomes provides relevant information for tax administrations to consider the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements, in circumstances where the taxpayer can satisfactorily demonstrate what was foreseeable at the time of the transaction and reflected in the pricing assumptions, and that the developments leading to the difference between projections and outcomes arose from unforeseeable events, tax administrations will not be entitled to make adjustments to the ex ante pricing arrangements based on ex post outcomes. For example, if the evidence of financial outcomes shows that sales of products exploiting the transferred intangible reached 1 000 a year, but the ex ante pricing arrangements were based on projections that considered sales reaching a maximum of only 100 a year, then the tax administration should consider the reasons for sales reaching such higher volumes. If the higher volumes were due to, for example, an exponentially higher demand for the products incorporating the intangible caused by a natural disaster or some other unexpected event that was clearly unforeseeable at the time of the transaction or appropriately given a very low probability of occurrence, then the ex ante pricing should be recognised as being at arm’s length, unless there is evidence other than the ex post financial outcomes indicating that price setting did not take place on an arm’s length basis ...

This approach will not apply to transactions involving the transfer or use of HTVI falling within the scope of paragraph 6.189, when at least one of the following exemptions applies: i) The taxpayer provides: Details of the ex ante projections used at the time of the transfer to determine the pricing arrangements, including how risks were accounted for in calculations to determine the price (e.g. probability-weighted), and the appropriateness of its consideration of reasonably foreseeable events and other risks, and the probability of occurrence; and, Reliable evidence that any significant difference between the financial projections and actual outcomes is due to: a) unforeseeable developments or events occurring after the determination of the price that could not have been anticipated by the associated enterprises at the time of the transaction; or b) the playing out of probability of occurrence of foreseeable outcomes, and that these probabilities were not significantly overestimated or underestimated at the time of the transaction; ii) The transfer of the HTVI is covered by a bilateral or multilateral advance pricing arrangement in effect for the period in question between the countries of the transferee and the transferor. iii) Any significant difference between the financial projections and actual outcomes mentioned in i)2 above does not have the effect of reducing or increasing the compensation for the HTVI by more than 20% of the compensation determined at the time of the transaction. iv) A commercialisation period of five years has passed following the year in which the HTVI first generated unrelated party revenues for the transferee and in which commercialisation period any significant difference between the financial projections and actual outcomes mentioned in i)2 above was not greater than 20% of the projections for that period ...

In these circumstances, the tax administration can consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. However, the consideration of ex post evidence should be based on a determination that such evidence is necessary to be taken into account to assess the reliability of the information on which ex ante pricing has been based. Where the tax administration is able to confirm the reliability of the information on which ex ante pricing has been based, notwithstanding the approach described in this section, then adjustments based on ex post profit levels should not be made. In evaluating the ex ante pricing arrangements, the tax administration is entitled to use the ex post evidence about financial outcomes to inform the determination of the arm’s length pricing arrangements, including any contingent pricing arrangements, that would have been made between independent enterprises at the time of the transaction, considering the guidance in paragraph 6.185. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the guidance in Section B.5 of Chapter III, a multi-year analysis of the information for the application of this approach may be appropriate ...

For such intangibles, information asymmetry between taxpayer and tax administrations, including what information the taxpayer took into account in determining the pricing of the transaction, may be acute and may exacerbate the difficulty encountered by tax administrations in verifying the arm’s length basis on which pricing was determined for the reasons discussed in paragraph 6.186. As a result, it will prove difficult for a tax administration to perform a risk assessment for transfer pricing purposes, to evaluate the reliability of the information on which pricing has been based by the taxpayer, or to consider whether the intangible or rights in intangibles have been transferred at undervalue or overvalue compared to the arm’s length price, until ex post outcomes are known in years subsequent to the transfer ...

Transactions involving the transfer or the use of HTVI in paragraph 6.189 may exhibit one or more of the following features: The intangible is only partially developed at the time of the transfer. The intangible is not expected to be exploited commercially until several years following the transaction. The intangible does not itself fall within the definition of HTVI in paragraph 6.189 but is integral to the development or enhancement of other intangibles which fall within that definition of HTVI. The intangible is expected to be exploited in a manner that is novel at the time of the transfer and the absence of a track record of development or exploitation of similar intangibles makes projections highly uncertain. The intangible, meeting the definition of HTVI under paragraph 6.189, has been transferred to an associated enterprise for a lump sum payment. The intangible is either used in connection with or developed under a CCA or similar arrangements ...

