TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.52

Category: B. Ownership of intangibles and transactions involving DEMPE of intangibles | Tag: , , , , , ,
« | »

Where associated enterprises other than the legal owner perform relevant functions that are anticipated to contribute to the value of the intangibles, they should be compensated on an arm’s length basis for the functions they perform under the principles set out in Chapters I – III. The determination of arm’s length compensation for functional contributions should consider the availability of comparable uncontrolled transactions, the importance of the functions performed to the creation of intangible value, and the realistically available options of the parties. The specific considerations described in paragraphs 6.53 to 6.58 should also be taken into account.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.50Under the principles of Chapters I – III, each member of the MNE group should receive arm’s length compensation for the functions it performs. In cases involving intangibles, this includes functions related to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles. The...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.59Group members that use assets in the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of an intangible should receive appropriate compensation for doing so. Such assets may include, without limitation, intangibles used in research, development or marketing (e.g. know-how, customer relationships, etc.), physical assets,...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.49The relative importance of contributions to the creation of intangible value by members of the group in the form of functions performed, assets used and risks assumed will vary depending on the circumstances. For example, assume that a fully developed and currently exploitable...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.57Because it may be difficult to find comparable transactions involving the outsourcing of such important functions, it may be necessary to utilise transfer pricing methods not directly based on comparables, including transactional profit split methods and ex ante valuation techniques, to appropriately reward...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.53In outsourcing transactions between independent enterprises, it is usually the case that an entity performing functions on behalf of the legal owner of the intangible that relate to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of the intangible will operate under the control...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.114It will often be the case that a price for a transaction involving intangibles can be identified that is consistent with the realistically available options of each of the parties. The existence of such prices is consistent with the assumption that MNE groups...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.51The need to ensure that all members of the MNE group are appropriately compensated for the functions they perform, the assets they contribute and the risks they assume implies that if the legal owner of intangibles is to be entitled ultimately to retain...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.75The principles set out in this Section B must be applied in a variety of situations involving the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles. A key consideration in each case is that associated enterprises that contribute to the development, enhancement, maintenance,...
  1. EU JTPF, March 2017, Report on the Use of Comparables in the EUIn 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...
  2. United Arab Emirates issues comprehensive Transfer Pricing Guide23 October 2023, the United Arab Emirates issued a comprehensive practical Transfer Pricing Guide. The guide is designed to provide general guidance on the Transfer Pricing regime in the UAE with a view to making the provisions of the Transfer Pricing regulations as...

Related Case Law

  1. 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...
  2. 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...
  3. Portugal vs R… Cash & C…, S.A., June 2023, Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul, Case 2579/16.6 BELRSThe tax authorities had issued a notice of assessment which disallowed tax deductions for royalties paid by R…Cash & C…, S.A. to its Polish parent company, O…Mark Sp. Z.o.o. R… Cash & C…, S.A. appealed to the Administrative Court, which later annulled the...
  4. Poland vs “Sport O.B. SA”, March 2022, Provincial Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Rz 4/22Following a business restructuring, rights in a trademark developed and used by O.B SA was transferred to a related party “A”. The newly established company A had no employees and all functions in the company was performed by O.B. SA. Anyhow, going forward...