Company B manufactures products for Company A. Under step 1 capacity utilisation risk and supply chain risk have been identified as economically significant in this transaction, and under step 2 it has been established that under the contract Company A assumes these risks. The functional analysis under step 3 provides evidence that Company B built and equipped its plant to Company A’s specifications, that products are manufactured to technical requirements and designs provided by Company A, that volume levels are determined by Company A, and that Company A runs the supply chain, including the procurement of components and raw materials. Company A also performs regular quality checks of the manufacturing process. Company B builds the plant, employs and trains competent manufacturing personnel, and determines production scheduling based on volume levels determined by Company A. Although Company B has incurred fixed costs, it has no ability to manage the risk associated with the recovery of those costs through determining the production units over which the fixed costs are spread, since Company A determines volumes. Company A also determines significant costs relating to components and raw materials and the security of supply. The evaluation of the evidence concludes that Company B performs manufacturing services. Significant risks associated with generating a return from the manufacturing activities are controlled by Company A. Company B controls the risk that it fails to competently deliver services. Each company has the financial capacity to assume its respective risks.
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.84 (Example 2)
Category: D. Guidance for applying the arm’s length principle | Tag: Analysis of risk, Assumption of risk / Risk assumption, Comparability analysis, Contract manufacturing, Delineation, Example, Example - contract manufacturing, Functional analysis, Functions related to risk, Risk analysis - 6 step
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.92In the circumstances of Example 3, analysis under step 4(i) shows that the assumption of utilisation risk by Company A is consistent with its contractual arrangements with Company C, but under step 4(ii) it is determined that Company A does not control risks...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.103The consequences of risk allocation in Example 3 in paragraph 1.85 depend on analysis of functions under step 3. Company A does not have control over the economically significant risks associated with the investment in and exploitation of the asset, and those risks...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.93In some cases, the analysis under step 3 may indicate that there is more than one MNE that is capable of exercising control over a risk. However, control requires both capability and functional performance in order to exercise control over a risk. Therefore,...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.85 (Example 3)Company A has acquired ownership of a tangible asset and enters into contracts for the use of the asset with unrelated customers. Under step 1 utilisation of the tangible asset, that is the risk that there will be insufficient demand for the asset...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.82In this step the functions in relation to risk of the associated enterprises that are parties to the transaction are analysed. The analysis provides information about how the associated enterprises operate in relation to the assumption and management of the specific, economically significant...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.83 (Example 1)Company A seeks to pursue a development opportunity and hires a specialist company, Company B, to perform part of the research on its behalf. Under step 1 development risk has been identified as economically significant in this transaction, and under step 2 it...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.70Assume that an investor hires a fund manager to invest funds on its account. Depending on the agreement between the investor and the fund manager, the latter may be given the authority to make portfolio investments on behalf of the investor on a...
- TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.72Risks can be categorised in various ways, but a relevant framework in a transfer pricing analysis is to consider the sources of uncertainty which give rise to risk. The following non-exclusive list of sources of risk is not intended to suggest a hierarchy...
- EU JTPF, March 2017, Report on the Use of Comparables in the EUIn March 2017 the JTPF agreed the Report on the Use of Comparables in the EU. The report establishes best practices and pragmatic solutions by issuing various recommendations for both taxpayers and tax administrations in the EU and aims at increasing in practice...
- Additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishmentsThe OECD has released additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. This additional guidance sets out high-level general principles for the attribution of profits to permanent establishments arising under Article 5(5), in accordance with applicable treaty provisions, and includes examples...
Related Case Law
- Czech Republic vs Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o., April 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 7 Afs 398/2019 – 49Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. is a subsidiary within the Japanese Aisan Industry Group which manufactures various engine components – fuel-pump modules, throttle bodies, carburetors for independent car manufactures such as Renault and Toyota. According to the original transfer pricing documentation the Czech company...
- European Commission vs. Amazon and Luxembourg, May 2021, State Aid – European General Court, Case No T-816/17 and T-318/18In 2017 the European Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Amazon of around €250 million. Following an in-depth investigation the Commission concluded that a tax ruling issued by Luxembourg in 2003, and prolonged in 2011, lowered the tax paid by...
- Liechtenstein vs “A-Geothermal Finance AG”, December 2021, Administrative Court, Case No VGH 2021/085“A-Geothermal Finance AG” (A AG) financed geothermal projects developed by the E GmbH. The sole shareholder is af A AG. Since 2012, B has also been the sole shareholder of C AG. C AG holds as a subsidiary E GmbH with developed two...
- Italy vs INTERVET PRODUCTIONS SRL, January 2021, Corte di Cassazione, Case No 22539/2021Intervet Productions SRL, a company resident in Italy, manufactures veterinary medicines and supplements. The Italian tax authorities issued a notice of assessment, relating to the 2004 tax year. In that notice, the tax authorities ascertained the inconsistency of the transfer prices concerning the...