Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amazon V IRS - IRS Opening Brief
Amazon V IRS - IRS Opening Brief
No. 17-72922
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________
Petitioners-Appellees
v.
Respondent-Appellant
_______________________________
RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
TRAVIS A. GREAVES
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 2 of 143
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of contents .......................................................................................... i
Table of authorities ................................................................................... iv
Glossary ...................................................................................................viii
Statement of jurisdiction ............................................................................ 1
Statement of the issue ................................................................................ 1
Applicable statutes and regulations .......................................................... 2
Statement of the case ................................................................................. 2
C. Amazon .......................................................................... 13
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 3 of 143
-ii-
Page
Argument .................................................................................................. 34
A. Introduction................................................................... 34
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 4 of 143
-iii-
Page
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 5 of 143
-iv-
Page(s)
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 79
Statement of related cases ....................................................................... 80
Addendum ................................................................................................. 81
Certificate of compliance ........................................................................ 133
Certificate of service ............................................................................... 134
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Statutes:
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 6 of 143
-v-
§ 6213(a) .......................................................................................... 1
§ 6662(e)......................................................................................... 55
§ 7442 ............................................................................................... 1
§ 7459(a) .......................................................................................... 1
§ 7482(a)(1) ...................................................................................... 1
§ 7483 ............................................................................................... 1
Regulations:
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 7 of 143
-vi-
§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(ii)(B) ......................................................................... 68
§ 1.482-3 ............................................................................................. 6
§ 1.482-4 ........................................................................... 6, 12, 21, 36
§ 1.482-4(b) ..................... 12, 21, 26, 29, 41, 42, 44-49, 53, 54, 56, 76
§ 1.482-4(b)(1)-(5) .......................................................... 45, 46, 55, 57
§ 1.482-4(b)(1)-(6) .............................................................................. 7
§ 1.482-4(b)(6) ............................................................ 6, 42, 45, 53, 54
§ 1.482-4(c) ......................................................................................... 9
§ 1.482-4(c)(1) .................................................................................. 27
§ 1.482-4(d) .................................................................................. 9, 20
§ 1.482-4(d)(1) .......................................................... 10, 25, 65, 66, 70
§ 1.482-4(d)(2) .................................................................................. 68
§ 1.482-6 ....................................................................................... 9, 12
§ 1.482-7 ............................................................................................. 9
§ 1.482-7A ............................................................................ 11, 36, 46
§ 1.482-7A(a)(1) ......................................................................... 11, 19
§ 1.482-7A(a)(2) ................................................................... 13, 21, 70
§ 1.482-7A(a)(3) ............................................................................... 38
§ 1.482-7A(g) ............................................................ 13, 19, 28, 42, 47
§ 1.482-7A(g)(1).................................................................... 13, 47, 65
§ 1.482-7A(g)(2)....................................... 12, 13, 30, 46, 60, 62-64, 70
§ 1.482-7A(g)(7)................................................................................ 13
§ 1.482-8 ............................................................................................. 9
Miscellaneous:
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 8 of 143
-vii-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 9 of 143
-viii-
GLOSSARY
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 10 of 143
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
States Tax Court. (ER832.) See I.R.C. § 6213(a). The Tax Court had
appeal with the Tax Court. (ER210.) See I.R.C. § 7483. This Court has
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 11 of 143
-2-
controlled the foreign affiliate, the affiliate’s income was not subject to
U.S. tax. Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code and its
regulations.
addendum.
A. Procedural overview
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 12 of 143
-3-
in Amazon-US’s federal income tax for 2005 and 2006. The deficiencies
for the use of those pre-existing intangibles (buy-in payment). The IRS
deficiencies. After a trial, the court concluded that neither party had
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 13 of 143
-4-
the buy-in payment was unreasonable because it included items that (in
the court’s view) were outside the scope of the regulations’ buy-in
B. Regulatory overview
1. Transfer pricing
intangibles. If the use of the intangibles was worth $4 billion, but the
U.S. corporation allowed the foreign subsidiary to use them for free, the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 14 of 143
-5-
tax items (including gross income) between or among the parties “if [it]
with the results that would have been realized if uncontrolled taxpayers
Id. Using the example above, if the U.S. corporation had made its
charged that party $4 billion for such use. Section 482 allows the IRS
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 15 of 143
-6-
category of property that can be transferred for free or for less than an
independent of the services of any individual” and “derives its value not
from its physical attributes but from its intellectual content or other
but make clear that intangibles are not limited to the items specifically
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 16 of 143
-7-
listed but also include “[o]ther” assets that similarly derive their value
2. Valuing intangibles
intangibles they create in the United States (often with substantial tax
for tax enforcement. For many years, the arm’s-length price for
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 17 of 143
-8-
without requiring the foreign affiliate to pay the U.S. taxpayer a price
intangible.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-426, at 423, 425 (1985). To remedy this
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 18 of 143
-9-
that such a method should take into account the economic benefits the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 19 of 143
-10-
it.” Id. For example, if the U.S. owner of an intangible could have
for anything less than $4 billion, which would represent the minimum
3. Qualified-cost-sharing arrangements
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 20 of 143
-11-
for the U.S. parent; Europe for the foreign subsidiary). See § 1.482-
developed by the parent and licensed to the subsidiary; rather, all cost-
Because the U.S. parent typically incurs the lion’s share of the costs, the
parent each year, which increases the U.S. parent’s taxable income.
forward basis typically do not start from scratch; rather, such activities
usually benefit from, and build upon, the U.S. parent’s existing
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 21 of 143
-12-
investment.” Id.
must pay an “arm’s length charge” for the intangibles that its U.S.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 22 of 143
-13-
payment also must satisfy the general rules applicable to all transfer
C. Amazon
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 23 of 143
-14-
2005-2011. (ER395, 413.) The key to this expected success was the
Perhaps the most valuable item in this latter category was Amazon-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 24 of 143
-15-
culture, which set Amazon apart from other companies, fell under the
(ER334.)
928.)
income tax on foreign income earned by its foreign affiliates (unless that
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 25 of 143
-16-
Project, it would avoid more than $1 billion in U.S. tax during 2005-
taxing authorities whereby they agreed that the royalty payable by the
sufficient to “soak up” almost all of the operating company’s income that
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 26 of 143
-17-
958.)
928.)
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 27 of 143
-18-
2006. (ER221-222.)
(Op/ER17, 26.)
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 28 of 143
-19-
ER609-612.)
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 29 of 143
-20-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 30 of 143
-21-
was the best method for determining an arm’s-length price for the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 31 of 143
-22-
the net cash flows that it is expected to generate in the future. (ER456,
risk, the DCF discounts the estimated future cash flows to a present
value using a discount rate that reflects not only the time value of
money, but also the riskiness of the assets – the higher the risk, the
higher the discount rate, and the lower the present value. (ER380-381,
772.) The appropriate discount rate is the rate of return that market
participants would require for similar investments, that is, their cost of
goal was to establish the expected cash flows of the European Business
pre-existing intangibles.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 32 of 143
-23-
18% discount rate to the remaining net cash flows to compute the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 33 of 143
-24-
explained that, after adjusting the cash flows to account for Amazon-
475.)
did not pay twice for the subsequently developed intangibles (that is,
once through the cost-sharing payments and once through the buy-in
The projected 18% return was the market rate of return that an
381, 573-578, 723, 737-740.) But, as Frisch emphasized, his DCF did
not cap Amazon-LUX’s returns at 18%; under his model, any actual
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 34 of 143
-25-
billion.7 (ER381-384, 953.) The bulk of that amount ($2.6 billion) was
Business during the first 20 years; the remaining $300 million was
explained, $2.9 billion was the present value of the cash flows that
generate in the European Business over time had it opted for its
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 35 of 143
-26-
intangibles that parties dealing at arm’s length would have paid for
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 36 of 143
-27-
Amazon-US argued that the best method for valuing the specific
(in support of his primary DCF method) to value the same discrete set
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 37 of 143
-28-
the value of the three sets of intangibles on the basis of their purported
useful lives and decay rates. (ER807, 816-817.) That limitation, the
primary inputs, finding (i) that the 18% discount rate utilized by Frisch
was “appropriate” (Op/ER126), and (ii) that Frisch’s projections that the
would grow at 3.8% per year” after 2011 was “conservative and
regulations. (Op/ER88 & n.22.) The court identified two legal reasons
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 38 of 143
-29-
why (in its view) the Commissioner had abused his discretion in using
First, the Tax Court found that the DCF’s “enterprise valuation of
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 39 of 143
-30-
The Tax Court next addressed the CUT method. The court agreed
with Amazon-US that it was the best method because it was limited to
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 40 of 143
-31-
arrangement.
intangibles by $2.7 billion. The Tax Court disagreed, holding that the
because it (i) includes intangibles that were not (in the court’s view)
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 41 of 143
-32-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 42 of 143
-33-
associated with future intangibles the parties anticipate will result from
value could be transferred for free – runs counter to the raison d’être of
This Court should therefore vacate the Tax Court’s decision and remand
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 43 of 143
-34-
ARGUMENT
Standard of review
from the business itself (“residual-business assets”), and (ii) for the full
“de novo.” DHL Corp. v. Commissioner, 285 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir.
