TPG2022 Chapter VIII Annex example 5

Category: TPG2022 Annex to Chapter VIII – Examples on CSA/CCA | Tag: , , ,
« |

21. The facts are the same as in Example 4 except that the functional analysis indicates Company A has no capacity to make decisions to take on or decline the risk-bearing opportunity represented by its participation in the CCA, or to make decisions on whether and how to respond to the risks associated with the opportunity. It also has no capability to mitigate the risks or to assess and make decisions relating to the risk mitigation activities of another party conducted on its behalf.

22. In accurately delineating the transactions associated with the CCA, the functional analysis therefore indicates that Company A does not control its specific risks under the CCA in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 8.15 and consequently is not entitled to a share in the output that is the objective of the CCA.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.16To the extent that specific contributions made by participants to a CCA are different in nature, e.g. the participants perform very different types of R&D activities or one of the parties contributes property and another contributes R&D activities, the guidance in paragraph 6.64...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.5A key feature of a CCA is the sharing of contributions. In accordance with the arm’s length principle, at the time of entering into a CCA, each participant’s proportionate share of the overall contributions to a CCA must be consistent with its proportionate...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.10Two types of CCAs are commonly encountered: those established for the joint development, production or the obtaining of intangibles or tangible assets (“development CCAs”); and those for obtaining services (“services CCAs”). Although each particular CCA should be considered on its own facts and...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.64When funding is provided to a party for the development of an intangible, the relevant decisions relating to taking on, laying off or declining a risk bearing opportunity and the decisions on whether and how to respond to the risks associated with the...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.17As described in the previous paragraphs, it is not necessary for the CCA participants to perform all of the CCA activities through their own personnel. In some cases, the participants in a CCA may decide to outsource certain functions related to the subject...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.62The contractual arrangements will generally determine the terms of the funding transaction, as clarified or supplemented by the economic characteristics of the transaction as reflected in the conduct of the parties. The return that would generally be expected by the funder should equal...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.92In the circumstances of Example 3, analysis under step 4(i) shows that the assumption of utilisation risk by Company A is consistent with its contractual arrangements with Company C, but under step 4(ii) it is determined that Company A does not control risks...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.91If the circumstances of Example 2 remain the same except for the fact that, while the contract specifies that Company A assumes supply chain risks, Company B is not reimbursed by Company A when there was a failure to secure key components on...
  1. July 2017: ATO guidance on related party financing arrangementsThe Practical Compliance Guideline (Guideline) from the ATO outlines the compliance approach to the taxation outcomes associated with a ‘financing arrangement’, as defined in section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), or a related transaction or contract, entered into...
  2. 2019: ATO draft on compliance approach to the arm’s length debt testThe draft Guideline provides guidance to entities in applying the arm’s length debt test in Division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 19972 and should be read in conjunction with draft Taxation Ruling TR 2019/D2 Income tax: thin capitalisation – the arm’s...

Related Case Law

  1. Spain vs EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U., Feb 2018, High Court, Case No 314/2016EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U. had deducted the full employee pension costs of a CEO that had worked both for the HQ in the Netherlands and the local Spanish Company. The tax authorities issued an assessment where 90% of the pension costs had been disallowed...
  2. European Commission vs. Amazon and Luxembourg, October 2017, State Aid – Comissions decision, SA.38944 Luxembourg gave illegal tax benefits to Amazon worth around €250 million   The European Commission has concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Amazon of around €250 million.  Following an in-depth investigation launched in October 2014, the Commission has concluded that a...
  3. Czech Republic vs Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o., April 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 7 Afs 398/2019 – 49Aisan Industry Czech, s.r.o. is a subsidiary within the Japanese Aisan Industry Group which manufactures various engine components – fuel-pump modules, throttle bodies, carburetors for independent car manufactures such as Renault and Toyota. According to the original transfer pricing documentation the Czech company...
  4. Spain vs EPSON IBÉRICA S.A.U., March 2021, Supreme Court, Case No 390:2021The SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION is a multinational group of Japanese origin active in among others areas, production and sale of computer products. The group is present in Spain, EPSON IBÉRICA, but has its European HQ in the Netherlands, EPSON EUROPE BV. The main...