TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 5

Category: TPG2022 Annex I to Chapter VI – Examples on Intangibles | Tag: , ,
« | »

13. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that instead of appreciating, the value of the patents decreases during the time they are owned by Company S as a result of unanticipated external circumstances. Under these circumstances, Company S is entitled to retain the proceeds of the sale, meaning that it will suffer the loss.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 614. In Year 1, a multinational group comprised of Company A (a country A corporation) and Company B (a country B corporation) decides to develop an intangible, which is anticipated to be highly profitable based on Company B’s existing intangibles, its track record...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 38. The facts are the same as in Example 2. However, after licensing the patents to associated and independent enterprises for a few years, Company S, again acting under the direction and control of Premiere, sells the patents to an independent enterprise at...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 25. The facts related to the development and control of patentable inventions are the same as in Example 1. However, instead of granting a perpetual and exclusive licence of its patents back to Premiere, Company S, acting under the direction and control of...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 410. The facts related to the development of the patents are the same as described in Example 3. In contrast to Example 1, Company S in this example has employees capable of making, and who actually make, the decision to take on the...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1864. Primarni is organised in and conducts business in country A. Company S is an associated enterprise of Primarni. Company S is organised in and does business in country B. Primarni develops a patented invention and manufacturing know-how related to Product X. It...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 820. Primair, a resident of country X, manufactures watches which are marketed in many countries around the world under the R trademark and trade name. Primair is the registered owner of the R trademark and trade name. The R name is widely known...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.42While determining legal ownership and contractual arrangements is an important first step in the analysis, these determinations are separate and distinct from the question of remuneration under the arm’s length principle. For transfer pricing purposes, legal ownership of intangibles, by itself, does not...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.20Know-how and trade secrets are proprietary information or knowledge that assist or improve a commercial activity, but that are not registered for protection in the manner of a patent or trademark. Know-how and trade secrets generally consist of undisclosed information of an industrial,...
  1. OECD publishes Guidance on the Handling of Multilateral MAPs and APAs1 February 2023 OECD published guidance on Multilateral MAP and APAs. The Manual is intended as a guide to multilateral MAP and APA processes from both a legal and procedural perspective and provides tax administrations and taxpayers with information on the operation of...
  2. Italy releases operational instructions on arm’s length range and benchmarking.On 24 May 2022, the Italian Tax Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) released CIRCULAR NO. 16/E containing operational instructions on issues relating to application of the arm’s length range. The circular – which is based on the OECD transfer Pricing Guidelines, guidance on benchmark...

Related Case Law

  1. France vs SASU Alchimedics, January 2024, CAA de Lyon, Case No. 21PA04452Since 2012, the French company SASU Alchimedics has been owned by Sinomed Holding Ltd, the holding company of a group of the same name set up by a Chinese resident domiciled in the British Virgin Islands. SASU Alchimedics was engaged in the manufacture...
  2. European Commission vs. Amazon and Luxembourg, October 2017, State Aid – Comissions decision, SA.38944 Luxembourg gave illegal tax benefits to Amazon worth around €250 million   The European Commission has concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Amazon of around €250 million.  Following an in-depth investigation launched in October 2014, the Commission has concluded that a...
  3. US vs Medtronic, August 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals, Case No: 17-1866In this case the IRS was of the opinion, that Medtronic erred in allocating the profit earned from its devises and leads between its businesses located in the United States and its device manufacturer in Puerto Rico. To determine the arm’s length price...
  4. Norway vs. Cytec, September 2007, High Court, Case no 2007/1440This case is about business restructuring and transfer of intangibles – customer list, technology, trademarks and goodwill. Cytec Norge was originally a full-fledged manufacturer that was changed into a toll manufacturer. The customer portfolio, technology, trademarks and goodwill were transferred to the related entity, Cytec...