2002). The Commissioner raised these issues during the Tax Court
A. Introduction
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 44 of 143
-35-
result. See Jane Gravelle, Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance &
revenue loss from “corporate profit shifting” as $10-90 billion per year).
World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech 196-197 (2017)
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 45 of 143
-36-
957-958.
The regulations at issue in this appeal – the 1994 (§§ 1.482-1, 1.482-4)
the CUT method to value only part of the bundle of intangibles that
including Amazon-US’s growth options, see, below, § C, and (ii) for the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 46 of 143
-37-
Honolulu Corp. v. Commissioner, 840 F.2d 642, 647 (9th Cir. 1988)
customarily loan large sums without interest”). In this case, the record
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 47 of 143
-38-
charged for the full value of the intangibles Amazon-US made available
that amount as well.10 The Tax Court was not free to disregard this
principle; it is mandatory and applies “‘in every case.’” Xilinx, 598 F.3d
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 48 of 143
-39-
he would “value the entire business and take out the tangibles.”
from Amazon-US’s counsel could be transferred “for free” and “were not
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 49 of 143
-40-
Section 482. If a company entering into the same transaction under the
definition – the buy-in payment here would have to include the value of
options. Instead, the court simply concluded that the buy-in payment
need not provide such compensation because (in its view) such assets
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 50 of 143
-41-
history.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 51 of 143
-42-
and (ii) comprises any of the items in the regulation’s six described
catch-all provision that includes any asset that “derives its value” from
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 52 of 143
-43-
...
culture of the firm” and are “not totally separate” from Amazon-US’s
they are “part of the culture of Amazon to be able to have creative ideas
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 53 of 143
-44-
options) “do not derive their value from their ‘intellectual content or
assets – which indisputably are not tangible assets – could only derive
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 54 of 143
-45-
include such a limitation was legal error. See DHL, 285 F.3d at 1221.
do.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 55 of 143
-46-
(ER693.)
a. Section 1.482-7A
Section 1.482-7A does not exclude any item of intangible property from
arrangement pay for such items. H.R. Rep. No. 99-841, at II-638.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 56 of 143
-47-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 57 of 143
-48-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 58 of 143
-49-
Ignoring this binding precedent, the Tax Court lost sight of the
transferred for free (absent a regulatory safe harbor, of which there are
not – imply that controlled taxpayers could transfer valuable assets “for
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 59 of 143
-50-
Section 482 itself originally did not define intangibles (by cross-
the “arm’s length” standard be applied “in every case.” 27 Fed. Reg.
entering into the same transaction under the same circumstances with
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 60 of 143
-51-
items.” Id. at 5854. The regulations did not limit the scope of “other
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 61 of 143
-52-
property.
paid for to prevent erosion of the U.S. tax base. H.R. Rep. No. 99-841,
at II-637-638.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 62 of 143
-53-
Reg. 34971, 34983 (1994). The 1994 regulations define the category
“other similar items” to mean “items that derive their value from
attributes.” Id. Like the 1968 regulations, the 1994 regulations do not
carve out any type of intangible from the scope of the definition.
(Op/ER80 n.18.) The court misreads the history. In this regard, the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 63 of 143
-54-
going concern value.”14 58 Fed. Reg. 5310, 5312 (1993). The final
place to the list; instead, the regulations clarified the catch-all provision
properties.” § 1.482-4(b)(6).
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 64 of 143
-55-
This regulation – which was in effect when the final 1994 transfer-
way that makes clear that it covers the full range of intangibles,
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 65 of 143
-56-
To the extent that there is any doubt regarding the breadth of the
(citation omitted); see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-462 (1997)
is “in the form of a legal brief”). Given that the regulations do not
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 66 of 143
-57-
compelled by the plain language of the regulation, but it is also the only
entering into the same transaction under the same circumstances with
an unrelated party would have paid for. Xilinx, 598 F.3d at 1195-1196.
reasonable. In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97),
Versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, JCX-64-17, at 48 (Dec. 7, 2017).
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 67 of 143
-58-
the services of any individual” with “any other item the value or
Because the amendment only clarifies – but does not change – the
H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 661. That the amendment aligns so exactly
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 68 of 143
-59-
law.’”15 Callejas v. McMahon, 750 F.2d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation
omitted).
_____________________
DCF method is also unfounded. In this regard, the court concluded that
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 69 of 143
-60-
7A(g)(2).
intangibles not merely for use in operating its business, but also for use
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 70 of 143
-61-
Apples and the Amazons apart is that they have developed these unique
begets the need for new technology, and R&D workforce-in-place – along
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 71 of 143
-62-
flows.
regulations prohibits the IRS from determining the amount of the buy-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 72 of 143
-63-
I.R.B. (Dec. 6, 2010), in which the court likewise held that the
133 T.C. at 323. Although that sentence says nothing about how the
i.e., any valuation that treats the existing intangible property as one of
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 73 of 143
-64-
323-324.
And the benchmark under those rules is the amount that Amazon-US
transaction under the same circumstances” with that party, i.e., had it
cost-sharing arrangement entered into with that party under the same
not have accepted a buy-in payment that was based on the wholly
artificial valuation-limitation rule that the Tax Court read into the first
sentence of § 1.482-7A(g)(2).
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 74 of 143
-65-
The Tax Court’s rejection of the DCF method also conflicts with
consider all choices realistically available to them and only enter into
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 75 of 143
-66-
economic benefit to the owner of the intangibles than the owner could
have realized under its realistic alternatives does not achieve an arm’s-
and continue to receive the net cash flows from its European Business.
net cash flows related to the European Business that Amazon-US gave
have expected cash flows of $2.9 billion net of the projected intangible-
953.)
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 76 of 143
-67-
principle long before it was incorporated into the 1994 regulations. See
Kerry Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 500 F.2d 108, 109-110 (9th Cir. 1974).
unrelated party a loan, it would have been able to charge interest. Id.
income that the lender in Kerry could have earned, the cash flows that
role in this case because the IRS may not (i) “restructure” the parties’
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 77 of 143
-68-
could have realized from the European Business had it not entered into
16 The Tax Court’s error has been noted by the tax bar. As one
tax practitioner explained, the Amazon decision “misinterpreted the
realistic alternatives principle,” which is “not a very complicated
concept that you will not do something that hurts yourself.” Ryan
Finley, IRS Focus on Economic Concepts in Doubt After Amazon
Decision, Practitioners Say, 2017 Worldwide Tax Daily 139-1 (July 21,
2017).
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 78 of 143
-69-
regard, if the controlled price is less than the benchmark price, the
But – as the regulation makes clear – adjusting the price does not result
its foreign affiliate pay an arm’s-length price for access to its pre-
the reach of the U.S. tax system for anything less than an arm’s-length
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 79 of 143
-70-
intangibles.
principle in this case was not an “attempt to apply the [2009/2011 cost-
the principle was well established in the earlier regulations that apply
here.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 80 of 143
-71-
below.
solve for the present value of the pre-existing intangible assets that
the following:
(which had known expected values) from the projected cash flows, and
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 81 of 143
-72-
(Id.)
contributions, which are eliminated from the DCF analysis, then the
from thin air – it has to “come from something.” (ER709.) See ER457-
existing intangibles.
DCF method does not require Amazon-LUX to pay twice for the same
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 82 of 143
-73-
from the projected cash flows before the net cash flows are discounted to
(ER724-725, 785-786)), and then (ii) subtracting that amount from the
cash flows in the DCF computation before the net cash flows were
an indefinite useful life does not mean that he “failed to restrict his
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 83 of 143
-74-
intangibles had a useful life of 20 years or less, the court did not – and
limited useful life.18 Moreover, because the DCF method backs into the
In short, Frisch did “limit his buy-in payment to the value of the
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 84 of 143
-75-
flows, all future cash flows of the European Business that exceed the
LUX. (ER740-744.) Thus, the DCF method does not limit the actual
owner of the future intangibles; it only sets the maximum price that
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 85 of 143
-76-
instead the market rate of return (18%) that the court found was
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 86 of 143
-77-
growth options, and therefore the IRS could not have abused its
method was the most reliable way to value all of those intangibles.
discretion” to select the DCF method as the best method (Op/ER68), and
the Tax Court’s rationale for rejecting that method is wrong as a matter
Tax Court to utilize the CUT method to value the intangibles made
DCF method as the best method for determining the arm’s-length buy-
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 87 of 143
-78-
in payment in this case, vacate the Tax Court’s decision on that ground,
and remand with instructions for the Tax Court to determine the proper
application of the DCF method to the facts of this case. In that regard,
required. First, the Tax Court found (and the Commissioner has not
above (n.17), the Tax Court should adjust Frisch’s buy-in payment
in the Tax Court, Amazon made several arguments regarding how (in
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 88 of 143
-79-
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Tax Court should be vacated, and the case
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
TRAVIS A. GREAVES
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MARCH 2018
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 89 of 143
-80-
Commissioner respectfully inform the Court that they are not aware of
any cases related to the instant appeal that are pending in this Court.
