TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.6

Category: A. Identifying intangibles | Tag: , ,
« | »

In these Guidelines, therefore, the word “intangible” is intended to address something which is not a physical asset or a financial asset, which is capable of being owned or controlled for use in commercial activities, and whose use or transfer would be compensated had it occurred in a transaction between independent parties in comparable circumstances. Rather than focusing on accounting or legal definitions, the thrust of a transfer pricing analysis in a case involving intangibles should be the determination of the conditions that would be agreed upon between independent parties for a comparable transaction.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.4In order to determine arm’s length conditions for the use or transfer of intangibles it is important to perform a functional and comparability analysis in accordance with Section D. 1 of Chapter I, based on identifying the intangibles and associated risks in contractual...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.13The guidance contained in this chapter is intended to address transfer pricing matters exclusively. It is not intended to have relevance for other tax purposes. For example, the Commentary on Article 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention contains a detailed discussion of...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.113While it is important to consider the perspectives of both parties to the transaction in conducting a comparability analysis, the specific business circumstances of one of the parties should not be used to dictate an outcome contrary to the realistically available options of...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.204It will often be the case that, notwithstanding the use of intangibles by one or both parties to a controlled sale of goods or provision of services, reliable comparables can be identified. Depending on the specific facts, any of the five OECD transfer...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.30In some circumstances group synergies contribute to the level of income earned by an MNE group. Such group synergies can take many different forms including streamlined management, elimination of costly duplication of effort, integrated systems, purchasing or borrowing power, etc. Such features may...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.109Section D. 1 provides general supplemental guidance related to all transactions involving intangibles. Section D.2 provides supplemental guidance specifically related to transactions involving the transfer of intangibles or rights in intangibles. Section D.3 provides supplemental guidance regarding transfers of intangibles or rights in...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.139Where information regarding reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions cannot be identified, the arm’s length principle requires use of another method to determine the price that uncontrolled parties would have agreed under comparable circumstances. In making such determinations, it is important to consider: The functions,...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.105The 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...
  1. 2018: ATO Taxpayer Alert on Mischaracterisation of activities or payments in connection with intangible assets (TA 2018/2)The ATO is currently reviewing international arrangements that mischaracterise intangible assets[1] and/or activities or conditions connected with intangible assets. The concerns include whether intangible assets have been appropriately recognised for Australian tax purposes and whether Australian royalty withholding tax obligations have been met. Arrangements...
  2. Guidance on the application of the HTVI approachThis June 2018 report contains guidance for tax administrations on the application of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI). The HTVI approach was adopted as part of the Actions 8-10 Report in 2015 and it was subsequently incorporated in Chapter VI of the OECD Transfer...

Related Case Law

  1. 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...
  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. Tokyo District Court, judgment of November 24 2017In this case a Japanese company had entered into a series of controlled transactions with foreing group companies granting services and licences to use intangibles – know-how related to manufacturing and sales, training, and provided support by sending over technical experts. The company...
  4. 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...