The term hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI) covers intangibles or rights in intangibles for which, at the time of their transfer between associated enterprises, (i) no reliable comparables exist, and (ii) at the time the transactions was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions used in valuing the intangible are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the level of ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer ...

In response to the considerations discussed above, this section contains an approach consistent with the arm’s length principle that tax administrations can adopt to ensure that tax administrations can determine in which situations the pricing arrangements as set by the taxpayers are at arm’s length and are based on an appropriate weighting of the foreseeable developments or events that are relevant for the valuation of certain hard-to¬value intangibles, and in which situations this is not the case. Under this approach, ex post evidence provides presumptive evidence as to the existence of uncertainties at the time of the transaction, whether the taxpayer appropriately took into account reasonably foreseeable developments or events at the time of the transaction, and the reliability of the information used ex ante in determining the transfer price for the transfer of such intangibles or rights in intangibles. Such presumptive evidence may be subject to rebuttal as stated in paragraphs 6.193 and 6.194, if it can be demonstrated that it does not affect the accurate determination of the arm’s length price. This situation should be distinguished from the situation in which hindsight is used by taking ex post results for tax assessment purposes without considering whether the information on which the ex post results are based could or should reasonably have been known and considered by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into ...

In these situations involving the transfer of an intangible or rights in an intangible ex post outcomes can provide a pointer to tax administrations about the arm’s length nature of the ex ante pricing arrangement agreed upon by the associated enterprises, and the existence of uncertainties at the time of the transaction. If there are differences between the ex ante projections and the ex post results which are not due to unforeseeable developments or events, the differences may give an indication that the pricing arrangement agreed upon by the associated enterprises at the time the transaction was entered into may not have adequately taken into account the relevant developments or events that might have been expected to affect the value of the intangible and the pricing arrangements adopted ...

A tax administration may find it difficult to establish or verify what developments or events might be considered relevant for the pricing of a transaction involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, and the extent to which the occurrence of such developments or events, or the direction they take, might have been foreseen or reasonably foreseeable at the time the transaction was entered into. The developments or events that might be of relevance for the valuation of an intangible are in most cases strongly connected to the business environment in which that intangible is developed or exploited. Therefore, the assessment of which developments or events are relevant and whether the occurrence and direction of such developments or events might have been foreseen or reasonably foreseeable requires specialised knowledge, expertise and insight into the business environment in which the intangible is developed or exploited. In addition, the assessments that are prudent to undertake when evaluating the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles in an uncontrolled transaction, may not be seen as necessary or useful for other than transfer pricing purposes by the MNE group when a transfer takes place within the group, with the result that those assessments may not be comprehensive. For example, an enterprise may transfer intangibles at an early stage of development to an associated enterprise, set a royalty rate that does not reflect the value of the intangible at the time of the transfer, and later take the position that it was not possible at the time of the transfer to predict the subsequent success of the product with full certainty. The difference between the ex ante and ex post value of the intangible would therefore be claimed by the taxpayer to be attributable to more favourable developments than anticipated. The general experience of tax administrations in these situations is that they may not have the specific business insights or access to the information to be able to examine the taxpayer’s claim and to demonstrate that the difference between the ex ante and ex post value of the intangible is due to non-arm’s length pricing assumptions made by the taxpayer. Instead, tax administrations seeking to examine the taxpayer’s claim are largely dependent on the insights and information provided by that taxpayer. These situations associated with information asymmetry between taxpayers and tax administrations can give rise to transfer pricing risk. See paragraph 6.191 ...

If independent enterprises in comparable circumstances would have agreed on the inclusion of a mechanism to address high uncertainty in valuing the intangible (e.g. a price adjustment clause), the tax administration should be permitted to determine the pricing of a transaction involving an intangible or rights in an intangible on the basis of such mechanism. Similarly, if independent enterprises in comparable circumstances would have considered subsequent events so fundamental that their occurrence would have led to a prospective renegotiation of the pricing of a transaction, such events should also lead to a modification of the pricing of the transaction between associated enterprises ...