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 90 of 143
-81-
ADDENDUM
26 C.F.R. § 1.482-1 84
16402087.1
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 91 of 143
-82-
§ 482 TITLE 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Page 1342
1776, 1834; Pub. L. 96-471, §2(b)(3), Oct. 19, 1980, 94 EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1958 AMENDMENT
Stat. 2254.) Section 29(d) of Pub. L. 85-866, as amended by Pub. L.
REFERENCES IN TEXT 99-514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that:
"(1) IN GENERAL.-The amendments made by this sec-
The Internal Revenue Code of 1939, referred to in sub- tion [amending this section and section 381 of this title]
sec. (b)(3)(C), is act Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, 53 Stat. 1, as shall apply with respect to any change in a method of
amended. Prior to the enactment of the Internal Reve- accounting where the year of the change (within the
nue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954], the 1939 Code meaning of section 481 of the Internal Revenue Code of
was classified to former Title 26, Internal Revenue 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954]) is a taxable year beginning
Code. Chapters 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of after December 31, 1953, and ending after August 16,
1939 were comprised of sections 1 to 482 and 500 to 784, 1954.
respectively, of former Title 26. Chapters 1 (except sec- "(2) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN AGREEMENTS.-The
tions 143 and 144) and 2 were repealed by section amendments made by subsections (a), (b)(I), and (c)
7851(a)(1) of this title. For table of comparisons of the [amending this section and section 381 of this title]
1939 Code to the 1986 Code, see Table I preceding section shall not apply if before the date of the enactment of
1 of this title. See, also, section 7851(e) of this title for this Act [Sept. 2, 1958]-
provision that references in the 1986 Code to a provision "(A) the taxpayer applied for a change in the meth-
of the 1939 Code, not then applicable, shall be deemed od of accounting in the manner provided by regula-
a reference to the corresponding provision of the 1986 tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury or
Code, which is then applicable. his delegate, and
AMENDMENTS "(B) the taxpayer and the Secretary of the Treas-
ury or his delegate agreed to the terms and condi-
1980-Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 96-471 struck out subsec. (d) tions for making the change."
which provided that this section was not to apply to a
change to which section 453 of this title, relating to CHANGES IN TREATMENT OF POLICYHOLDER DIVIDENDS
change to installment method, applied. BY QUALIFIED GROUP SELF-INSURERS' FUNDS
1976-Subsecs. (b)(1), (2). Pub. L. 94-455, Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, §7816(m), Dec. 19, 1989, 103
§1901(a)(70)(B), struck out ", other than the amount of Stat. 2421, provided that: "If, for the 1st taxable year
such adjustments to which paragraph (4) or (5) applies," beginning on or after January 1, 1987, a qualified group
after "required by subsection (a)(2)". self-insurers' fund changes its treatment of policy-
Subsec. (b)(4), (5), (6). Pub. L. 94-455, §1901(a)(70)(A), holder dividends to take into account such dividends no
struck out par. (4) which related to special rule for pre- earlier than the date that the State regulatory author-
1954 general adjustments, par. (5) which related to spe- ity determines the amount of the policyholder dividend
cial rule for pre-1954 adjustments in case of certain de- that may be paid, then such change shall be treated as
cedents, and par. (6) which related to the application of a change in a method of accounting and no adjustment
the special rule for pre-1954 general adjustments. under section 481(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94-455, §1906(b)(13)(A), struck out 1986 shall be made with respect to such change in meth-
"or his delegate" after "Secretary". od of accounting."
1969-Subsec. (b)(3)(A). Pub. L. 91-172 substituted
"loss carryback or carryover" for "loss carryover". TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR INCOME TAX TREATMENT
1958-Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 85-866, §29(a)(1),'inserted OF DEALER RESERVE INCOME
"unless the adjustment is attributable to a change in
Pub. L. 86-459, May 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 124, authorized
the method of accounting initiated by the taxpayer",
any person who computed taxable income under the ac-
after "does not apply".
crual method of accounting for his most recent taxable
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 85-866, §29(b)(1)-(3), inserted
" other than the amount of such adjustments to which year ending on or before June 22, 1959, and who treated
paragraph (4) or (5) applies," after "subsection (a)(2)" dealer reserve income for such taxable year as accru-
able for a subsequent taxable year, to elect before Sept.
and substituted "the aggregate increase in the taxes"
for "the aggregate of the taxes" and "which would re- 1, 1960, to have section 481 of this title apply to the
treatment for income tax purposes of dealer reserve in-
sult if one-third of such increase in taxable income" for
"which would result if one-third of such increase". come.
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 85-866, §29(b)(1), (4), inserted ELECTION TO RETURN TO FORMER METHOD OF
"other than the amount of such adjustments to which ACCOUNTING
paragraph (4) or (5) applies," after "subsection (a)(2)",
wherever appearing and "(or under the corresponding Section 29(e) of Pub. L. 85-866 authorized an election
provisions of prior revenue laws)" after "the net in- by certain taxpayers, who, for any taxable years begin-
crease in the taxes under this Chapter". ning after Dec. 31, 1953, and ending after Aug. 16, 1954,
Subsec. (b)(3)(A). Pub. L. 85-866, §29(b)(5), substituted and before Sept. 2, 1958, computed their taxable in-
"paragraph (1) or (2)" for "paragraph (2)", wherever ap- comes using different accounting methods in succeed-
pearing. ing taxable years, to return to their first method of ac-
Subsec. (b)(4) to (6). Pub. L. 85-866, §29(a)(2), added counting, where the election was made within six
pars. (4) to (6). months after Sept. 2, 1958. Claims for refunds of over-
payments of tax resulting from the election were to be
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1980 AMENDMENT filed within one year after the date of the election.
For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 96-471, Such an election was to be considered a consent to an
see section 6(a)(1) of Pub. L. 96-471, set out as an Effec- assessment of a deficiency resulting from the election,
tive Date note under section 453 of this title. where the assessment is made within one year after the
date of the election.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
§ 482. Allocation of income and deductions
Amendment by section 1901(a)(70) of Pub. L. 94-455 ef-
fective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976, among taxpayers
see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94-455, set out as a note In any case of two or more organizations,
under section 2 of this title.
trades, or businesses (whether or not incor-
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1969 AMENDMENT porated, whether or not organized in the United
Amendment by Pub. L. 91-172 applicable with respect States, and whether or not affiliated) owned or
to net capital losses sustained in taxable years begin- controlled directly or indirectly by the same in-
ning after Dec. 31, 1969, see section 512(g) of Pub. L. terests, the Secretary may distribute, appor-
91-172, set out as a note under section 1212 of this title. tion, or allocate gross income, deductions, cred-
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 92 of 143
-83-
Page 1343 TITLE 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE §483
its, or allowances between or among such orga- (b) Total unstated interest
nizations, trades, or businesses, if he determines For purposes of this section, the term "total
that such distribution, apportionment, or allo- unstated interest" means, with respect to a con-
cation is necessary in order to prevent evasion tract for the sale or exchange of property, an
of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any amount equal to the excess of-
of such organizations, trades, or businesses. In (1) the sum of the payments to which this
the case of any transfer (or license) of intangible section applies which are due under the con-
property (within the meaning of section tract, over
936(h)(3)(B)), the income with respect to such (2) the sum of the present values of such pay-
transfer or license shall be commensurate with ments and the present values of any interest
the income attributable to the intangible. payments due under the contract.
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 162; Pub. L. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
94-455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 present value of a payment shall be determined
Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 99-514, title XII, §1231(e)(1), under the rules of section 1274(b)(2) using a dis-
Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2562.) count rate equal to the applicable Federal rate
AMENDMENTS determined under section 1274(d).
1986-Pub. L. 99-514 inserted at end "In the case of (c) Payments to which subsection (a) applies
any transfer (or license) of intangible property (within (1) In general
the meaning of section 936(h)(3)(B)), the income with
respect to such transfer or license shall be commensu- Except as provided in subsection (d), this
rate with the income attributable to the intangible." section shall apply to any payment on account
1976-Pub. L. 94-455 struck out "or his delegate" after of the sale or exchange of property which con-
"Secretary". stitutes part or all of the sales price and which
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT is due more than 6 months after the date of
such sale or exchange under a contract-
Amendment by Pub. L. 99-514 applicable to taxable (A) under which some or all of the pay-
years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, but only with re-
spect to transfers after Nov. 16, 1985, or licenses granted ments are due more than 1 year after the
after such date, or before such date with respect to date of such sale or exchange, and
property not in existence or owned by the taxpayer on (B) under which there is total unstated in-
such date, except that for purposes of section terest.
