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 ...

Realistic alternatives may involve varying risk exposure and, thus, may be more reliably evaluated using different discount rates. See paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(F) and (vi)(F) of this section. In some circumstances, a party may have less risk as a licensee of intangibles needed in its operations, and so require a lower discount rate, than it would have by entering into a CSA to develop such intangibles, which may involve the party’s assumption of additional risk in funding its cost contributions to the IDA. Similarly, self-development of intangibles and licensing out may be riskier for the licensor, and so require a higher discount rate, than entering into a CSA to develop such intangibles, which would relieve the licensor of the obligation to fund a portion of the IDCs of the IDA ...

(i) The facts are the same as in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Example 2. In addition, based on reliable financial projections that include S’s cost contributions and S’s PCT Payment, and using a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of S’s role as a CSA participant, the anticipated post-tax net present value to S under the CSA (measured as of the date of the PCT) is $50 million. Also, instead of entering the CSA, S has the realistic alternative of manufacturing and distributing product Z unrelated to the personal transportation device, with the same anticipated 10% mark-up on total costs that it would anticipate for its routine activities in Example 2. Under its realistic alternative, at a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of S’s role with respect to product Z, S anticipates a present value of $100 million. (ii) Because the lump sum PCT Payment made by S results in S having a considerably lower anticipated net present value than S could achieve through an alternative arrangement realistically available to it, the reliability of P’s calculation of the lump sum PCT Payment is reduced ...

(i) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that there are no reliable estimates of the value to P from the licensing alternative to the CSA. Further, reasonably reliable estimates indicate that an arm’s length return for S’s routine manufacturing and distribution activities is a 10% mark-up on total costs of goods sold plus operating expenses related to those activities. Finally, the Commissioner determines that the respective activities undertaken by P and S (other than licensing payments, cost contributions, and PCT Payments) would be identical regardless of whether the arrangement was undertaken as a CSA (cost sharing alternative) or as a long-term licensing arrangement (licensing alternative). In particular, in both alternatives, P would perform all research activities and S would undertake routine manufacturing and distribution activities associated with its territory. (ii) P undertakes an economic analysis that derives S’s cost contributions under the CSA, based on reliable financial projections. Based on this and further economic analysis, P determines S’s PCT Payment as a certain lump sum amount to be paid as of the date of the PCT (Date D). (iii) Based on reliable financial projections that include S’s cost contributions and that incorporate S’s PCT Payment, as computed by P, and using a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of S’s role as a CSA participant (see paragraphs (g)(2)(v) and (4)(vi)(F) of this section), the anticipated post-tax net present value to S in the cost sharing alternative (measured as of Date D) is $800 million. Further, based on these same reliable projections (but incorporating S’s licensing payments instead of S’s cost contributions and PCT Payment), and using a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of S’s role as a long-term licensee, the anticipated post-tax net present value to S in the licensing alternative (measured as of Date D) is $100 million. Thus, S’s anticipated post-tax net present value is $700 million greater in the cost sharing alternative than in the licensing alternative. This result suggests that P’s anticipated post-tax present value must be significantly less under the cost sharing alternative than under the licensing alternative. This means that the reliability of P’s analysis as described in paragraph (ii) of this Example 2 is reduced, because P would not be expected to enter into a CSA if its alternative of being a long-term licensor is preferable ...

(i) P, a corporation, and S, a wholly-owned subsidiary of P, enter into a CSA to develop a personal transportation device (the product). Under the arrangement, P will undertake all of the R&D, and manufacture and market the product in Country X. S will make CST Payments to P for its appropriate share of P’s R&D costs, and manufacture and market the product in the rest of the world. P owns existing patents and trade secrets that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to the development of the product. Therefore the rights in the patents and trade secrets are platform contributions for which compensation is due from S as part of a PCT. (ii) S’s manufacturing and distribution activities under the CSA will be routine in nature, and identical to the activities it would undertake if it alternatively licensed the product from P. (iii) Reasonably reliable estimates indicate that P could develop the product without assistance from S and license the product outside of Country X for a royalty of 20% of sales. Based on reliable financial projections that include all future development costs and licensing revenue that are allocable to the non-Country X market, and using a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of P’s role as a licensor (see paragraph (g)(2)(v) of this section), the post-tax present value of this licensing alternative to P for the non-Country X market (measured as of the date of the PCT) would be $500 million. Thus, based on this realistic alternative, the anticipated post-tax present value under the CSA to P in the non-Country X market (measured as of the date of the PCT), taking into account anticipated development costs allocable to the non-Country X market, and anticipated CST Payments and PCT Payments from S, and using a discount rate appropriate for the riskiness of P’s role as a participant in the CSA, should not be less than $500 million ...

The following examples illustrate the principles of this paragraph (g)(2)(iii): ...

The relative reliability of an application of a method also depends on the degree of consistency of the analysis with the assumption that uncontrolled taxpayers dealing at arm’s length would have evaluated the terms of the transaction, and only entered into such transaction, if no alternative is preferable. This condition is not met, therefore, where for any controlled participant the total anticipated present value of its income attributable to its entering into the CSA, as of the date of the PCT, is less than the total anticipated present value of its income that could be achieved through an alternative arrangement realistically available to that controlled participant. In principle, this comparison is made on a post-tax basis but, in many cases, a comparison made on a pre-tax basis will yield equivalent results. See also paragraph (g)(2)(v)(B)(1) of this section (Discount rate variation between realistic alternatives) ...

...

(i) USbond is a U.S. company that licenses to its foreign subsidiary, Eurobond, a proprietary process that permits the manufacture of Longbond, a long-lasting industrial adhesive, at a substantially lower cost than otherwise would be possible. Using the proprietary process, Eurobond manufactures Longbond and sells it to related and unrelated parties for the market price of $550 per ton. Under the terms of the license agreement, Eurobond pays USbond a royalty of $100 per ton of Longbond sold. USbond also manufactures and markets Longbond in the United States. (ii) In evaluating whether the consideration paid for the transfer of the proprietary process to Eurobond was arm’s length, the district director may consider, subject to the best method rule of § 1.482-1(c), USbond’s alternative of producing and selling Longbond itself. Reasonably reliable estimates indicate that if USbond directly supplied Longbond to the European market, a selling price of $300 per ton would cover its costs and provide a reasonable profit for its functions, risks and investment of capital associated with the production of Longbond for the European market. Given that the market price of Longbond was $550 per ton, by licensing the proprietary process to Eurobond, USbond forgoes $250 per ton of profit over the profit that would be necessary to compensate it for the functions, risks and investment involved in supplying Longbond to the European market itself. Based on these facts, the district director concludes that a royalty of $100 for the proprietary process is not arm’s length ...