The Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report ™ provides news and analysis on U.S. and international governments’ tax policies regarding intercompany transfer pricing.
The U.S. remains committed to the traditional transfer pricing proposition that companies must apply the most appropriate transfer pricing method, a position favored by U.S. multinationals.
OECD Working Party No. 6 is currently trying to reach consensus on new guidance that would help companies decide when to apply the profit split method. The profit split method allocates income between related parties based on their relative contributions—in contrast to one-sided methods, which attempt to peg the value of assets or services based on an analysis of comparable transactions.
“The U.S. has said again that profit splits are great when it is the right thing to do, but you can’t just say that it should be the thing you do all the time,” said Christopher Bello, chief of Branch 6 in the Internal Revenue Service Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International).
The working party may be able to provide more guidance about when a profit split method might be the best method, Bello said June 7 at a transfer pricing conference co-sponsored by Bloomberg BNA and Baker McKenzie LLP in Washington.
Thus, the OECD may be able to reach consensus on more guidance about how profits can be split “in a reliable way and not just a way that looks like formulary apportionment,” Bello said. That is what the working party should try and do with this project, he said.
Bello spoke on a conference panel titled “Are Profit Splits the New Best Method?”
The OECD released its second draft guidance on the use of the profit split method for transfer pricing in July 2016. The July draft was seen by many practitioners as walking back from language in OECD guidance on combating tax base erosion and profit shifting issued in October 2015. The 2015 report included a revised Chapter 6 of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines on intangibles, which expanded the use of the method.
Bello said he thinks the working party is much closer to reaching consensus on new guidance than it was in December 2014 when the first draft was released. However, “there have been more drafts since the one you saw in July 2016 so more work needs to be done.”
Panel moderator Salim Rahim of Baker McKenzie in Washington said that although the 2014 and 2016 drafts acknowledge that companies still have to do an appropriate method analysis, “there remains a concern among companies about how tax authorities will treat profit split methods.”
There is “concern tax authorities will simply use profit splits as a back door to formulary apportionment,” Rahim said.
Bello said that in the very early drafts of new revised Chapter 6 there was a “thumb on the sale in favor of profits splits where IP was concerned.”
“It seemed like the thinking at the time was the problem with IP is that companies are putting all of the income in a place where it is not supposed to be, and they are putting none of the income in a place where it is supposed to be,” Bello said.
Companies apparently reasoned that the nature of a profit split is to put some income in both places, and decided to address the IP problem by making people split their profits between the two places, he said. “I guess the idea was that if you have a choice between putting some income in a place where it is supposed to be, as opposed to none, then that is good.”
The U.S. understands the logic of the approach, Bello said, but it isn’t correct. “We just don’t put some income where we would like for it to be. We think that we actually need to use the method that is the best, and that will actually put the right amount of income in the place where it is supposed to be.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin A. Bell in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Molly Moses at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 Tax Management Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)