The need to consider the use of intangibles by a party to a controlled transaction involving a sale of goods can be illustrated as follows. Assume that a car manufacturer uses valuable proprietary patents to manufacture the cars that it then sells to associated distributors. Assume that the patents significantly contribute to the value of the cars. The patents and the value they contribute should be identified and taken into account in the comparability analysis of the transaction consisting in the sales of cars by the car manufacturer to its associated distributors, in selecting the most appropriate transfer pricing method for the transactions, and in selecting the tested party. The associated distributors purchasing the cars do not, however, acquire any right in the manufacturer’s patents. In such a case, the patents are used in the manufacturing and may affect the value of the cars, but the patents themselves are not transferred.
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.105
Category: C. Transactions involving the use or transfer of intangibles | Tag: Distribution, Intangibles, Limited Risk Distributors (LRD), Most appropriate method (MAM)
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.199For example, a tested party engaged in the marketing and distribution of goods purchased in controlled transactions may have developed marketing intangibles in its geographic area of operation, including customer lists, customer relationships, and customer data. It may also have developed advantageous logistical...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.198In a transfer pricing analysis where the most appropriate transfer pricing method is the resale price method, the cost-plus method, or the transactional net margin method, the less complex of the parties to the controlled transaction is often selected as the tested party....
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.196This section provides supplemental guidance for applying the rules of Chapters I – III in situations where one or both parties to a controlled transaction uses intangibles in connection with the sale of goods or the provision of services, but where no transfer...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.132In applying the principles of paragraphs 2.1 to 2.12 to matters involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles, it is important to recognise that transactions structured in different ways may have similar economic consequences. For example, the performance of a service...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 926. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 8, except as follows: Under the contract between Primair and Company S, Company S is now obligated to develop and execute the marketing plan for country Y without detailed control of...
- 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...
Related Case Law
- Greece vs “Pharma Distributor Ltd.”, November 2022, Tax Court, Case No ΔΕΔ 3712/2022Following an audit, the Greek tax authorities determined that the profit of “Pharma Distributor Ltd” for sales and service activities had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The tax authorities issued an assessment of additional taxable income, rejecting the...
- Norway vs “Distributor A AS”, March 2021, Tax Board, Case No 01-NS 131/2017A fully fledged Norwegian distributor in the H group was restructured and converted into a Limited risk distributor. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the income of the Norwegian distributor was adjusted to the median in a benchmark study prepared by the...
- Czech Republic vs. Eli Lilly ÄŒR, s.r.o., December 2019, District Court of Praque, No. 6 Afs 90/2016 – 62Eli Lilly ÄŒR imports pharmaceutical products purchased from Eli Lilly Export S.A. (Swiss sales and marketing hub) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia and distributes them to local distributors. The arrangement between the local company and Eli Lilly Export S.A. is based on...
- India vs Sabic India Pvt Ltd, June 2021, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Delhi, ITA No.454/Del/2021Sabic India Pvt Ltd was primarily engaged in providing marketing support services to facilitate the selling of fertilizers and chemicals in India on behalf of the Sabic Group holding company. The Indian company did not hold any title to inventories and all products...
- Spain vs Delsey España S.A, February 2022, Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Case No 483/2022 (Roj: STSJ CAT 1467/2022 – ECLI:ES:TSJCAT:2022:1467)DELSEY España distributes and sells suitcases and other travel accessories of the DESLEY brand on the Spanish market and belongs to the French multinational group of the same name. The Spanish distributor had declared losses for FY 2005-2010 and was subject to a transfer...