In some circumstances, a transactional profit split method can be utilised to determine the arm’s length conditions for a transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles where it is not possible to identify reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions for such transfers. Section C of Chapter II contains guidance to be considered in applying transactional profit split methods. That guidance is fully applicable to matters involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles. In evaluating the reliability of transactional profit split methods, however, the availability of reliable and adequate data regarding the relevant profits to be split, appropriately allocable expenses, and the reliability of factors used to divide the relevant income should be fully considered ...

Applying the provisions of Chapters I – III to address these questions can be highly challenging for a number of reasons. Depending on the facts of any given case involving intangibles the following factors, among others, can create challenges: i) A lack of comparability between the intangible related transactions undertaken between associated enterprises and those transactions that can be identified between independent enterprises; ii) A lack of comparability between the intangibles in question; iii) The ownership and/or use of different intangibles by different associated enterprises within the MNE group; iv) The difficulty of isolating the impact of any particular intangible on the MNE group’s income; v) The fact that various members of an MNE group may perform activities relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of an intangible, often in a way and with a level of integration that is not observed between independent enterprises; vi) The fact that contributions of various members of the MNE group to intangible value may take place in years different than the years in which any associated returns are realised; and vii) The fact that taxpayer structures may be based on contractual terms between associated enterprises that separate ownership, the assumption of risk, and/or funding of investments in intangibles from performance of important functions, control over risk, and decisions related to investment in ways that are not observed in transactions between independent enterprises and that may contribute to base erosion and profit shifting. Notwithstanding these potential challenges, applying the arm’s length principle and the provisions of Chapters I – III within an established framework can, in most cases, yield an appropriate allocation of the returns derived by the MNE group from the exploitation of intangibles ...

However, except in circumstances where the total activities of each of the parties are the subject of the profit split, the financial data will need to be segregated and allocations made in accordance with the accurately delineated transaction(s) so that the profits relating to the combined contributions made by the parties are identified. For example, a product supplier in a profit split with an associated enterprise engaged in European marketing and distribution would need to identify the profits arising from its production of goods for the European market, and exclude the profits arising from the production of goods for other markets. The exercise may be relatively simple if the same goods are supplied to all markets, but will be more complex if different goods with different production costs or with different embedded technology, for example, are supplied to different markets. Similarly, if the associated enterprise engaged in European marketing and distribution buys products from other sources, it will need to segregate its financial data in a way that reflects the revenues, costs, and profits relating to the goods purchased from the associated product supplier in the profit split. Experience suggests that this initial stage in performing a profit split can in some circumstances be extremely complex, and the method of identifying the profits relevant to the transaction and any assumptions made in doing so need to be documented ...

The relevant profits to be split under the transactional profit split method are those of the associated enterprises arising as a result of the controlled transactions under review. It is essential to identify the level of aggregation, see paragraphs 3.9-3.12. In determining the relevant profits, it is therefore essential to first identify and accurately delineate the transactions to be covered by the transactional profit split method, and from this identify the relevant income and expense amounts for each party in relation to those transactions. See Section C.4.2, below. Example 12 in Annex II to Chapter II of these Guidelines illustrates the principles of this section ...

It can be difficult to determine the relative value of the contribution that each of the associated enterprises makes to the relevant profits, and the approach will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The determination might be made by comparing the nature and degree of each party’s contribution of differing types (for example, provision of services, development expenses incurred, assets used or contributed, capital invested) and assigning a percentage based upon the relative comparison and external market data. See Section C.5 for a discussion of how to split the relevant profits ...

In addition, If the transactional profit split method is used to set transfer pricing in controlled transactions at the outset, it would be reasonable to expect the life-time of the arrangement and the criteria or profit splitting factors to be agreed in advance of the transaction, The person using the transactional profit split method (taxpayer or tax administration) should be prepared to explain why it is regarded as the most appropriate method in the circumstances of the case, as well as the way it is implemented, and in particular the criteria or profit splitting factors used to split the relevant profits, and The determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should generally be used consistently over the life-time of the arrangement, including during loss years, unless the rationale for using differing relevant profits or profit splitting factors over time is supported by the facts and circumstances and is documented ...

Under the transactional profit split method, the relevant profits are to be split between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement made at arm’s length. In general, the determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should be: consistent with the functional analysis of the controlled trans- action under review, and in particular reflect the assumption of the economically significant risks by the parties, and capable of being measured in a reliable manner ...

