Whether results derived from applications of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm’s length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in § 1.482-1(c). The application of these factors under the resale price method is discussed in paragraphs (c)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this section.
§ 1.482-3(c)(3)(i) In general.
Category: (c) Resale price method, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-3 Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a transfer of tangible property | Tag: Best Method Rule, Buy-sell distributor, Gross profit margin, Most appropriate method (MAM), Purchase and resale, Resale price method (RPM)
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.32It may be appropriate to give more weight to other attributes of comparability discussed in Chapter I (i.e. functions performed, economic circumstances, etc.) when the profit margin relates primarily to those other attributes and only secondarily to the particular product being transferred. This...
Related Case Law
- Italy vs Iprona SpA, February 2025, Supreme Court, Case No 4853/2025Iprona SpA is an Italian company that sells fruit extract powder. It had sold products to an Austrian subsidiary at a price that was nearly tripled when the goods were quickly resold through related companies before reaching a final buyer in Liechtenstein. The...
- Kenya vs Cummins Car and General Limited, September 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case no. TAT E450 OF 2023Cummins Car & General had priced goods purchased from a related party for sale to external customers using the CUP method based on prices that had previously agreed between the two parties before they became related parties. An assessment was issued by the...
- Kenya vs Avic International Beijing (EA) Limited, November 2024, Tax Appeals Tribunal, Case no. TAT E786 OF 2023A Kenyan company, Avic International Beijing (EA) Limited, purchased completely knocked-down motor vehicle parts from Avic International Beijing Company Limited (China) and then assembled them into finished products and sold these products to independent buyers. To determine the pricing of the controlled transaction...
- Japan vs “E Corp”, December 2024, Tokyo High Court, Case No 東京高裁令和６年12月11日判決Plaintif, “E Corp” is a Japanese corporation whose business activities are focused on four business fields: resources and energy, public infrastructure, industrial machinery, and aeronautics and space. Through company B, E Corp owned the shares in Company A located in Thailand. Company A...
- Peru vs “Pharma-Distributor”, July 2019, Tax Court, Case No 06144-9-2019As a result of a tax audit initiated against “Pharma-Distributor”, the Peruvian tax authority, SUNAT, issued an assessment where an adjustment of transfer prices in the amount of S/. 5,720,692.00 was added to the taxable income for FY 2009. SUNAT had applied the...