The case concerned the valuation of intangible assets transferred from a Danish company to an affiliated foreign company. The Tax Tribunal basically agreed with the valuation of the expert appraisers according to the DCF model, but corrected the assumptions with regard to revenue growth in the budget period and the value of the tax advantage. Finally, the Tax Tribunal found that the value of product Y should be included in the valuation, as all rights to product Y were covered by the intra-group transfer. Excerpts “It was the judges’ view that the turnover growth for the budget period should be set in accordance with Company H’s own budgets prepared prior to the transfer. This was in accordance with TPG 2017 paragraphs 6.163 and 6.164 and SKM2020.30.LSR.” “With reference to OECD TPG section 6.178 on adjustment for tax consequences for the buyer and seller and SKM2020.30.LSR, the National Tax Tribunal ruled that the full value of the buyer’s tax asset should be added to the value of the intangible assets when valuing according to the DCF model.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

(i) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Eurodrug’s actual profits earned were much higher than the projected profits, as follows: Profit projections Actual profits Year 1 200 250 Year 2 250 500 Year 3 500 800 Year 4 350 700 Year 5 100 600 Total 1400 2850 (ii) In examining USdrug’s tax return for Year 5, the district director considers the actual profits realized by Eurodrug in Year 5, and all past years. Accordingly, although Years 1 through 4 may be closed under the statute of limitations, for purposes of determining whether an adjustment should be made with respect to the royalty rate in Year 5 with respect to Nosplit, the district director aggregates the actual profits from those years with the profits of Year 5. However, the district director will make an adjustment, if any, only with respect to Year 5 ...

(i) USdrug, a U.S. pharmaceutical company, has developed a new drug, Nosplit, that is useful in treating migraine headaches and produces no significant side effects. A number of other drugs for treating migraine headaches are already on the market, but Nosplit can be expected rapidly to dominate the worldwide market for such treatments and to command a premium price since all other treatments produce side effects. Thus, USdrug projects that extraordinary profits will be derived from Nosplit in the U.S. and European markets. (ii) USdrug licenses its newly established European subsidiary, Eurodrug, the rights to produce and market Nosplit for the European market for 5 years. In setting the royalty rate for this license, USdrug makes projections of the annual sales revenue and the annual profits to be derived from the exploitation of Nosplit by Eurodrug. Based on the projections, a royalty rate of 3.9% is established for the term of the license. (iii) In Year 1, USdrug evaluates the royalty rate it received from Eurodrug. Given the high profit potential of Nosplit, USdrug is unable to locate any uncontrolled transactions dealing with licenses of comparable intangible property. USdrug therefore determines that the comparable uncontrolled transaction method will not provide a reliable measure of an arm’s length royalty. However, applying the comparable profits method to Eurodrug, USdrug determines that a royalty rate of 3.9% will result in Eurodrug earning an arm’s length return for its manufacturing and marketing functions. (iv) In Year 5, the U.S. income tax return for USdrug is examined, and the district director must determine whether the royalty rate between USdrug and Eurodrug is commensurate with the income attributable to Nosplit. In making this determination, the district director considers whether any of the exceptions in § 1.482-4(f)(2)(ii) are applicable. In particular, the district director compares the profit projections attributable to Nosplit made by USdrug against the actual profits realized by Eurodrug. The projected and actual profits are as follows: Profit projections Actual profits Year 1 200 250 Year 2 250 300 Year 3 500 600 Year 4 350 200 Year 5 100 100 Total 1400 1450 (v) The total profits earned through Year 5 were not less than 80% nor more than 120% of the profits that were projected when the license was entered into. If the district director determines that the other requirements of § 1.482-4(f)(2)(ii)(C) were met, no adjustment will be made to the royalty rate between USdrug and Eurodrug for the license of Nosplit ...

The reliability of a valuation of a transferred intangible using discounted cash flow valuation techniques is dependent on the accuracy of the projections of future cash flows or income on which the valuation is based. However, because the accuracy of financial projections is contingent on developments in the marketplace that are both unknown and unknowable at the time the valuation is undertaken, and to this extent such projections are speculative, it is essential for taxpayers and tax administrations to examine carefully the assumptions underlying the projections of both future revenue and future expense ...