The relevance of this factor as an indicator for the transactional profit split method will depend in large measure on the extent to which the risks concerned are economically significant such that a share of relevant profits would be warranted for each party. The economic significance of the risks should be analysed in relation to their importance to the actual or anticipated relevant profits from the controlled transaction(s), rather than in respect of their importance to any one of the associated enterprises whose business operations may extend beyond those covered by the relevant profits ...

A weakness of the transactional profit split method relates to difficulties in its application. On first review, the transactional profit split method may appear readily accessible to both taxpayers and tax administrations because it tends to rely less on information about independent enterprises. However, associated enterprises and tax administrations alike may have difficulty accessing the detailed information required to apply a transactional profit split method reliably. It may be difficult to measure the relevant revenue and costs for all the associated enterprises participating in the controlled transactions, which could require stating books and records on a common basis and making adjustments in accounting practices and currencies. Further, when the transactional profit split method is applied to operating profit, it may be difficult to identify the appropriate operating expenses associated with the transactions and to allocate costs between the transactions and the associated enterprises’ other activities. Identifying the appropriate profit splitting factors can also be challenging. Given the necessity of applying judgement in determining each of the parameters for the application of the transactional profit split method, it will be particularly important to document how the method has been applied, including the determination of the relevant profits to be split, and how the profit splitting factors were arrived at. See Sections C.4 and C.5 ...

However, except in circumstances where the total activities of each of the parties are the subject of the profit split, the financial data will need to be segregated and allocations made in accordance with the accurately delineated transaction(s) so that the profits relating to the combined contributions made by the parties are identified. For example, a product supplier in a profit split with an associated enterprise engaged in European marketing and distribution would need to identify the profits arising from its production of goods for the European market, and exclude the profits arising from the production of goods for other markets. The exercise may be relatively simple if the same goods are supplied to all markets, but will be more complex if different goods with different production costs or with different embedded technology, for example, are supplied to different markets. Similarly, if the associated enterprise engaged in European marketing and distribution buys products from other sources, it will need to segregate its financial data in a way that reflects the revenues, costs, and profits relating to the goods purchased from the associated product supplier in the profit split. Experience suggests that this initial stage in performing a profit split can in some circumstances be extremely complex, and the method of identifying the profits relevant to the transaction and any assumptions made in doing so need to be documented ...

The relevant profits to be split under the transactional profit split method are those of the associated enterprises arising as a result of the controlled transactions under review. It is essential to identify the level of aggregation, see paragraphs 3.9-3.12. In determining the relevant profits, it is therefore essential to first identify and accurately delineate the transactions to be covered by the transactional profit split method, and from this identify the relevant income and expense amounts for each party in relation to those transactions. See section C.4.2, below. Example 12 in Annex II to Chapter II of these Guidelines illustrates the principles of this section ...

It can be difficult to determine the relative value of the contribution that each of the associated enterprises makes to the relevant profits, and the approach will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The determination might be made by comparing the nature and degree of each party’s contribution of differing types (for example, provision of services, development expenses incurred, assets used or contributed, capital invested) and assigning a percentage based upon the relative comparison and external market data. See section C.5 for a discussion of how to split the relevant profits ...

In addition, If the transactional profit split method is used to set transfer pricing in controlled transactions at the outset, it would be reasonable to expect the life-time of the arrangement and the criteria or profit splitting factors to be agreed in advance of the transaction, The person using the transactional profit split method (taxpayer or tax administration) should be prepared to explain why it is regarded as the most appropriate method in the circumstances of the case, as well as the way it is implemented, and in particular the criteria or profit splitting factors used to split the relevant profits, and The determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should generally be used consistently over the life-time of the arrangement, including during loss years, unless the rationale for using differing relevant profits or profit splitting factors over time is supported by the facts and circumstances and is documented ...

Under the transactional profit split method, the relevant profits are to be split between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement made at arm’s length. In general, the determination of the relevant profits to be split and of the profit splitting factors should: Be consistent with the functional analysis of the controlled transaction under review, and in particular reflect the assumption of the economically significant risks by the parties, and Be capable of being measured in a reliable manner ...

The relevance of this factor as an indicator for the transactional profit split method will depend in large measure on the extent to which the risks concerned are economically significant such that a share of relevant profits would be warranted for each party. The economic significance of the risks should be analysed in relation to their importance to the actual or anticipated relevant profits from the controlled transaction(s), rather than in respect of their importance to any one of the associated enterprises whose business operations may extend beyond those covered by the relevant profits ...

