The licensing alternative is derived on the basis of a functional and risk analysis of the cost sharing alternative, but with a shift of the risk of cost contributions to the licensor. Accordingly, the PCT Payor’s licensing alternative consists of entering into a license with an uncontrolled party, for a term extending for what would be the duration of the CSA Activity, to license the make-or-sell rights in to-be-developed resources, capabilities, or rights of the licensor. Under such license, the licensor would undertake the commitment to bear the entire risk of intangible development that would otherwise have been shared under the CSA. Apart from any difference in the allocation of the risks of the IDA, the licensing alternative should assume contractual provisions with regard to non-overlapping divisional intangible interests, and with regard to allocations of other risks, that are consistent with the actual CSA in accordance with this section. For example, the analysis under the licensing alternative should assume a similar allocation of the risks of any existing resources, capabilities, or rights, as well as of the risks of developing other resources, capabilities, or rights that would be reasonably anticipated to contribute to exploitation within the parties’ divisions, that is consistent with the actual allocation of risks between the controlled participants as provided in the CSA in accordance with this section. Accordingly, the financial projections associated with the licensing and cost sharing alternatives are necessarily the same except for the licensing payments to be made under the licensing alternative and the cost contributions and PCT Payments to be made under the CSA ...

The PCT Payor’s cost sharing alternative corresponds to the actual CSA in accordance with this section, with the PCT Payor’s obligation to make the PCT Payments to be determined and its commitment for the duration of the IDA to bear cost contributions ...

The income method evaluates whether the amount charged in a PCT is arm’s length by reference to a controlled participant’s best realistic alternative to entering into a CSA. Under this method, the arm’s length charge for a PCT Payment will be an amount such that a controlled participant’s present value, as of the date of the PCT, of its cost sharing alternative of entering into a CSA equals the present value of its best realistic alternative. In general, the best realistic alternative of the PCT Payor to entering into the CSA would be to license intangibles to be developed by an uncontrolled licensor that undertakes the commitment to bear the entire risk of intangible development that would otherwise have been shared under the CSA. Similarly, the best realistic alternative of the PCT Payee to entering into the CSA would be to undertake the commitment to bear the entire risk of intangible development that would otherwise have been shared under the CSA and license the resulting intangibles to an uncontrolled licensee. Paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(B) through (vi) of this section describe specific applications of the income method, but do not exclude other possible applications of this method ...

Non-aggregation of transactions that are not interrelated. P enters into a license agreement with S1 that permits S1 to use a proprietary process for manufacturing product X and to sell product X to uncontrolled parties throughout a specified region. P also sells to S1 product Y, which is manufactured by P in the United States and unrelated to product X. Product Y is resold by S1 to uncontrolled parties in the specified region. There is no connection between product X and product Y other than the fact that they are both sold in the same specified region. In evaluating whether the royalty paid by S1 to P for the use of the manufacturing process for product X and the transfer prices charged for unrelated product Y are arm’s length amounts, it would not be appropriate to consider the combined effects of these separate and unrelated transactions ...

67. Company P, a resident of country A conducts a retailing business, operating several department stores in country A. Over the years, Company P has developed special know-how and a unique marketing concept for the operation of its department stores. It is assumed that the know-how and unique marketing concept constitute intangibles within the meaning of Section A of Chapter VI. After years of successfully conducting business in country A, Company P establishes a new subsidiary, Company S, in country B. Company S opens and operates new department stores in country B, obtaining profit margins substantially higher than those of otherwise comparable retailers in country B. 68. A detailed functional analysis reveals that Company S uses in its operations in country B, the same know-how and unique marketing concept as the ones used by Company P in its operations in country A. Under these circumstances, the conduct of the parties reveals that a transaction has taken place consisting in the transfer from Company P to Company S of the right to use the know-how and unique marketing concept. Under comparable circumstances, independent parties would have concluded a license agreement granting Company S the right to use in country B, the know-how and unique marketing concept developed by Company P. Accordingly, one possible remedy available to the tax administration is a transfer pricing adjustment imputing a royalty payment from Company S to Company P for the use of these intangibles ...