Valuation techniques that estimate the discounted value of projected future cash flows derived from the exploitation of the transferred intangible or intangibles can be particularly useful when properly applied. There are many variations of these valuation techniques. In general terms, such techniques measure the value of an intangible by the estimated value of future cash flows it may generate over its expected remaining lifetime. The value can be calculated by discounting the expected future cash flows to present value. Under this approach valuation requires, among other things, defining realistic and reliable financial projections, growth rates, discount rates, the useful life of intangibles, and the tax effects of the transaction. Moreover it entails consideration of terminal values when appropriate. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, the calculation of the discounted value of projected cash flows derived from the exploitation of the intangible should be evaluated from the perspectives of both parties to the transaction in arriving at an arm’s length price. The arm’s length price will fall somewhere within the range of present values evaluated from the perspectives of the transferor and the transferee. Examples 27 to in Annex I to Chapter VI illustrate the provisions of this section ...

The use of budgeted costs can also raise a number of concerns where large differences between actual costs and budgeted costs result. Independent parties are not likely to set prices on the basis of budgeted costs without agreeing on what factors are to be taken into account in setting the budget, without having regard to how budgeted costs have compared with actual costs in previous years and without addressing how unforeseen circumstances are to be treated ...

Such a review may be performed as part of a more general set of approaches utilised to evaluate the context and the factors that may impact the arm’s length nature of prices ...

Another potential approach to utilise in setting transfer prices is to compare budgeted or forecast financial results to those actually achieved, to approximate the specific effects of COVID-19 on revenues, costs and margins. The financial outcomes that taxpayers within a controlled transaction would have achieved ‘but for’ the impact of COVID-19 may provide useful information, particularly when assessing the financial impacts from COVID-19 (e.g. reduced sales volume or increased operating expenses) and determining, in light of contractual terms and risk assumption of the parties, any appropriate resulting impact on intercompany prices. This analysis may include: The preparation of a detailed profit and loss analysis showing changes in revenue and expenses, with an explanation for variances resulting from COVID-19 – this may include a variance analysis of budgeted (pre-COVID) versus actual results; Details of profitability, adjusted to where the outcome would have been if COVID-19 had not occurred – this should consider all factors that have a positive or negative impact on the profits of the taxpayer to a controlled transaction and should be supported by evidence; The rationale and evidence for any increased allocation of costs or a reduction of sales (and subsequent changes in operating margins) to the tested party in the controlled transaction, taking into consideration its function, asset and risk profile; and Any evidence of any government assistance provided or affecting the tested party in the controlled transaction, its effect and its accounting treatment ...

The reliability of a valuation of a transferred intangible using discounted cash flow valuation techniques is dependent on the accuracy of the projections of future cash flows or income on which the valuation is based. However, because the accuracy of financial projections is contingent on developments in the marketplace that are both unknown and unknowable at the time the valuation is undertaken, and to this extent such projections are speculative, it is essential for taxpayers and tax administrations to examine carefully the assumptions underlying the projections of both future revenue and future expense ...

Valuation techniques that estimate the discounted value of projected future cash flows derived from the exploitation of the transferred intangible or intangibles can be particularly useful when properly applied. There are many variations of these valuation techniques. In general terms, such techniques measure the value of an intangible by the estimated value of future cash flows it may generate over its expected remaining lifetime. The value can be calculated by discounting the expected future cash flows to present value. Under this approach valuation requires, among other things, defining realistic and reliable financial projections, growth rates, discount rates, the useful life of intangibles, and the tax effects of the transaction. Moreover it entails consideration of terminal values when appropriate. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, the calculation of the discounted value of projected cash flows derived from the exploitation of the intangible should be evaluated from the perspectives of both parties to the transaction in arriving at an arm’s length price. The arm’s length price will fall somewhere within the range of present values evaluated from the perspectives of the transferor and the transferee. Examples 27 to 29 in the Annex to Chapter VI illustrate the provisions of this section ...

The use of budgeted costs can also raise a number of concerns where large differences between actual costs and budgeted costs result. Independent parties are not likely to set prices on the basis of budgeted costs without agreeing on what factors are to be taken into account in setting the budget, without having regard to how budgeted costs have compared with actual costs in previous years and without addressing how unforeseen circumstances are to be treated ...