Rights under contracts may also be important to a particular business and can cover a wide range of business relationships. They may include, among others, contracts with suppliers and key customers, and agreements to make available the services of one or more employees. Rights under contracts are intangibles within the meaning of Section A. 1.
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.25
Category: A. Identifying intangibles | Tag: Catagories of intangibles, Contractual rights, Identifying intangibles, Intangibles, Rights under contract
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.26Limited rights in intangibles are commonly transferred by means of a licence or other similar contractual arrangement, whether written, oral or implied. Such licensed rights may be limited as to field of use, term of use, geography or in other ways. Such limited...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.27Depending on the context, the term goodwill can be used to refer to a number of different concepts. In some accounting and business valuation contexts, goodwill reflects the difference between the aggregate value of an operating business and the sum of the values...
- TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.56The determination of the arm’s length price for a transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles should be conducted in accordance with the guidance in Section D. 1 of Chapter VI. It will be affected by a number of factors among which are...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.22A trade name (often but not always the name of an enterprise) may have the same force of market penetration as a trademark and may indeed be registered in some specific form as a trademark. The trade names of certain MNEs may be...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.24Government licences and concessions may be important to a particular business and can cover a wide range of business relationships. They may include, among others, a government grant of rights to exploit specific natural resources or public goods (e.g. a licence of bandwidth...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.18This section provides illustrations of items often considered in transfer pricing analyses involving intangibles. The illustrations are intended to clarify the provisions of Section A. 1., but this listing should not be used as a substitute for a detailed analysis. The illustrations are...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.36Where no written terms exist, or where the facts of the case, including the conduct of the parties, differ from the written terms of any agreement between them or supplement these written terms, the actual transaction must be deduced from the facts as...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.101In other situations, the provision of a service and the transfer of one or more intangibles may be so closely intertwined that it is difficult to separate the transactions for purposes of a transfer pricing analysis. For example, some transfers of rights in...
- EU: Public Country-by-Country Reporting?Proposal directive of public country-by-country reporting in the EU Ministers held an exchange of views (public session) on how to take the proposed directive forward. Tax transparency is a fundamental principle in any democratic society. It enables policy makers to take informed decisions...
- 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
- India vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.Maruti Suzuki India manufactures and sells cars and spare parts. A license agreement had been entered with the group parent for use of licensed information and trademark for the manufacture and sale of the products. Hence, Maruti Suzuki paid royalties to the parent for trademark...
- US vs GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, September 2006, IR-2006-142In September 2006 the Internal Revenue Service announced that it has successfully resolved a transfer pricing dispute with Glaxo SmithKline. Under the settlement agreement, GSK will pay the Internal Revenue Service approximately $3.4 billion, and will abandon its claim seeking a refund of...
- US vs Medtronic, August 2022, U.S. Tax Court, T.C. Memo. 2022-84Medtronic had used the comparable uncontrolled transactions (CUT) method to determine the arm’s length royalty rates received from its manufacturing subsidiary in Puerto Rico for use of IP under an inter-group license agreement. The tax authorities found that Medtronic left too much profit...
- 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...