A weakness of the transactional profit split method relates to difficulties in its application. On first review, the transactional profit split method may appear readily accessible to both taxpayers and tax administrations because it tends to rely less on information about independent enterprises. However, associated enterprises and tax administrations alike may have difficulty accessing the detailed information required to apply a transactional profit split method reliably. It may be difficult to measure the relevant revenue and costs for all the associated enterprises participating in the controlled transactions, which could require stating books and records on a common basis and making adjustments in accounting practices and currencies. Further, when the transactional profit split method is applied to operating profit, it may be difficult to identify the appropriate operating expenses associated with the transactions and to allocate costs between the transactions and the associated enterprises’ other activities. Identifying the appropriate profit splitting factors can also be challenging. Given the necessity of applying judgement in determining each of the parameters for the application of the transactional profit split method, it will be particularly important to document how the method has been applied, including the determination of the relevant profits to be split, and how the profit splitting factors were arrived at. See sections C.4 and C.5 ...

The transactional profit split method seeks to establish arm’s length outcomes or test reported outcomes for controlled transactions in order to approximate the results that would have been achieved between independent enterprises engaging in a comparable transaction or transactions. The method first identifies the profits to be split from the controlled transactions—the relevant profits—and then splits them between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been agreed at arm’s length. As is the case with all transfer pricing methods, the aim is to ensure that profits of the associated enterprises are aligned with the value of their contributions and the compensation which would have been agreed in comparable transactions between independent enterprises for those contributions. The transactional profit split method is particularly useful when the compensation to the associated enterprises can be more reliably valued by reference to the relative shares of their contributions to the profits arising in relation to the transaction(s) than by a more direct estimation of the value of those contributions ...

[See Chapter II, Part III, Section C of these Guidelines for general guidance on the application of the transactional profit split method. The assumptions about arm’s length arrangements in the following examples are intended for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as prescribing adjustments and arm’s length arrangements in actual cases of particular industries. While they seek to demonstrate the principles of the sections of the Guidelines to which they refer, those principles must be applied in each case according to the specific facts and circumstances of that case. Furthermore, the comments below relate to the application of a transactional profit split method in the situations where, given the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the comparability (including functional) analysis of the transaction and the review of the information available on uncontrolled comparables, such a method is found to be the most appropriate method to be used.] Below are some illustrations of the effect of choosing a measure of profits to determine the combined profits to be split when applying a transactional profit split method. 2. Assume A and B are two associated enterprises situated in two different tax jurisdictions. Both manufacture the same widgets and incur expenditure that results in the creation of an intangible asset which they can mutually use. For the purpose of this example, it is assumed that the nature of this particular asset is such that the value of the asset contribution attributable to each of A and B in the year in question is proportional to A and B’s relative expenditure on the asset in that (It should be noted that this assumption will not always be true in practice. This is because there may be cases where the relative values of asset contributions attributable to each party would be based on accumulated expenditure from the prior, as well as current years.) Assume A and B exclusively sell products to third parties. Assume that it is determined that the most appropriate method to be used is a residual profit split method, that the manufacturing activities of A and B are simple, non-unique transactions that should be allocated an initial return of 10% of the Cost of Goods Sold and that the residual profit should be split in proportion to A’s and B’s intangible asset expenditure. The following figures are for illustration only: A B Combined A + B Sales 100 300 400 Cost Of Goods Sold 60 170 230 Gross Profit 40 130 170 Overhead expenses 3 6 9 Other operating expenses 2 4 6 Intangible asset expenditure 30 40 70 Operating Profit 5 80 85 Step one: determining the initial return for the non-unique manufacturing transactions (Cost of Goods Sold + 10% in this example) A 60 + (60 * 10 %) = 66 ➔ Initial return for the manufacturing transactions of A =  6 B 170 + (170 * 10 %) = 187 ➔ Initial return for the manufacturing transactions of B =     17 Total profit allocated through initial returns (6+17) =       23 Step two: determining the residual profit to be split a) In case it is determined as the operating profit:  Combined Operating Profit 85 Profit already allocated (initial returns for manufacturing transactions) 23 Residual profit to be split in proportion to A’s and B’s intangible asset expenditure 62   Residual profit allocated to A: 62 * 30/70 26.57 Residual profit allocated to B: 62 * 40/70 35.43 Total profits allocated to A: 6 (initial return) + 26.57 (residual) 32.57 Total profits allocated to B: 17 (initial return) + 35.43 (residual) 52.43 Total 85 b) In case it is determined as the operating profit before overhead expenses (assuming it is determined that the overhead expenses of A and B do not relate to the transaction examined and should be excluded from the determination of the combined profits to be split):   A B Combined A + B Sales 100 300 400 Cost Of Goods Sold 60 170 230 Gross Profit 40 130 170 Other operating expenses 2 4 6 Intangible asset expenditure 30 40 70 Operating Profit before overhead expenses 8 86 94 Overhead expenses 3 6 9 Operating Profit 5 80 85   Combined Operating Profit before overhead expenses 94 Profit already allocated (initial returns for manufacturing transactions) 23 Residual profit before overhead expenses to be split in proportion to A’s and B’s intangible asset expenditure 71   Residual profit allocated to A: 71 * 30/70 30.43 Residual profit allocated to B: 71 * 40/70 40.57 Total profits allocated to A: 6 (initial return) + 30.43 (residual) – 3 (overhead expenses) 33.43 Total profits allocated to B: 17 (initial return) + 40.57 (residual) – 6 (overhead expenses) 51.57 Total 85 5. s shown in the above example, excluding some specific items from the determination of the combined profits to be split implies that each party remains responsible for its own expenses in relation to it. As a consequence, the decision whether or not to exclude some specific items must be consistent with the comparability (including functional) analysis of the transaction. 6. As another example, in some cases it may be appropriate to back out a category of expenses to the extent that the allocation key used in the residual profit split analysis relies on those For example, in cases where relative expenditure contributing to the development of an intangible asset is determined to be the most appropriate profit split factor, residual profits can be based on operating profits before that expenditure. After determining the split of residual profits, each associated enterprise then subtracts its own expenditure. This can be illustrated as follows. Assume the facts are the same as in the example at paragraph 2 above and assume the overhead expenses are not excluded from the determination of the residual profit to be split. Step one: determining the basic return for the manufacturing activities (Cost of Goods Sold + 10% in this example) Same as at paragraph 3. Step two: determining the residual profit to ...

