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 ...

There may be less information asymmetry between entities (that is, better visibility) in the intra- group context than in situations involving unrelated parties. Intra-group lenders may choose not to have covenants on loans to associated enterprises, partly because they are less likely to suffer information asymmetry and because it is less likely that one part of an MNE group would seek to take the same kind of action as an independent lender in the event of a covenant breach, nor would it usually seek to impose the same kind of restrictions. Where there is an absence of covenants in any written agreement between the parties, it will be appropriate to consider under Chapter I guidance whether there is, in practice, the equivalent of a maintenance covenant between the parties and the consequential impact upon the pricing of the loan ...

Maintenance covenants refer typically to financial indicators which have to be met at regular, predetermined intervals during the life of a covenanted loan. Maintenance covenants can act as an early warning system so that in the event of financial underperformance by the borrower, the borrower and/or lender can move to take remedial action at an early stage. This can help to protect unrelated lenders against information asymmetry ...

It is also important to note that although there are established approaches to estimate a credit rating for a particular group member or debt issuance, the considerations detailed above mean that a pricing approach based on the separate entity credit ratings that are derived from publicly available financial tools (see paragraph 10.72), the implicit support analysis, the difficulties of accounting for controlled transactions reliably and the presence of information asymmetry may pose challenges that, if not resolved, may result in outcomes that are not reliable ...

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 ...

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, ...