936(h)(5)(C) of this title, such amendment applicable to (2) Treatment of other debt instruments
taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, without re-
gard to when the transfer or license was made, see sec- For purposes of this section, a debt instru-
tion 1231(g)(2) of Pub. L. 99-514, set out as a note under ment of the purchaser which is given in con-
section 936 of this title. sideration for the sale or exchange of property
REGULATIONS shall not be treated as a payment, and any
payment due under such debt instrument shall
For requirement that, not later than 180 days after be treated as due under the contract for the
July 18, 1984, the Secretary of the Treasury modify the
safe harbor interest rates applicable under the regula- sale or exchange.
tions prescribed under this section so that such rates (3) Debt instrument defined
are consistent with the rates applicable under section For purposes of this subsection, the term
483 of this title by reason of the amendments made by
Pub. L. 98-369, see section 44(b)(2) of Pub. L. 98-369, set "debt instrument" has the meaning given such
out as an Effective Date note under section 1271 of this term by section 1275(a)(1).
title. (d) Exceptions and limitations
STUDY OF APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THIS (1) Coordination with original issue discount
SECTION rules
Pub. L. 101-508, title XI, §11316, Nov. 5. 1990, 104 Stat. This section shall not apply to any debt in-
1388-458, directed Secretary of the Treasury or his dele- strument for which an issue price is deter-
gate to conduct a study of the application and adminis- mined under section 1273(b) (other than para-
tration of section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of graph (4) thereof) or section 1274.
1986 and not later than Mar. 1, 1992, submit to Commit-
tee on Ways and Means of House of Representatives and (2) Sales prices of $3,000 or less
Committee on Finance of Senate a report on the study, This section shall not apply to any payment
together with such recommendations as he deemed ad-
visable. on account of the sale or exchange of property
if it can be determined at the time of such sale
§ 483. Interest on certain deferred payments or exchange that the sales price cannot exceed
$3,000.
(a) Amount constituting interest
(3) Carrying charges
For purposes of this title, in the case of any
payment- In the case of the purchaser, the tax treat-
(1) under any contract for the sale or ex- ment of amounts paid on account of the sale
change of any property, and or exchange of property shall be made without
(2) to which this section applies, regard to this section if any such amounts are
treated under section 163(b) as if they included
there shall be treated as interest that portion of interest.
the total unstated interest under such contract
which, as determined in a manner consistent (4) Certain sales of patents
with the method of computing interest under In the case of any transfer described in sec-
section 1272(a), is properly allocable to such pay- tion 1235(a) (relating to sale or exchange of
ment. patents), this section shall not apply to any
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 93 of 143
-84-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
(1) Transfers to which section.421 "applies. (2) Documentation.
(2) Deductions of foreign controlled par- (i) Requirements.
ticipants. (ii) Coordination with penalty regulation.
(3) Modification of stock option. (3) Reporting requirements.
(4) Expiration or termination of qualified (k) Effective date.
cost sharing arrangement. (1) Transition rule.
(B) Election with respect to options on
publicly traded stock. §1.482-8 Examples of the best method rule.
(1) In general. (a) In general.
(2) Publicly traded stock. (b) Examples.
(3) Generally accepted accounting prin-
ciples. [T.D. 8552, 59 FR 34988, July 8, 1994, as amend-
(4) Time and manner of making the elec- ed by T.D. 8632, 60 FR 65557, Dec. 20, 1995; 61
tion. FR 7157, Feb. 26, 1996; T.D. 8670, 61 FR 21956,
(C) Consistency. May 13, 1996; T.D. 9088, 68 FR 51177, Aug. 26,
(3) Examples. 2003]
(e) Anticipated benefits.
(1) Benefits. § 1.482-1 Allocation of income and de-
(2) Reasonably anticipated benefits. ductions among taxpayers.
(f) Cost allocations. (a) In general-(1) Purpose and scope.
(1) In general.
(2) Share of intangible development costs. The purpose of section 482 is to ensure
(i) In general. that taxpayers clearly reflect income
(ii) Example. attributable to controlled transactions,
(3) Share of reasonably anticipated bene- and to prevent the avoidance of taxes
fits. with respect to such transactions. Sec-
(i) In general. tion 482 places a controlled taxpayer on
(ii) Measure of benefits. a tax parity with an uncontrolled tax-
(iii) Indirect bases for measuring antici-
pated benefits. payer by determining the true taxable
(A) Units used, produced or sold. income of the controlled taxpayer. This
(B) Sales. §1.482-1 sets forth general principles
(C) Operating profit. and guidelines to be followed under
(D) Other bases for measuring anticipated section 482. Section 1.482-2 provides
benefits. rules for the determination of the true
(E) Examples. taxable income of controlled taxpayers
(iv) Projections used to estimate antici-
pated benefits. in specific situations, including con-
(A) In general. trolled transactions involving loans or
(B) Unreliable projections. advances, services, and property. Sec-
(C) Foreign-to-foreign adjustments. tions 1.482-3 through 1.482-6 elaborate
(D) Examples. on the rules that apply to controlled
(4) Timing of allocations. transactions involving property. Sec-
(g) Allocations of income, deductions or tion 1.482-7T sets forth the cost sharing
other tax items to reflect transfers of intan-
provisions applicable to taxable years
gibles (buy-in).
(1) In general. beginning on or after October 6, 1994,
(2) Pre-existing intangibles. and before January 1, 1996. Section
(3) New controlled participant. 1.482-7 sets forth the cost sharing pro-
(4) Controlled participant relinquishes in- visions applicable to taxable years be-
terests. ginning on or after January 1, 1996. Fi-
(5) Conduct inconsistent with the terms of nally, §1.482-8 provides examples illus-
a cost sharing arrangement. trating the application of the best
(6)Failure to assign interests under a quali-
fied cost sharing arrangement. method rule.
(7) Form of consideration. (2) Authority to make allocations. The
(i) Lump sum payments. district director may make allocations
(ii) Installment payments. between or among the members of a
(iii) Royalties. controlled group if a controlled tax-
(8) Examples. payer has not reported its true taxable
(h) Character of payments made pursuant income. In such case, the district direc-
to a qualified cost sharing arrangement. tor may allocate income, deductions,
(1) In general.
(2) Examples. credits, allowances, basis, or any other
(i) Accounting requirements. item or element affecting taxable in-
(j) Administrative requirements. come (referred to as allocations). The
(1) In general. appropriate allocation may take the
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 94 of 143
-85-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
form of an increase or decrease in any (ii) Selection of category of method ap-
relevant amount. plicable to transaction. The methods
(3) Taxpayer's use of section 482. If nec- listed in §1.482-2 apply to different
essary to reflect an arm's length re- types of transactions, such as transfers
sult, a controlled taxpayer may report of property, services, loans or ad-
on a timely filed U.S. income tax re- vances, and rentals. Accordingly, the
turn (including extensions) the results method or methods most appropriate
of its controlled transactions based to the calculation of arm's length re-
upon prices different from those actu- sults for controlled transactions must
ally charged. Except as provided in this be selected, and different methods may
paragraph, section 482 grants no other be applied to interrelated transactions
right to a controlled taxpayer to apply if such transactions are most reliably
the provisions of section 482 at will or evaluated on a separate basis. For ex-
to compel the district director to apply ample, if services are provided in con-
such provisions. Therefore, no un- nection with the transfer of property,
timely or amended returns will be per- it may be appropriate to separately
mitted to decrease taxable income apply the methods applicable to serv-
based on allocations or other adjust- ices and property in order to determine
ments with respect to controlled trans- an arm's length result. But see §1.482-
actions. See §1.6662-6T(a)(2) or suc- l(f)(2)(i) (Aggregation of transactions).
cessor regulations. In addition, other applicable provisions
(b) Arm's length standard-() In gen- of the Code may affect the character-
eral. In determining the true taxable ization of a transaction, and therefore
income of a controlled taxpayer, the affect the methods applicable under
standard to be applied in every case is section 482. See for example section 467.
that of a taxpayer dealing at arm's (c) Best method rule-(l) In general.
length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. The arm's length result of a controlled
A controlled transaction meets the transaction must be determined under
arm's length standard if the results of the method that, under the facts and
the transaction are consistent with the circumstances, provides the most reli-
results that would have been realized if able measure of an arm's length result.
uncontrolled taxpayers had engaged in Thus, there is no strict priority of
the same transaction under the same methods, and no method will invari-
circumstances (arm's length result). ably be considered to be more reliable
However, because identical trans- than others. An arm's length result
actions can rarely be located, whether may be determined under any method
a transaction produces an arm's length without establishing the inapplica-
result generally will be determined by bility of another method, but if an-
reference to the results of comparable other method subsequently is shown to
transactions under comparable cir- produce a more reliable measure of an
cumstances. See §1.482-1(d)(2) (Stand- arm's length result, such other method
ard of comparability). Evaluation of must be used. Similarly, if two or more
whether a controlled transaction pro- applications of a single method provide
duces an arm's length result is made inconsistent results, the arm's length
pursuant to a method selected under result must be determined under the
the best method rule described in application that, under the facts and
§1.482-1(c). circumstances, provides the most reli-
(2) Arm's length methods-(i) Methods. able measure of an arm's length result.
