Company A of an MNE group agrees with company B of the same MNE group to carry out contract research for company B. All risks related to the research are assumed by company B. This company also owns all the intangibles developed through the research and therefore has also the profit chances resulting from the research. This is a typical setup for applying a cost plus method. All costs for the research, which the associated parties have agreed upon, have to be compensated. The additional cost plus may reflect how innovative and complex the research carried out is.
TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.61
Category: D. Cost plus method | Tag: Comparable uncontrolled price method (CUP), Contract R&D, Example - cost plus method contract R&D, Traditional transaction methods, Transfer pricing methods
« Prev |
Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.52Another important aspect of comparability is accounting consistency. Where the accounting practices differ in the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled transaction, appropriate adjustments should be made to the data used to ensure that the same type of costs are used in each case...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.57In some cases, there may be a basis for using only variable or incremental (e.g. marginal) costs, because the transactions represent a disposal of marginal production. Such a claim could be justified if the goods could not be sold at a higher price...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.102The 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.51For this purpose, it is particularly important to consider differences in the level and types of expenses – operating expenses and non- operating expenses including financing expenditures – associated with functions performed and risks assumed by the parties or transactions being compared. Consideration...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.49The cost plus method presents some difficulties in proper application, particularly in the determination of costs. Although it is true that an enterprise must cover its costs over a period of time to remain in business, those costs may not be the determinant...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.113The facts are the same as in paragraph 2.42. However, the amount of the warranty expenses incurred by Distributor A proves impossible to ascertain so that it is not possible to reliably adjust the gross profit of A to make the gross profit...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.46The cost plus mark-up of the supplier in the controlled transaction should ideally be established by reference to the cost plus mark-up that the same supplier earns in comparable uncontrolled transactions (“internal comparable”). In addition, the cost plus mark-up that would have been...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.50In addition, when applying the cost plus method one should pay attention to apply a comparable mark up to a comparable cost basis. For instance, if the supplier to which reference is made in applying the cost plus method in carrying out its...
- 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...
- Report on the Use of Comparables in the EU (2017)In 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...
Related Case Law
- Russia vs ZAO NK Dulisma, January 2017, Court of Appeal, Case No. А40-123426/2016In 2012, ZAO NK Dulisma, a Russian oil and gas company, sold crude oil via an unrelated Hong Kong-based trader. In Russia, transactions with unrelated parties may be deemed controlled transactions for Transfer Pricing purposes, provided certain conditions are met. The Russian Tax...
- Spain vs Ferroli España, S.L.U., May 2023, Audiencia Nacional, Case No 3400/2023 – ECLI:EN:AN:2023:3400Ferroli España, S.L.U. is a Spanish manufacturer manufacture of cookers and heaters. In FY 2010 and 2011 the company had various transactions with other companies in the Ferroli Group and reported negative profit margins on these transactions. According to the company this was...
- Czech Republic vs ERT Automotive Bohemia s.r.o., June 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 10 Afs 257/2022ERT Automotive Bohemia s.r.o. is active in the automotive industry. From 1 January 2013 to 30 November 2013, it provided the manufacture and repair of upholstery products for the automotive industry for its ‘sister’ company, Reiner Lasertec GmbH, established in Germany (both companies...
- Latvia vs „RĪGAS DZIRNAVNIEKS”, December 2021, Court of Appeals, Case No A420275316, SKA-103/2021At issue in the case of „RĪGAS DZIRNAVNIEKS” was if the interest rates charged on loans between related parties were at arm’s length. Judgement of the Court of Appeals The Court remanded the case to the Regional Court for a new hearing. Excerpts...