Also, independent enterprises may determine to assume the risk of unpredictable subsequent developments. However, the occurrence of major events or developments unforeseen by the parties at the time of the transaction or the occurrence of foreseen events or developments considered to have a low probability of occurrence which change the fundamental assumptions upon which the pricing was determined may lead to renegotiation of the pricing arrangements by agreement of the parties where it is to their mutual benefit. For example, a 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 or sell the drug at all, in which case the licensee will have an interest in renegotiating the agreement. It may be the case that the licensor has an interest in keeping the drug on the market and in retaining the same licensee to manufacture or sell the drug because of the skills and expertise of the licensee or the existence of a long-standing co-operative relationship between them. Under these circumstances, the parties might prospectively renegotiate to their mutual benefit all or part of the agreement and set a lower royalty rate. In any event, whether renegotiation would take place, would depend upon all the facts and circumstances of each case ...

In other cases, independent enterprises might find that pricing based on anticipated benefits alone does not provide adequate protection against the risks posed by the high uncertainty in valuing the intangible. In such cases independent enterprises might, for instance, adopt shorter-term agreements, include price adjustment clauses in the terms of the agreement, or adopt a payment structure involving contingent payments to protect against subsequent developments that might not be sufficiently predictable. For these purposes, a contingent pricing arrangement is any pricing arrangement in which the quantum or timing of payments is dependent on contingent events, including the achievement of predetermined financial thresholds such as sales or profits, or of predetermined development stages (e.g. royalty or periodic milestone payments). For example, a royalty rate could be set to increase as the sales of the licensee increase, or additional payments could be required at such time as certain development targets are successfully achieved. For a transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles at a stage when they are not ready to be commercialised but require further development, payment terms adopted by independent parties on initial transfer might include the determination of additional contingent amounts that would become payable only on the achievement of specified milestone stages in their further development ...

Depending on the facts and circumstances, there is a variety of mechanisms that independent enterprises might adopt to address high uncertainty in the valuation of the intangible at the time of the transaction. For example, 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 subsequent developments are sufficiently predictable and therefore the projections of anticipated benefits are sufficiently reliable to fix the pricing for the transaction at the outset on the basis of those projections ...

Intangibles or rights in intangibles may have specific features complicating the search for comparables and in some cases making it difficult to determine the value of an intangible at the time of the transaction. When valuation of an intangible or rights in an intangible at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain, the question arises as to 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. To this aim, the guidance and recommended process in Section D of Chapter I and the principles in Chapter III as supplemented by the guidance in this chapter for conducting a comparability analysis are relevant ...

It should be recognised in determining and evaluating discount rates that in some instances, particularly those associated with the valuation of intangibles still in development, intangibles may be among the most risky components of a taxpayer’s business. It should also be recognised that some businesses are inherently more risky than others and some cash flow streams are inherently more volatile than others. For example, the likelihood that a projected level of research and development expense will be incurred may be higher than the likelihood that a projected level of revenues will ultimately be generated. The discount rate or rates should reflect the level of risk in the overall business and the expected volatility of the various projected cash flows under the circumstances of each individual case ...

Resolution of this question requires a careful analysis of which entity or entities in the MNE group in fact assume the economically significant risks as identified when delineating the actual transaction (see Section D. 1 of Chapter I). As this analytical framework indicates, the party actually assuming the economically significant risks may or may not be the associated enterprise contractually assuming these risks, such as the legal owner of the intangible, or may or may not be the funder of the investment. A party which is not allocated the risks that give rise to the deviation between the anticipated and actual outcomes under the principles of Sections D. 1.2.1.4 to D. 1.2.1.6 of Chapter I will not be entitled to the differences between actual and anticipated profits or required to bear losses that are caused by these differences if such risk materialises, unless these parties are performing the important functions as reflected in paragraph 6.56 or contributing to the control over the economically significant risks as established in paragraph 1.105, and it is determined that arm’s length remuneration of these functions would include a profit sharing element. In addition, consideration must be given to whether the ex ante remuneration paid to members of the MNE group for their functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed is, in fact, consistent with the arm’s length principle. Care should be taken to ascertain, for example, whether the group in fact underestimated or overestimated anticipated profits, thereby giving rise to underpayments or overpayments (determined on an ex ante basis) to some group members for their contributions. Transactions for which valuation is highly uncertain at the time of the transaction are particularly susceptible to such under or overestimations of value. This is further discussed in Section D.4 ...