Sections 1.482-2 through 1.482-6 provide See §1.482-8 for examples of the appli-
specific methods to be used to evaluate cation of the best method rule. See
whether transactions between or §1.482-7 for the applicable method in
among members of the controlled the case of a qualified cost sharing ar-
group satisfy the arm's length stand- rangement.
ard, and if they do not, to determine (2) Determining the best method. Data
the arm's length result. Section 1.482-7 based on the results of transactions be-
provides the specific method to be used tween unrelated parties provides the
to evaluate whether a qualified cost most objective basis for determining
sharing arrangement produces results whether the results of a controlled
consistent with an arm's length result. transaction are arm's length. Thus, in
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 95 of 143
-86-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
determining which of two or more ability of the assumptions, and the sen-
available methods (or applications of a sitivity of the results to possible defi-
single method) provides the most reli- ciencies in the data and assumptions.
able measure of an arm's length result, Such factors are particularly relevant
the two primary factors to take into in evaluating the degree of com-
account are the degree of com- parability between the controlled and
parability between the controlled uncontrolled transactions. These fac-
transaction (or taxpayer) and any un- tors are discussed in paragraphs
controlled comparables, and the qual- (c)(2)(ii) (A), (B), and (C) of this sec-
ity of the data and assumptions used in tion.
the analysis. In addition, in certain cir- (A) Completeness and accuracy of data.
cumstances, it also may be relevant to The completeness and accuracy of the
consider whether the results of an data affects the ability to identify and
analysis are consistent with the results quantify those factors that would af-
of an analysis under another method. fect the result under any particular
These factors are explained in para- method. For example, the complete-
graphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this sec- ness and accuracy of data will deter-
tion. mine the extent to which it is possible
(i) Comparability. The relative reli- to identify differences between the con-
ability of a method based on the re- trolled and uncontrolled transactions,
sults of transactions between unrelated and the reliability of adjustments that
parties depends on the degree of com- are made to account for such dif-
parability between the controlled ferences. An analysis will be relatively
transaction or taxpayers and the un- more reliable as the completeness and
controlled comparables, taking into ac- accuracy of the data increases.
count the factors described in §1.482- (B) Reliability of assumptions. All
1(d)(3) (Factors for determining com- methods rely on certain assumptions.
parability), and after making adjust- The reliability of the results derived
ments for differences, as described in from a method depends on the sound-
§ 1.482-1(d)(2) (Standard of com- ness of such assumptions. Some as-
parability). As the degree of com- sumptions are relatively reliable. For
parability increases, the number and example, adjustments for differences in
extent of potential differences that payment terms between controlled and
could render the analysis inaccurate is uncontrolled transactions -may be
reduced. In addition, if adjustments are based on the assumption that at arm's
made to increase the degree of com- length such differences would lead to
parability, the number, magnitude, and price differences that reflect the time
reliability of those adjustments will af- value of money. Although selection of
fect the reliability of the results of the the appropriate interest rate to use in
analysis. Thus, an analysis under the making such adjustments involves
comparable uncontrolled price method some judgement, the economic anal-
will generally be more reliable than ysis on which the assumption is based
analyses obtained under other methods is relatively sound. Other assumptions
if the analysis is based on closely com- may be less reliable. For example, the
parable uncontrolled transactions, be- residual profit split method may be
cause such an analysis can be expected based on the assumption that capital-
to achieve a higher degree of com- ized intangible development expenses
parability and be susceptible to fewer reflect the relative value of the intan-
differences than analyses under other gible property contributed by each
methods. See §1.482-3(b)(2)(ii)(A). An party. Because the costs of developing
analysis will be relatively less reliable, an intangible may not be related to its
however, as the uncontrolled trans- market value, the soundness of this as-
actions become less comparable to the sumption will affect the reliability of
controlled transaction. the results derived from this method.
(ii) Data and assumptions. Whether a (C) Sensitivity of results to deficiencies
method provides the most reliable in data and assumptions. Deficiencies in
measure of an arm's length result also the data used or assumptions made
depends upon the completeness and ac- may have a greater effect on some
curacy of the underlying data, the reli- methods than others. In particular, the
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 96 of 143
-87-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
reliability of some methods is heavily alized by uncontrolled taxpayers en-
dependent on the similarity of property gaged in comparable transactions
or services involved in the controlled under comparable circumstances. For
and uncontrolled transaction. For cer- this purpose, the comparability of
tain other methods, such as the resale transactions and circumstances must
price method, the analysis of the ex- be evaluated considering all factors
tent to which controlled and uncon- that could affect prices or profits in
trolled taxpayers undertake the same arm's length dealings (comparability
or similar functions, employ similar factors). While a specific comparability
resources, and bear similar risks is par- factor may be of particular importance
ticularly important. Finally, under in applying a method, each method re-
other methods, such as the profit split quires analysis of all of the factors
method, defining the relevant business that affect comparability under that
activity and appropriate allocation of method. Such factors include the fol-
costs, income, and assets may be of lowing-
particular importance. Therefore, a dif- (i) Functions;
ference between the controlled and un- (ii) Contractual terms;
controlled transactions for which an (iii) Risks;
accurate adjustment cannot be made (iv) Economic conditions; and
may have a greater effect on the reli- (v) Property or services.
ability of the results derived under one
method than the results derived under (2) Standard of comparability. In order
to be considered comparable to a con-
another method. For example, dif-
ferences in management efficiency may trolled transaction, an uncontrolled
have a greater effect on a comparable transaction need not be identical to
profits method analysis than on a com- the controlled transaction, but must be
parable uncontrolled price method sufficiently similar that it provides a
analysis, while differences in product reliable measure of an arm's length re-
characteristics will ordinarily have a sult. If there are material differences
greater effect on a comparable uncon- between the controlled and uncon-
trolled price method analysis than on a trolled transactions, adjustments must
comparable profits method analysis. be made if the effect of such differences
(iii) Confirmation of results by another on prices or profits can be ascertained
method. If two or more methods with sufficient accuracy to improve the
produce inconsistent results, the best reliability of the results. For purposes
method rule will be applied to select of this section, a material difference is
the method that provides the most reli- one that would materially affect the
able measure of an arm's length result. measure of an arm's length result
If the best method rule does not clearly under the method being applied. If ad-
indicate which method should be se- justments for material differences can-
lected, an additional factor that may not be made, the uncontrolled trans-
be taken into account in selecting a action may be used as a measure of an
method is whether any of the com- arm's length result, but the reliability
peting methods produce results that of the analysis will be reduced. Gen-
are consistent with the results ob- erally, such adjustments must be made
tained from the appropriate applica- to the results of the uncontrolled com-
tion of another method. Further, in parable and must be based on commer-
evaluating different applications of the cial practices, economic principles, or
same method, the fact that a second statistical analyses. The extent and re-
method (or another application of the liability of any adjustments will affect
first method) produces results that are the relative reliability of the analysis.
consistent with one of the competing See § 1.482-1(c)(1) (Best method rule). In
applications may be taken into ac- any event, unadjusted industry average
count. returns themselves cannot establish
(d) Comparability-(1) In general. arm's length results.
Whether a controlled transaction pro- (3) Factors for determining com-
duces an arm's length result is gen- parability. The comparability factors
erally evaluated by comparing the re- listed in §1.482-1(d)(1) are discussed in
sults of that transaction to results re- this section. Each of these factors must
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 97 of 143
-88-
§ 1.482-1I 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
be considered in determining the de- of the two transactions. These terms
gree of comparability between trans- include-
actions or taxpayers and the extent to (1) The form of consideration charged
which comparability adjustments may or paid;
be necessary. In addition, in certain (2) Sales or purchase volume;
cases involving special circumstances, (3) The scope and terms of warranties
the rules under paragraph (d)(4) of this provided;
section must be considered. (4) Rights to updates, revisions or
(i) Functional analysis. Determining modifications;
the degree of comparability between (5) The duration of relevant license,
controlled and uncontrolled trans- contract or other agreements, and ter-
actions requires a comparison of the mination or renegotiation rights;
functions performed, and associated re- (6) Collateral transactions or ongoing
sources employed, by the taxpayers in business relationships between the
each transaction. This comparison is buyer and the seller, including arrange-
based on a functional analysis that ments for the provision of ancillary or
identifies and compares the economi- subsidiary services; and
cally significant activities undertaken, (7) Extension of credit and payment
or to be undertaken, by the taxpayers terms. Thus, for example, if the time
in both controlled and uncontrolled for payment of the amount charged in
transactions. A functional analysis a controlled transaction differs from
should also include consideration of the time for payment of the amount
the resources that are employed, or to charged in an uncontrolled trans-
be employed, in conjunction with the action, an adjustment to reflect the
activities undertaken, including con- difference in payment terms should be
sideration of the type of assets used, made if such difference would have a
such as plant and equipment, or the material effect on price. Such com-
use of valuable intangibles. A func- parability adjustment is required even
tional analysis is not a pricing method if no interest would be allocated or im-
and does not itself determine the arm's puted under §1.482-2(a) or other appli-
length result for the controlled trans- cable provisions of the Internal Rev-
action under review. Functions that enue Code or regulations.