Where limited rights in fully developed intangibles are transferred in a licence or similar transaction, and reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions cannot be identified, a transactional profit split method can often be utilised to evaluate the respective contributions of the parties to earning the relevant income. The profit contribution of the rights in intangibles made available by the licensor or other transferor would, in such a circumstance, be one of the factors contributing to the earning of income following the transfer. However, other factors would also need to be considered. In particular, functions performed and risks assumed by the licensee/ transferee should specifically be taken into account in such an analysis. Other intangibles used by the licensor/transferor and by the licensee/transferee in their respective businesses should similarly be considered, as well as other relevant factors. Careful attention should be given in such an analysis to the limitations imposed by the terms of the transfer on the use of the intangibles by the licensee/transferee and on the rights of the licensee/transferee to use the intangibles for purposes of ongoing research and development. Further, assessing contributions of the licensee to enhancements in the value of licensed intangibles may be important. The allocation of income in such an analysis would depend on the findings of the functional analysis, including an analysis of the relevant risks assumed. It should not be assumed that all of the residual profit after functional returns would necessarily be allocated to the licensor/transferor in a profit split analysis related to a licensing arrangement ...

On 19 March 2019, the Helsinki Administrative Court issued two decisions in a tax dispute between the Finnish tax authorities and Borealis Polymers Oy and Borealis Technology Oy. The decisions have not been published. Borealis Polymers Oy and Borealis Technology Oy are subsidiaries of Borealis AG. The Austrian Group is a leading provider of polyolefin compounds for the global wire and cable industry, plastic materials for the automotive industry and for used in consumer products. The group also produces a wide range of base chemicals such as melamine, phenol, acetone, ethylene and propylene, as well as fertilizers and technical nitrogen products. The decisions cover fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 and – according to Borealis’ public statement – relates to re-characterisation of intra group licence agreements. Additional information is providedIn Borealis’ Annual report for 2018: Borealis Technology OY, Finland, for 2008 and 2010: The reassessment decision results in an increased taxable income, leading to an additional requested payment in a total amount of EUR 297,000 thousand, consisting of additional income taxes, penalties and interests. Borealis Polymers OY, Finland, for 2009: According to the reassessment decision the taxable income increases by EUR 1 42,000 thousand, leading to an additional requested payment in a total amount of EUR 62,000 thousand, consisting of additional income taxes, penalties and interests. “Tax contingencies On 5 January 2017, Borealis received two decisions of the Finnish Board of Adjustment with regard to Borealis Technology Oy. The Board of Adjustment has confirmed the Finnish tax authority’s view that the license arrangements, entered into between Borealis Technology Oy and Borealis AG in 2008 and 2010, should be re-characterised into transfers of businesses. Based on this the Board of Adjustment requests Borealis to pay EUR 297,000 thousand, comprisingtaxes, late payment interest and penalties. Borealis believes that this decision fails to properly apply Finnish and international tax law and does not adequately consider the relevant facts of the case. Therefore, Borealis has appealed this decision to the Helsinki Administrative Court on 6 March 2017, and has obtained a suspension of payment. On 11 October 2017, Borealis received a decision of the  Board of Adjustment with regard to Borealis Polymers Oy. Unlike the Finnish tax authority, the Board of Adjustment has recognised the license agreement which Borealis Polymers Oy and Borealis AG had concluded in the course of the introduction of the toll manufacturing set up in 2009. The Board of Adjustment has, however, decided that the license percentage should be increased from 1% to 2.6% and that in the course of the introduction of the toll manufacturing setup “something else of value” amounting to EUR 142,000 thousand has been transferred. The resulting payment request for the year 2009 amounts to EUR 62,000 thousand, comprising taxes, late payment interest and penalties. The decision of the Board of Adjustment did not comprise other years than 2009 and no reassessment claims for other years have been received yet. Borealis believes that this decision fails to properly apply Finnish and international tax law and does not adequately consider the relevant facts of the case. Therefore, Borealis has appealed this decision to the Helsinki Administrative Court on 15 December 2017, and has obtained a suspension of payment.Several other Borealis Group companies are currently subject to tax audits performed by their respective tax authorities. In some of the audits, specific emphasis is put on business restructuring and transfer pricing. Management’s opinion is that the Company is in compliance with all applicable regulations.“ ...

The Italian tax authorities had challenged the inter-company royalty paid by Computer Associates SPA, 30% as per contract, to it’s American parent company, registered in Delaware. According to the authorities a royalty of 7% percentage was determined to be at arm’s length and an assessment for FY 1999 was issued, where deduction of the difference in royalty payments was disallowed. The tax authorities noted the advantage for group to reduce the income of Computer Associates SPA, increasing, as a result, that of the parent company, due to the much lower taxation to which the income is subject in the US state of Delaware, where the latter operates (taxation at 36% in Italy, and 8.7% in the State of Delaware). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Computer Associates SPA and concluded that the assessment was in compliance with the law. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...