§ 1.482-7(g)(5)(iv) Best method analysis considerations.

Category: (g) Supplemental guidance on methods applicable to PCTs, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, US IRC Section 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 1.482-7 Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a cost sharing arrangement | Tag: , , , , , , ,
« | »

The comparability and reliability considerations stated in § 1.482-4(c)(2) apply. Consistent with those considerations, the reliability of applying the acquisition price method as a measure of the arm’s length charge for the PCT Payment normally is reduced if –

(A) A substantial portion of the target’s nonroutine contributions to the PCT Payee’s business activities is not required to be covered by a PCT or group of PCTs, and that portion of the nonroutine contributions cannot reliably be valued;

(B) A substantial portion of the target’s assets consists of tangible property that cannot reliably be valued; or

(C) The date on which the target is acquired and the date of the PCT are not contemporaneous.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.26In valuing contributions, distinctions should be drawn between contributions of pre-existing value and current contributions. For example, in a CCA for the development of an intangible, the contribution of patented technology by one of the participants reflects a contribution of pre-existing value which...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.180Where one or more of the parties to a transaction for which the transactional profit split method is found to be the most appropriate makes a contribution in the form of intangibles, difficult issues can arise in relation both to their identification and...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.147In some situations, intangibles acquired by an MNE group from independent enterprises are transferred to a member of the MNE group in a controlled transaction immediately following the acquisition. In such a case the price paid for the acquired intangibles will often (after...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.40As indicated in paragraph 8.33, the guidance in Chapter VI on hard-to-value intangibles may equally apply in situations involving CCAs. This will be the case if the objective of the CCA is to develop a new intangible that is hard to value at...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.33Company A based in country A and Company B based in country B are members of an MNE group and have concluded a CCA to develop intangibles. Company B has entitlement under the CCA to exploit the intangibles in country B, and Company...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VIII paragraph 8.24Contributions to a CCA may take many forms. For services CCAs, contributions primarily consist of the performance of the services. For development CCAs, contributions typically include the performance of development activities (e.g. R&D, marketing), and often include additional contributions relevant to the development...


Related Case Law

  1. US vs. Amazon, March 2017, US Tax Court, Case No. 148 T.C. No 8Amazon is an online retailer that sells products through Amazon.com and related websites. Amazon also sells third-party products for which it receives a commissions. In a series of transactions  in 2005 and 2006, Amazon US transferred intangibles to Amazon Europe, a newly established...
  2. 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...
  3. 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...
  4. Norway vs Eni Norge AS , September 2023, District Court, Case No TSRO-2022-185908Eni Norge AS was a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni International B.V., a Dutch company. Both companies were part of the Eni Group, in which the Italian company Eni S.p.A was the HQ. Eni Norway had deducted costs related to the purchase of...
  5. US vs. Veritas Software Corporation, December 2009The issue in the VERITAS case involved the calculation of the buy-in payment under VERITAS’ cost sharing arrangement with its Irish affiliate. VERITAS US assigned all of its existing European sales agreements to VERITAS Ireland. Similarly,VERITAS Ireland was given the rights to use the covered...