§ 1.482-4(f)(2)(iii) Example 1.

Category: (f) Special rules for transfers of intangible property, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-4 Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a transfer of intangible property | Tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

(i) USdrug, a U.S. pharmaceutical company, has developed a new drug, Nosplit, that is useful in treating migraine headaches and produces no significant side effects. A number of other drugs for treating migraine headaches are already on the market, but Nosplit can be expected rapidly to dominate the worldwide market for such treatments and to command a premium price since all other treatments produce side effects. Thus, USdrug projects that extraordinary profits will be derived from Nosplit in the U.S. and European markets.

(ii) USdrug licenses its newly established European subsidiary, Eurodrug, the rights to produce and market Nosplit for the European market for 5 years. In setting the royalty rate for this license, USdrug makes projections of the annual sales revenue and the annual profits to be derived from the exploitation of Nosplit by Eurodrug. Based on the projections, a royalty rate of 3.9% is established for the term of the license.

(iii) In Year 1, USdrug evaluates the royalty rate it received from Eurodrug. Given the high profit potential of Nosplit, USdrug is unable to locate any uncontrolled transactions dealing with licenses of comparable intangible property. USdrug therefore determines that the comparable uncontrolled transaction method will not provide a reliable measure of an arm’s length royalty. However, applying the comparable profits method to Eurodrug, USdrug determines that a royalty rate of 3.9% will result in Eurodrug earning an arm’s length return for its manufacturing and marketing functions.

(iv) In Year 5, the U.S. income tax return for USdrug is examined, and the district director must determine whether the royalty rate between USdrug and Eurodrug is commensurate with the income attributable to Nosplit. In making this determination, the district director considers whether any of the exceptions in § 1.482-4(f)(2)(ii) are applicable. In particular, the district director compares the profit projections attributable to Nosplit made by USdrug against the actual profits realized by Eurodrug. The projected and actual profits are as follows:

Profit
projections		 Actual profits
Year 1 200 250
Year 2 250 300
Year 3 500 600
Year 4 350 200
Year 5 100 100
Total 1400 1450

(v) The total profits earned through Year 5 were not less than 80% nor more than 120% of the profits that were projected when the license was entered into. If the district director determines that the other requirements of § 1.482-4(f)(2)(ii)(C) were met, no adjustment will be made to the royalty rate between USdrug and Eurodrug for the license of Nosplit.






Related Guidelines

  1. OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 30One potential solution to the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would be to allow for the inclusion of price adjustment mechanisms in controlled transactions. This may provide for flexibility while maintaining an arm’s length outcome. In particular, this approach to the extent...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.192In these circumstances, the tax administration can consider ex post outcomes as presumptive evidence about the appropriateness of the ex ante pricing arrangements. However, the consideration of ex post evidence should be based on a determination that such evidence is necessary to be...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.183In other cases, independent enterprises might find that pricing based on anticipated benefits alone does not provide adequate protection against the risks posed by the high uncertainty in valuing the intangible. In such cases independent enterprises might, for instance, adopt shorter-term agreements, include...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.180In evaluating the provisions of taxpayer agreements related to the form of payment, it should be noted that some payment forms will entail greater or lesser levels of risk to one of the parties. For example, a payment form contingent on future sales...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.179Taxpayers have substantial discretion in defining the form of payment for transferred intangibles. In transactions between independent parties, it is common to observe payments for intangibles that take the form of a single lump sum. It is also common to observe payments for...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.163The reliability of a valuation of a transferred intangible using discounted cash flow valuation techniques is dependent on the accuracy of the projections of future cash flows or income on which the valuation is based. However, because the accuracy of financial projections is...


Related Case Law

  1. US vs. Medtronic Inc. June 2016, US Tax CourtThe IRS argued that Medtronic Inc failed to accurately account for the value of trade secrets and other intangibles owned by Medtronic Inc and used by Medtronic’s Puerto Rico manufacturing subsidiary in 2005 and 2006 when determening the royalty payments from the subsidiary....
  2. US vs. Guidant Corporation. February 2016The U.S. Tax Court held in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, stating that neither Internal Revenue Code §482 nor the regulations thereunder require the Respondent to always determine the separate taxable income of each controlled taxpayer in a consolidated group contemporaneously...
  3. 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...
  4. France vs. SA Bossard Consultants, March 1998, Adm. Court, no 96pa00673N° 96PA00673A subsidiary company, which paid royalties for a licence of a trademark to its parent company, could not deduct part of the sums paid as a temporary increase of the royalties by one point because it could not justify the benefit from the...
  5. US vs Medtronic, August 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals, Case No: 17-1866In this case the IRS was of the opinion, that Medtronic erred in allocating the profit earned from its devises and leads between its businesses located in the United States and its device manufacturer in Puerto Rico. To determine the arm’s length price...