[See Chapter II, Part III, Section C of these Guidelines for general guidance on the application of the profit split method. The adjustments and assumptions about arm’s length arrangements in the examples that follow 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. While they seek to demonstrate the principles of the Sections of the Guidelines to which they refer, those principles must be applied in each case according to the specific facts and circumstances of that case.] 1. The success of an electronics product is linked to the innovative technological design both of its electronic processes and of its major component. That component is designed and manufactured by associated company A, is transferred to associated company B which designs and manufactures the rest of the product, and is distributed by associated company C. Information exists to verify by means of a resale price method that the distribution functions and risks of Company C are being appropriately rewarded by the transfer price of the finished product from B to C. 2. The most appropriate method to price the component transferred from A to B may be a CUP, if a sufficiently similar comparable could be found. See paragraph 2.15 of the Guidelines. However, since the component transferred from A to B reflects the innovative technological advance enjoyed by company A in this market, in this example it proves impossible (after the appropriate functional and comparability analyses have been carried out) to find a reliable CUP to estimate the correct price that A could command at arm’s length for its product. Calculating a return on A’s manufacturing costs could however provide an estimate of the profit element which would reward A’s manufacturing functions, ignoring the profit element attributable to the intangible used therein. A similar calculation could be performed on company B’s manufacturing costs, to give an estimate of B’s profit derived from its manufacturing functions, ignoring the profit element attributable to its intangible. Since B’s selling price to C is known and is accepted as an arm’s length price, the amount of the residual profit accrued by A and B together from the exploitation of their respective intangible property can be determined. See paragraphs 2.114 and 2.127 of the Guidelines. At this stage the proportion of this residual profit properly attributable to each enterprise remains undetermined. 3. The residual profit may be split based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances that might indicate how the additional reward would have been allocated at arm’s length. Paragraph 2.127 of the The R&D activity of each company is directed towards technological design relating to the same class of item, and it is established for the purposes of this example that the relative amounts of R&D expenditure reliably measure the relative value of the companies’ contributions. See paragraph 2.126 of the Guidelines. This means that each company’s contribution to the product’s technological innovation may reliably be measured by their relative expenditure on research and development, so that, if A’s R&D expenditure is 15 and B’s 10, the residual could be split 3/5 for A and 2/5 for B. 4. Some figures may assist in following the example: a) Profit & Loss of A and B   A B Sales 50 100 Less: Purchases (10) (50) Manufacturing costs (15) (20) Gross profits 25 30 Less: R&D 15 10 Operating expenses 10 (25) 10 (20) Net profit 0 10 b) Determine routine profit on manufacturing by A and B, and calculate total residual profit 5. It is established, for both jurisdictions, that third-party comparable manufacturers without innovative intangible property earn a return on manufacturing costs (excluding purchases) of 10% (ratio of net profit to the direct and indirect costs of manufacturing).1 See paragraph 2.127 of the A’s manufacturing costs are 15, and so the return on costs would attribute to A a manufacturing profit of 1.5. B’s equivalent costs are 20, and so the return on costs would attribute to B a manufacturing profit of 2.0. The residual profit is therefore 6.5, arrived at by deducting from the combined net profit of 10 the combined manufacturing profit of 3.5. c)  Allocate residual profit 6. The initial allocation of profit (1.5 to A and 2.0 to B) rewards the manufacturing functions of A and B, but does not recognise the value of their respective R&D that has resulted in a technologically advanced product. That residual can, therefore, be split between A and B based on their share of total R&D costs, since, for the purposes of this example2, it can reliably be assumed that the companies’ relative expenditure on R&D accurately reflects their relative contributions to the value of the product’s technological innovation. A’s R&D expenditure is 15 and B’s 10, giving combined R&D expenditure of 25. The residual is 6.5 which may be allocated 15/25 to A and 10/25 to B, resulting in a share of 3.9 and 2.6 respectively, as below: A’s share 6.5 x 15/25= 3.9 B’s share 6.5 x 10/25= 2.6. d)  Recalculate Profits 7. A’s net profits would thus become 5 + 3.9 = 5.4. B’s net profits would thus become 2.0 + 2.6 = 4.6. The revised P & L for tax purposes would appear as: A B Sales 55.4 100 Less: Purchases (10) (55.4) Manufacturing costs (15) (20) Gross profit 30.4 24.6 Less: R& D 15 10 Operating expenses 10 (25) 10 (20) Net profit 5.4 4.6 Note 8. The example is intended to exemplify in a simple manner the mechanisms of a residual profit split and should not be interpreted as providing general guidance as to how the arm’s length principle should apply in identifying arm’s length comparables and determining an appropriate split. It is important that the principles that it seeks to illustrate are applied in each case taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case. In particular, it should be noted that the allocation of the residual split ...