may need to be accounted for in deter- (B) Identifying contractual terms-(1)
mining the comparability of two trans- Written agreement. The contractual
actions include- terms, including the consequent alloca-
(A) Research and development; tion .of risks, that are agreed to in
(B) Product design and engineering; writing before the transactions are en-
(C) Manufacturing, production and tered into will be respected if such
process engineering; terms are consistent with the economic
substance of the underlying trans-
(D) Product fabrication, extraction,
actions. In evaluating economic sub-
and assembly;
stance, greatest weight will be given to
(E) Purchasing and materials man-
the actual conduct of the parties, and
agement; the respective legal rights of the par-
(F) Marketing and distribution func- ties (see, for example, §1.482-4(f)(3)
tions, including inventory manage- (Ownership of intangible property)). If
ment, warranty administration, and the contractual terms are inconsistent
advertising activities; with the economic substance of the un-
(G) Transportation and warehousing; derlying transaction, the district direc-
and tor may disregard such terms and im-
(H) Managerial, legal, accounting and pute terms that are consistent with the
finance, credit and collection, training, economic substance of the transaction.
and personnel management services. (2) No written agreement. In the ab-
(ii) Contractual terms-(A) In general. sence of a written agreement, the dis-
Determining the degree of com- trict director may impute a contrac-
parability between the controlled and tual agreement between the controlled
uncontrolled transactions requires a taxpayers consistent with the eco-
comparison of the significant contrac- nomic substance of the transaction. In
tual terms that could affect the results determining the economic substance of
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 98 of 143
-89-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
the transaction, greatest weight will be per order. If P purchases product XX in
given to the actual conduct of the par- quantities of 60 per order, in the absence of
ties and their respective legal rights other reliable information, it may reason-
(see, for example, §1.482-4(0(3) (Owner- ably be concluded that the arm's length
ship of intangible property)). For ex- price to P would be $100, less a discount of
3.5%.
ample, if, without a written agreement,
(ii) If P purchases product XX in quantities
a controlled taxpayer operates at full
of 1,000 per order, a reliable estimate of the
capacity and regularly sells all of its appropriate volume discount must be based
output to another member of its con- on proper economic or statistical analysis,
trolled group, the district director may not necessarily a linear extrapolation from
impute a purchasing contract from the the 2% and 5% catalog discounts applicable
course of conduct of the controlled tax- to sales of 20 and 100 units, respectively.
payers, and determine that the pro- Example 3- Contractual term imputed from
ducer bears little risk that the buyer economic substance. (i) USD, a United States
will fail to purchase its full output. corporation, is the exclusive distributor of
Further, if an established industry con- products manufactured by FP, its foreign
vention or usage of trade assigns a risk parent. The FP products are sold under a
or resolves an issue, that convention or tradename that is not known in the United
States. USD does not have an agreement
usage will be followed if the conduct of
with FP for the use of FP's tradename. For
the taxpayers is consistent with it. See
Years 1 through 6, USD bears marketing ex-
UCC 1-205. For example, unless other- penses promoting FP's tradename in the
wise agreed, payment generally is due United States that are substantially above
at the time and place at which the the level of such expenses incurred by com-
buyer is to receive goods. See UCC 2- parable distributors in uncontrolled trans-
310. actions. FP does not directly or indirectly
(C) Examples. The following examples reimburse USD for its marketing expenses.
illustrate this paragraph (d)(3)(ii). By Year 7, the FP tradename has become
very well known in the market and com-
Example I-Differences in volume. USP, a mands a price premium. At this time, USD
United States agricultural exporter, regu- becomes a commission agent for FP.
larly buys transportation services from (ii) In determining USD's arm's length re-
FSub, its foreign subsidiary, to ship its prod-
sult for Year 7, the district director con-
ucts from the United States to overseas mar-
siders the economic substance of the ar-
kets. Although FSub occasionally provides
transportation services to URA, an unrelated rangements between USD and FP through-
domestic corporation, URA accounts for only out the course of their relationship. It is un-
10% of the gross revenues of FSub, and the likely that at arm's length, USD would incur
remaining 90% of FSub's gross revenues are these above-normal expenses without some
attributable to FSub's transactions with assurance it could derive a benefit from
USP. In determining the degree of com- these expenses. In this case, these expendi-
parability between FSub's uncontrolled tures indicate a course of conduct that is
transaction with URA and its controlled consistent with an agreement under which
transaction with USP, the difference in vol- USD received a long-term right to use the
umes involved in the two transactions and FP tradename in the United States. Such
the regularity with which these services are conduct is inconsistent with the contractual
provided must be taken into account if such arrangements between FP and USD under
difference would have a material effect on which USD was merely a distributor, and
the price charged. Inability to make reliable later a commission agent, for FP. Therefore,
adjustments for these differences would af- the district director may impute an agree-
fect the reliability of the results derived ment between USD and FP under which USD
from the uncontrolled transaction as a meas- will retain an appropriate portion of the
ure of the arm's length result. price premium attributable to the FP
Example 2- Reliability of adjustment for dif- tradename.
ferences in volume. (i) FS manufactures prod-
uct XX and sells that product to its parent (iii) Risk-(A) Comparability. Deter-
corporation, P. FS also sells product XX to mining the degree of comparability be-
uncontrolled taxpayers at a price of $100 per tween controlled and uncontrolled
unit. Except for the volume of each trans- transactions requires a comparison of
action, the sales to P and to uncontrolled the significant risks that could affect
taxpayers take place under substantially the
same economic conditions and contractual the prices that would be charged or
terms. In uncontrolled transactions, FS of- paid, or the profit that would be
fers a 2% discount for quantities of 20 per earned, in the two transactions. Rel-
order, and a 5% discount for quantities of 100 evant risks to consider include-
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 99 of 143
-90-
§ 1.482-1I 26 CFR Ch. I (4-1-05 Edition)
(1) Market risks, including fluctua- Example 1. FD, the wholly-owned foreign
tions in cost, demand, pricing, and in- distributor of USM, a U.S. manufacturer,
ventory levels; buys widgets from USM under a written con-
(2) Risks associated with the success tract. Widgets are a generic electronic appli-
ance. Under the terms of the contract, FD
or failure of research and development must buy and take title to 20,000 widgets for
activities; each of the five years of the contract at a
(3) Financial risks, including fluctua- price of $10 per widget. The widgets will be
tions in foreign currency rates of ex- sold under FD's label, and FD must finance
change and interest rates; any marketing strategies to promote sales in
(4) Credit and collection risks; the foreign market. There are no rebate or
(5) Product liability risks; and buy back provisions. FD has adequate finan-
cial capacity to fund its obligations under
(6) General business risks related to the contract under any circumstances that
the ownership of property, plant, and could reasonably be expected to arise. In
equipment. Years 1, 2 and 3, FD sold only 10,000 widgets
(B) Identification of taxpayer that bears at a price of $11 per unit. In Year 4, FD sold
risk. In general, the determination of its entire inventory of widgets at a price of.
which controlled taxpayer bears a par- $25 per unit. Since the contractual terms al-
ticular risk will be made in accordance locating market risk were agreed to before
the outcome of such risk was known or rea-
with the provisions of § 1.482- sonably knowable, FD had the financial ca-
l(d)(3)(ii)(B) (Identifying contractual pacity to bear the market risk that it would
terms). Thus, the allocation of risks be unable to sell all of the widgets it pur-
specified or implied by the taxpayer's chased currently, and its conduct was con-
contractual terms will generally be re- sistent over time, FD will be deemed to bear
spected if it is consistent with the eco- the risk.
nomic substance of the transaction. An Example 2. The facts are the same as in Ex-
ample 1, except that in Year 1 FD had only
allocation of risk between controlled $100,000 in total capital, including loans. In
taxpayers after the outcome of such subsequent years USM makes no additional
risk is known or reasonably knowable contributions to the capital of FD, and FD is
lacks economic substance. In consid- unable to obtain any capital through loans
ering the economic substance of the from an unrelated party. Nonetheless, USM
transaction, the following facts are rel- continues to sell 20,000 widgets annually to
evant- FD under the terms of the contract, and
USM extends credit to FD to enable it to fi-
(1) Whether the pattern of the con- nance the purchase. FD does not have the fi-
trolled taxpayer's conduct over time is nancial capacity in Years 1, 2 and 3 to fi-
consistent with the purported alloca- nance the purchase of the widgets given that
tion of risk between the controlled tax- it could not sell most of the widgets it pur-
payers; or where the pattern is chased during those years. Thus; notwith-
changed, whether the relevant contrac- standing the terms of the contract, USM and
tual arrangements have been modified not FD assumed the market risk that a sub-
stantial portion of the widgets could not be
accordingly;
sold, since in that event FD would not be
(2) Whether a controlled taxpayer has able to pay USM for all of the widgets it pur-
the financial capacity to fund losses chased.
