There is no single measure for a discount rate that is appropriate for transfer pricing purposes in all instances. Neither taxpayers nor tax administrations should assume that a discount rate that is based on a Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) approach or any other measure should always be used in transfer pricing analyses where determination of appropriate discount rates is important. Instead the specific conditions and risks associated with the facts of a given case and the particular cash flows in question should be evaluated in determining the appropriate discount rate.
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.171
Category: D. Determining arm’s length conditions in cases involving intangibles | Tag: Discount rate, Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), Intangibles, Valuation, Valuation method, Valuation technique, WACC
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.172It should be recognised in determining and evaluating discount rates that in some instances, particularly those associated with the valuation of intangibles still in development, intangibles may be among the most risky components of a taxpayer’s business. It should also be recognised that...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.170The discount rate or rates used in converting a stream of projected cash flows into a present value is a critical element of a valuation model. The discount rate takes into account the time value of money and the risk or uncertainty of...
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.175For instance, where an asset-based profit splitting factor is used, it may be based on data extracted from the balance sheets of the parties to the transaction. It will often be the case that not all the assets of the taxpayers relate to...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 29104. Pervichnyi is the parent of an MNE group organised and doing business in country X. Prior to Year 1, Pervichnyi developed patents and trademarks related to Product F. It manufactured Product F in country X and supplied the product to distribution affiliates...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 28101. Company A is the Parent company of an MNE group with operations in country S. Company B is a member of the MNE group with operations in country T, and Company C is also a member of the MNE group with operations...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 2797. Company A is the Parent of an MNE group with operations in country X. Company A owns patents, trademarks and know-how with regard to several products produced and sold by the MNE group. Company B is a wholly owned subsidiary of Company...
- Report on the Application of Economic Valuation Techniques (2017)The Study on the Application of Economic Valuation Techniques for Determining Transfer Prices of Cross Border Transactions between Members of Multinational Enterprise Groups in the EU provides an overview on how valuation techniques can practically and most efficiently be used for transfer pricing...
Related Case Law
- Portugal vs “B Restructuring LDA”, February 2021, CAAD, Case No 255/2020-TB Restructuring LDA was a distributor within the E group. During FY 2014-2016 a number of manufacturing entities within the group terminated distribution agreements with B Restructuring LDA and subsequently entered into new Distribution Agreements, under similar terms, with another company of the...
- Bulgaria vs KEY END ES ENERGY, April 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 4972Key End Es Energy concluded a share purchase and sale agreement of 20.12.2012 with a related party LUKERG BULGARIA GmbH, under which KEY END EU ENERGY transferred to its parent company LUKERG BULGARIA GmbH the ownership of the shares in eight subsidiaries. The...
- Denmark vs “IP ApS”, March 2023, Tax Tribunal, Case No. SKM2023.135.LSRThe case concerned the valuation of intangible assets transferred from a Danish company to an affiliated foreign company. The Tax Tribunal basically agreed with the valuation of the expert appraisers according to the DCF model, but corrected the assumptions with regard to revenue...
- Portugal vs C… – Sociedade de Investimentos Imobiliários, S.A., November 2023, Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul, Case 541/02.5 BTLRSThe tax authorities had issued an assessment in which the value of shares transfered between related parties had been adjusted by application of the arm’s length principle. The assessment was appealed to the Administrative Court, which upheld the assessment. An appeal was then...
- Finland vs. Corp. February 2014, Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2014:33A Ltd, which belonged to the Norwegian X Group, owned the entire share capital of B Ltd and had on 18.5.2004 sold it to a Norwegian company in the same group. The Norwegian company had the same day transferred the shares back on...