Applying the provisions of Chapters I – III to address these questions can be highly challenging for a number of reasons. Depending on the facts of any given case involving intangibles the following factors, among others, can create challenges: i) A lack of comparability between the intangible related transactions undertaken between associated enterprises and those transactions that can be identified between independent enterprises; ii) A lack of comparability between the intangibles in question; iii) The ownership and/or use of different intangibles by different associated enterprises within the MNE group; iv) The difficulty of isolating the impact of any particular intangible on the MNE group’s income; v) The fact that various members of an MNE group may perform activities relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of an intangible, often in a way and with a level of integration that is not observed between independent enterprises; vi) The fact that contributions of various members of the MNE group to intangible value may take place in years different than the years in which any associated returns are realised; and vii) The fact that taxpayer structures may be based on contractual terms between associated enterprises that separate ownership, the assumption of risk, and/or funding of investments in intangibles from performance of important functions, control over risk, and decisions related to investment in ways that are not observed in transactions between independent enterprises and that may contribute to base erosion and profit shifting. Notwithstanding these potential challenges, applying the arm’s length principle and the provisions of Chapters I – III within an established framework can, in most cases, yield an appropriate allocation of the returns derived by the MNE group from the exploitation of intangibles ...

The transactional profit split method seeks to eliminate the effect on profits of special conditions made or imposed in a controlled transaction (or in controlled transactions that are appropriate to aggregate under the principles of paragraphs 3.9-3.12) by determining the division of profits that independent enterprises would have expected to realise from engaging in the transaction or transactions. The transactional profit split method first identifies the profits to be split for the associated enterprises from the controlled transactions in which the associated enterprises are engaged (the “combined profits”). References to “profits” should be taken as applying equally to losses. See paragraphs 2.130-2.137 for a discussion of how to measure the profits to be split. It then splits those combined profits between the associated enterprises on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of profits that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement made at arm’s length. See paragraphs 2.138-2.151 for a discussion of how to split the combined profits ...