that might be expected to occur as the Example 3. S, a Country X corporation,
result of the assumption of a risk, or manufactures small motors that it sells to P,
whether, at arm's length, another its U.S. parent. P incorporates the motors
party to the controlled transaction into various products and sells those prod-
would ultimately suffer the con- ucts to uncontrolled customers in the United
States. The contract price for the motors is
sequences of such losses; and expressed in U.S. dollars, effectively allo-
(3) The extent to which each con- cating the currency risk for these trans-
trolled taxpayer exercises managerial actions to S for any currency fluctuations
or operational control over the busi- between the time the contract is signed and
ness activities that directly influence payment is made. As long as S has adequate
the amount of income or loss realized. financial capacity to bear this currency risk
In arm's length dealings, parties ordi- (including by hedging all or part of the risk)
narily bear a greater share of those and the conduct of S and P is consistent with
the terms of the contract (i.e., the contract
risks over which they have relatively
price is not adjusted to reflect exchange rate
more control. movements), the agreement of the parties to
(C) Examples. The following examples allocate the exchange risk to S will be re-
illustrate this paragraph (d)(3)(iii). spected.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 100 of 143
-91-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
Example 4. USSub is the wholly-owned U.S. ance concerning the specific com-
subsidiary of FP, a foreign manufacturer. parability considerations applicable to
USSub acts as a distributor of goods manu- transfers of tangible and intangible
factured by FP. FP and USSub execute an property, see §§1.482-3 through 1.482-6;
agreement providing that FP will bear any
ordinary product liability costs arising from see also § 1.482-3(f), dealing with the co-
defects in the goods manufactured by FP. In ordination of the intangible and tan-
practice, however, when ordinary product li- gible property rules.
ability claims are sustained against USSub (4) Special circumstances-(i) Market
and FP, USSub pays the resulting damages. share strategy. In certain cir-
Therefore, the district director disregards cumstances, taxpayers may adopt
the contractual arrangement regarding prod-
uct liability costs between FP and USSub, strategies to enter new markets or to
and treats the risk as having been assumed increase a product's share of an exist-
by USSub. ing market (market share strategy).
Such a strategy would be reflected by
(iv) Economic conditions. Determining
temporarily increased market develop-
the degree of comparability between
controlled and uncontrolled trans- ment expenses or resale prices that are
actions requires a comparison of the temporarily lower than the prices
significant economic conditions that charged for comparable products in the
could affect the prices that would be same market. Whether or not the
charged or paid, or the profit that strategy is reflected in the transfer
would be earned in each of the trans- price depends on which party to the
actions. These factors include- controlled transaction bears the costs
(A) The similarity of geographic mar- of the pricing strategy. In any case, the
kets; effect of a market share strategy on a
(B) The relative size of each market, controlled transaction will be taken
and the extent of the overall economic into account only if it can be shown
development in each market; that an uncontrolled taxpayer engaged
(C) The level of the market (e.g., in a comparable strategy under com-
wholesale, retail, etc.); parable circumstances for a com-
(D) The relevant market shares for parable period of time, and the tax-
the products, properties, or services payer provides documentation that
transferred or provided; substantiates the following-
(E) The location-specific costs of the (A) The costs incurred to implement
factors of production and distribution; the market share strategy are borne by
(F) The extent of competition in each the controlled taxpayer that would ob-
market with regard to the property or tain the future profits that result from
services under review; the strategy, and there is a reasonable
(G) The economic condition of the likelihood that the strategy will result
particular industry, including whether in future profits that reflect an appro-
the market is in contraction or expan- priate return in relation to the costs
sion; and incurred to implement it;
(H) The alternatives realistically (B) The market share strategy is pur-
available to the buyer and seller. sued only for a period of time that is
(v) Property or services. Evaluating reasonable, taking into consideration
the degree of comparability between
the industry and product in question;
controlled and uncontrolled trans-
and
actions requires a comparison of the
property or services transferred in the (C) The market share strategy, the
transactions. This comparison may in- related costs and expected returns, and
clude any intangibles that are embed- any agreement between the controlled
ded in tangible property or services taxpayers to share the related costs,
being transferred. The comparability of were established before the strategy
the embedded intangibles will be ana- was implemented.
lyzed using the factors listed in § 1.482- (ii) Different geographic markets-(A)
4(c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) (Comparable intangible In general. Uncontrolled comparables
property). The relevance of product ordinarily should be derived from the
comparability in evaluating the rel- geographic market in which the con-
ative reliability of the results will de- trolled taxpayer operates, because
pend on the method applied. For guid- there may be significant differences in
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 101 of 143
-92-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
economic conditions in different mar- transaction given the relative competi-
kets. If information from the same tive positions of buyers and sellers in
market is not available, an uncon- each market. Thus, for example, the
trolled comparable derived from a dif- fact that the total costs of operating in
ferent geographic market may be con- a controlled manufacturer's geographic
sidered if adjustments are made to ac- market are less than the total costs of
count for differences between the two operating in other markets ordinarily
markets. If information permitting ad- justifies higher profits to the manufac-
justments for such differences is not turer only if the cost differences would
available, then information derived increase the profits of comparable un-
from uncontrolled comparables in the controlled manufacturers operating at
most similar market for which reliable arm's length, given the competitive po-
data is available may be used, but the sitions of buyers and sellers in that
extent of such differences may -affect market.
the reliability of the method for pur- (D) Example. The following example
poses of the best method rule. For this illustrates the principles of this para-
purpose, a geographic market is any graph (d)(4)(ii)(C).
geographic area in which the economic Example. Couture, a U.S. apparel design
conditions for the relevant product or corporation, contracts with Sewco, its whol-
service are substantially the same, and ly owned Country Y subsidiary, to manufac-
may include multiple countries, de- ture its clothes. Costs of operating in Coun-
pending on the economic conditions. try Y are significantly lower than the oper-
(B) Example. The following example ating costs in the United States. Although
illustrates this paragraph (d)(4)(ii). clothes with the Couture label sell for a pre-
mium price, the actual production of the
Example. Manuco, a wholly-owned foreign clothes does not require significant special-
subsidiary of P, a U.S. corporation, manufac- ized knowledge that could not be acquired by
tures products in Country Z for sale to P. No actual or potential competitors to Sewco at
uncontrolled transactions are located that reasonable cost. Thus, Sewco's functions
would provide a reliable measure of the could be performed by several actual or po-
arm's length result under the comparable tential competitors to Sewco in geographic
uncontrolled price method. The district di- markets that are similar to Country Y.
rector considers applying the cost plus meth- Thus, the fact that production is less costly
od or the comparable profits method. Infor- in Country Y will not, in and of itself, justify
mation on uncontrolled taxpayers per- additional profits derived from lower oper-
forming comparable functions under com- ating costs in Country Y inuring to Sewco,
parable circumstances in the same geo- because the competitive positions of the
graphic market is not available. Therefore, other actual or potential producers in simi-
adjusted data from uncontrolled manufac- lar geographic markets capable of per-
turers in other markets may be considered in forming the same functions at the same low
order to apply the cost plus method. In this costs indicate that at arm's length such prof-
case, comparable uncontrolled manufactur- its would not be retained by Sewco.
ers are found in the United States. Accord-
ingly, data from the comparable U.S. uncon- (iii) Transactions ordinarily not accept-
trolled manufacturers, as adjusted to ac- ed as comparables-(A) In general.
count for differences between the United Transactions ordinarily will not con-
States and Country Z's geographic market, stitute reliable measures of an arm's
is used to test the arm's length price paid by length result for purposes of this sec-
P to Manuco. However, the use of such data tion if-
may affect the reliability of the results for (1) They are not made in the ordinary
purposes of the best method rule. See §1.482- course of business; or
1(c). (2) One of the principal purposes of
(C) Location savings. If an uncon- the uncontrolled transaction was to es-
trolled taxpayer operates in a different tablish an arm's length result with re-
geographic market than the controlled spect to the controlled transaction.
taxpayer, adjustments may be nec- (B) Examples. The following examples
essary to account for significant dif- illustrate the principle of this para-
ferences in costs attributable to the ge- graph (d)(4)(iii).
ographic markets. These adjustments Example 1 Not in the ordinary course of busi-
must be based on the effect such dif- ness. USP,'a United States manufacturer of
ferences would have on the consider- computer software, sells its products to
ation charged or paid in the controlled FSub, its foreign distributor in country X.