The reasoning that is found at paragraphs 6.181-6.185, which provide guidance on the arm’s length pricing of transactions involving intangibles for which valuation is highly uncertain at the time of the transactions, applies by analogy to other types of transactions with valuation uncertainties. The main question is to determine whether the valuation was sufficiently uncertain at the outset that the parties at arm’s length would have required a price adjustment mechanism, or whether the change in value was so fundamental a development that it would have led to a renegotiation of the transaction. Where this is the case, the tax administration would be justified in determining the arm’s length price for the transaction on the basis of the adjustment clause or re-negotiation that would be provided at arm’s length in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. In other circumstances, where there is no reason to consider that the valuation was sufficiently uncertain at the outset that the parties would have required a price adjustment clause or would have renegotiated the terms of the agreement, there is no reason for tax administrations to make such an adjustment as it would represent an inappropriate use of hindsight. The mere existence of uncertainty should not require an ex post adjustment without a consideration of what independent enterprises would have done or agreed between them ...

The question arises whether and if so how to take account in the transfer pricing analysis of future events that were unpredictable at the time of the testing of a controlled transaction, in particular where valuation at that time was highly uncertain. 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 ...

This case is about a IP sale-and-license-back arrangement. The taxpayer acquired the shares in BV Z (holding). BV Z owns the shares in BV A and BV B (the three BVs form a fiscal unity under the CITA). BV A produces and sells shoes. In 1993, under a self-proclaimed protection clause, BV A sells the trademark of the shoes to BV C, which is also part of the fiscal unity. The protection clause was supposedly intended to protect the trademark in case of default of BV A. Taxpayer had created BV C prior to the sale of the trademark. In 1994, the taxpayer entered into a licensing agreement with BV C: the taxpayer pays NLG 2 to BV C per pair of shoes sold. Next, BV C is then moved to the Netherlands Antilles, which results in the end of the fiscal unity as of January 1, 1994. The roundtrip arrangement, the sale of an intangible and the subsequent payment of licensing fees, is now complete. In 1999 the royalty for use of the trademark was increased from fl. 2 per pair of shoes to fl. 2.50 per pair, resulting in annual royalty payments of fl. 300.000 from A BV to B BV. The Court disallowed tax deductions for the royalty payments. The payments were not proven to be at arm’s length. B BV had no employees to manage the trademarks. There were no business reasons for the transactions, only a tax motive. Hence the sale-and-license back arrangement was disregarded for tax purposes. Also, the licensing agreement were not found to produce effective protection of the brand and was therefore also considered part of a tax planning plan. Taxpayers often seek to maximise differences in tax rates through selling intangibles to a low- tax country and subsequently paying royalties to this country for the use of these intangibles, thereby decreasing the tax-base in the high-tax country. The arm’s length principle requires taxpayers to have valid business purposes for such transactions and requires them to make sure that the royalties are justified – why would an independent company pay royalties to a foreign company for an intangible it previously owned?’ To adress such situations a decree was issued in the Netherlands on August 11, 2004. The decree provided additional rules for transfers of intangibles when the value is uncertain at the time of the transaction (HTVI). It refers to situations in which an intangible is being transferred to a foreign group company and where this company furthermore licenses the intangible back to the transferor and/or related Dutch companies of this company. In these situations a price adjustment clause is deemed to have been entered. The deemed price adjustment clause prevents a sale at a very low price with a consequent high royalty fee to drain the Dutch tax base. Through the price adjustment clause the Dutch tax authorities are guaranteed a fair price for the sale of the intangible. Click here for translation ...

In a situation where a new intangible asset has been developed and is transferred to an affiliate at a time when its success is not yet sufficiently apparent, for example, because the intangible asset has not yet generated revenues and there are significant uncertainties in estimating future revenues, the valuation at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain and the inclusion of a price adjustment clause makes sense. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

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 recognized 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 ...

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) ...

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 ...

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 ...