Resolution of this question requires a careful analysis of which entity or entities in the MNE group in fact assume the economically significant risks as identified when delineating the actual transaction (see Section D. 1 of Chapter I). As this analytical framework indicates, the party actually assuming the economically significant risks may or may not be the associated enterprise contractually assuming these risks, such as the legal owner of the intangible, or may or may not be the funder of the investment. A party which is not allocated the risks that give rise to the deviation between the anticipated and actual outcomes under the principles of Sections D. 1.2.1.4 to D. 1.2.1.6 of Chapter I will not be entitled to the differences between actual and anticipated profits or required to bear losses that are caused by these differences if such risk materialises, unless these parties are performing the important functions as reflected in paragraph 6.56 or contributing to the control over the economically significant risks as established in paragraph 1.105, and it is determined that arm’s length remuneration of these functions would include a profit sharing element. In addition, consideration must be given to whether the ex ante remuneration paid to members of the MNE group for their functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed is, in fact, consistent with the arm’s length principle. Care should be taken to ascertain, for example, whether the group in fact underestimated or overestimated anticipated profits, thereby giving rise to underpayments or overpayments (determined on an ex ante basis) to some group members for their contributions. Transactions for which valuation is highly uncertain at the time of the transaction are particularly susceptible to such under or overestimations of value. This is further discussed in Section D.4.
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.70
Category: B. Ownership of intangibles and transactions involving DEMPE of intangibles | Tag: Actual outcome/returns, Anticipated returns, Assumption of risk / Risk assumption, DEMPE, DEMPE functions, Ex ante, Ex post, Funding intangibles, Hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI), Intangibles, Legal owner, Ownership
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.69It is quite common that actual (ex post) profitability is different than anticipated (ex ante) profitability. This may result from risks materialising in a different way to what was anticipated through the occurrence of unforeseeable developments. For example, it may happen that a...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.45The terms of the compensation that must be paid to members of the MNE group that contribute to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangibles is generally determined on an ex ante basis. That is, it is determined at the time...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 614. In Year 1, a multinational group comprised of Company A (a country A corporation) and Company B (a country B corporation) decides to develop an intangible, which is anticipated to be highly profitable based on Company B’s existing intangibles, its track record...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.72The entitlement of any member of the MNE group to profit or loss relating to differences between actual (ex post) and a proper estimation of anticipated (ex ante) profitability will depend on which entity or entities in the MNE group in fact assumes...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.66The identity of the member or members of the group assuming risks related to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles is an important consideration in determining prices for controlled transactions. The assumption of risk will determine which entity or entities...
- TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.56In considering the arm’s length compensation for functional contributions of various members of the MNE group, certain important functions will have special significance. The nature of these important functions in any specific case will depend on the facts and circumstances. For self-developed intangibles,...
- 2020: ATO Alert on arrangements and schemes connected with DEMPE of intangiblesThe ATO is currently reviewing international arrangements that mischaracterise Australian activities connected with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation (DEMPE) of intangible assets. Such arrangements may be non-arm’s length or structured to avoid tax obligations, resulting in inappropriate outcomes for Australian tax...
- 2021: ATO Draft Practical Compliance Guidelines on Intangibles Arrangements, PCG 2021/D4The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has issued draft Compliance Guidelines on intangible arrangements, PCG 2021/D4. These Guidelines will (when finalised)Â set out the ATO’s compliance approach to international arrangements connected with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection and exploitation of intangible assets, specifically, the...
Related Case Law
- Belgium vs “Uniclick B.V.”, June 2021, Court of Appeal, Case No 2016/AR/455“Uniclick B.V.” had performed all the important DEMPE functions with regard to intangible assets as well as managing all risks related to development activities without being remunerated for this. Royalty-income related to the activities had instead been received by a foreign group company...
- Austria vs S GmbH, November 2020, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Case No Ra 2019/15/0162-3S GmbH was an Austrian trading company of a group. In the course of business restructuring, the real estate division of the Austrian-based company was initially separated from the “trading operations/brands” division on the demerger date of 31 March 2007. The trademark rights...
- Netherlands vs “X B.V.”, August 1998, Supreme Court, Case No 32997, ECLI:NL:HR:1998:AA2288In a situation where a new intangible asset has been developed and is transferred to an affiliate at a time when its success is not yet sufficiently apparent, for example, because the intangible asset has not yet generated revenues and there are significant...
- France vs Ferragamo France, June 2022, Administrative Court of Appeal (CAA), Case No 20PA03601Ferragamo France, which was set up in 1992 and is wholly owned by the Dutch company Ferragamo International BV, which in turn is owned by the Italian company Salvatore Ferragamo Spa, carries on the business of retailing shoes, leather goods and luxury accessories...
- Poland vs “Fertilizer Licence SA”, April 2022, Provincial Administrative Court, Case No I SA/Po 788/21“Fertilizer Licence SA” (“A”) transferred its trademarks to “B” in 2013, previously financed the transfer through a cash contribution, and then, following the transfer, paid royalties to “A” in exchange for the ability to use the assets. According to the tax authorities, a...