592
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 102 of 143
-93-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
Compco, a United States competitor of USP, sult. If material differences exist be-
also sells its products in X through unrelated tween the controlled and uncontrolled
distributors. However, in the year under re- transactions, adjustments must be
view, Compco is forced into bankruptcy, and made to the results of the uncontrolled
Compco liquidates its inventory by selling
all of its products to unrelated distributors transaction if the effect of such dif-
in X for a liquidation price. Because the sale ferences on price or profits can be
of its entire inventory was not a sale in the ascertained with sufficient accuracy to
ordinary course of business, Compco's sale improve the reliability of the results.
cannot be used as an uncontrolled com- See §1.482-1(d)(2) (Standard of com-
parable to determine USP's arm's length re- parability). The arm's length range
sult from its controlled transaction.
will be derived only from those uncon-
Example 2 Principal purpose of establishing
an arm's length result. USP, a United States trolled comparables that have, or
manufacturer of farm machinery, sells its through adjustments can be brought
products to FSub, its wholly-owned dis- to, a similar level of comparability and
tributor in Country Y. USP, operating at reliability, and uncontrolled
nearly full capacity, sells 95% of its inven- comparables that have a significantly
tory to FSub. To make use of its excess ca- lower level of comparability and reli-
pacity, and also to establish a comparable
ability will not be used in establishing
uncontrolled price for its transfer price to
FSub, USP increases its production to full the arm's length range.
capacity. USP sells its excess inventory to (iii) Comparables included in arm's
Compco, an unrelated foreign distributor in length range-(A) In general. The arm's
Country X. Country X has approximately the length range will consist of the results
same economic conditions as that of Country of all of the uncontrolled comparables
Y. Because one of the principal purposes of that meet the following conditions: the
selling to Compco was to establish an arm's information on the controlled trans-
length price for its controlled transactions
with FSub, USP's sale to Compco cannot be action and the uncontrolled
used as an uncontrolled comparable to deter- comparables is sufficiently complete
mine USP's arm's length result from its con- that it is likely that all material dif-
trolled transaction. ferences have been identified, each
(e) Arm's length range-(l) In general. such difference has a definite and rea-
In some cases, application of a pricing sonably ascertainable effect on price or
method will produce a single result profit, and an adjustment is made to
that is the most reliable measure of an eliminate the effect of each such dif-
arm's length result. In other cases, ap- ference.
plication of a method may produce a (B) Adjustment of range to increase reli-
number of results from which a range ability. If there are no uncontrolled
of reliable results may be derived. A comparables described in paragraph
taxpayer will not be subject to adjust- (e)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, the arm's
ment if its results fall within such length range is derived from the results
range (arm's length range). of all the uncontrolled comparables, se-
(2) Determination of arm's length lected pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(ii)
range-(i) Single method. The arm's of this section, that achieve a similar
length range is ordinarily determined level of comparability and reliability.
by applying a single pricing method se- In such cases the reliability of the
lected under the best method rule to analysis must be increased, where it is
two or more uncontrolled transactions possible to do so, by adjusting the
of similar comparability and reli- range through application of a valid
ability. Use of more than one method statistical method to the results of all
may be appropriate for the purposes de- of the uncontrolled comparables so se-
scribed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this lected. The reliability of the analysis is
section (Best method rule). increased when statistical methods are
(ii) Selection of comparables. Uncon- used to establish a range of results in
trolled comparables must be selected which the limits of the range will be
based upon the comparability criteria determined such that there is a 75 per-
relevant to the method applied and cent probability of a result falling
must be sufficiently similar to the con- above the lower end of the range and a
trolled transaction that they provide a 75 percent probability of a result fall-
reliable measure of an arm's length re- ing below the upper end of the range.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 103 of 143
-94-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-05 Edition)
The interquartile range ordinarily pro- that the results claimed on its income
vides an acceptable measure of this tax return are within the range estab-
range; however a different statistical lished by additional equally reliable
method may be applied if it provides a comparable uncontrolled prices in a
more reliable measure. manner consistent with the require-
(C) Interquartile range. For purposes ments set forth in §1.482-1(e)(2)(iii),
of this section, the interquartile range then no allocation will be made.
is the range from the 25th to the 75th (5) Examples. The following examples
percentile of the results derived from illustrate the principles of this para-
the uncontrolled comparables. For this graph (e).
purpose, the 25th percentile is the low- Example I Selection of comparables. (i) To
est result derived from an uncontrolled evaluate the arm's length result of a con-
comparable such that at least 25 per- trolled transaction between USSub, the
cent of the results are at or below the United States taxpayer under review, and
value of that result. However, if ex- FP, its foreign parent, the district director
actly 25 percent of the results are at or considers applying the resale price method.
below a result, then the 25th percentile The district director identifies ten potential
is equal to the average of that result uncontrolled transactions. The distributors
and the next higher result derived from in all ten uncontrolled transactions purchase
and resell similar products and perform simi-
the uncontrolled comparables. The 75th lar functions to those of USSub.
percentile is determined analogously. (ii) Data with respect to three of the un-
(3) Adjustment if taxpayer's results are controlled transactions is very limited, and
outside arm's length range. If the results although some material differences can be
of a controlled transaction fall outside identified and adjusted for, the level of com-
the arm's length range, the district di- parability of these three uncontrolled
rector may make allocations that ad- comparables is significantly lower than that
of the other seven. Further, of those seven,
just the controlled taxpayer's result to adjustments for the identified material dif-
any point within the arm's length ferences can be reliably made for only four of
range. If the interquartile range is used the uncontrolled transactions. Therefore,
to determine the arm's length range, pursuant to §1.482-1(e)(2)(ii) only these four
such adjustment will ordinarily be to uncontrolled comparables may be used to es-
the median of all the results. The me- tablish an arm's length range.
dian is the 50th percentile of the re- Example 2 Arm's length range consists of all
sults, which is determined in a manner the results. (i) The facts are the same as in
Example 1. Applying the resale price method
analogous to that described in para- to the four uncontrolled comparables, and
graph (e)(2)(iii)(C) of this section making adjustments to the uncontrolled
(Interquartile range). In other cases, an comparables pursuant to §1.482-1(d)(2), the
adjustment normally will be made to district director derives the following re-
the arithmetic mean of all the results. sults:
See §1.482-1(f)(2)(iii)(D) for determina-
Comparable (pRce)
tion of an adjustment when a con-
trolled taxpayer's result for a multiple
year period falls outside an arm's 1 ............................................................................. $44.00
2 ............... . .................. ........................... 45 .00
length range consisting of the average 3 ........... ....... .... *.......................... 45.00
results of uncontrolled comparables 4 ............................................................................ 45 .50
over the same period.
(4) Arm's length range not prerequisite (ii) The district director determines that
to allocation. The rules of this para- data regarding the four uncontrolled trans-
actions is sufficiently complete and accurate
graph (e) do not require that the dis- so that it is likely that all material dif-
trict director establish an arm's length ferences between the controlled and uncon-
range prior to making an allocation trolled transactions have been identified,
under section 482. Thus, for example, such differences have a definite and reason-
the district director may properly pro- ably ascertainable effect, and appropriate
pose an allocation on the basis of a sin- adjustments were made for such differences.
gle comparable uncontrolled price if Accordingly, if the resale price method is de-
the comparable uncontrolled price
termined to be the best method pursuant to
§1.482-1(c), the arm's length range for the
method, as described in §1.482-3(b), has controlled transaction will consist of the re-
been properly applied. However, if the sults of all of the uncontrolled comparables,
taxpayer subsequently demonstrates pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A) of this
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 104 of 143
-95-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
section. Thus, the arm's length range in this teen uncontrolled comparables may be used
case would be the range from $44 to $45.50. to establish an arm's length range.
Example 3 Arm's length range limited to inter- (iii) Although the data for the fifteen re-
quartile range. (1) The facts are the same as in maining uncontrolled comparables is rel-
Example 2, except in this case there are some atively complete and accurate, there is a sig-
product and functional differences between nificant possibility that some material dif-
the four uncontrolled comparables and ferences may remain. The district director
USSub. However, the data is insufficiently has determined, for example, that it is likely
complete to determine the effect of the dif- that there are material differences in the
ferences. Applying the resale price method to level of technical expertise or in manage-
the four uncontrolled comparables, and mak- ment efficiency. Accordingly, if the com-
ing adjustments to the uncontrolled parable profits method is determined to be
comparables pursuant to §1.482-1(d)(2), the the best method pursuant to §1.482-1(c), the
district director derives the following re- arm's length range for the controlled trans-
sults: action may be established only pursuant to
paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
Uncontrolled comparable Result
(price) (f) Scope of review-(1) In general. The
authority to determine true taxable in-
1 ...................................................................... .. $42.00 come extends to any case in which ei-
2 ............................................................................. 44.00
3 ....................................................................... ..
ther by inadvertence or design the tax-
45.00
4 ............................................................................. 47.50 able income, in whole or in part, of a
controlled taxpayer is other than it
(ii) It cannot be established in this case would have been had the taxpayer, in
that all material differences are likely to the conduct of its affairs, been dealing
have been identified and reliable adjust- at arm's length with an uncontrolled
ments made for those differences. Accord- taxpayer.
ingly, if the resale price method is deter- (i) Intent to evade or avoid tax not a
mined to be the best method pursuant to prerequisite. In making allocations
§1.482-1(c), the arm's length range for the
under section 482, the district director
controlled transaction must be established
pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this is not restricted to the case of im-
section. In this case, the district director proper accounting, to the case of a
uses the interquartile range to determine the fraudulent, colorable, or sham trans-
arm's length range, which is the range from action, or to the case of a device de-
$43 to $46.25. If USSub's price falls outside signed to reduce or avoid tax by shift-
this range, the district director may make ing or distorting income, deductions,
an allocation. In this case that allocation credits, or allowances.
would be to the median of the results, or (ii) Realization of income not a pre-
$44.50.
requisite-(A) In general. The district di-
Example 4 Arm's length range limited to inter-
quartile range. (i) To evaluate the arm's rector may make an allocation under
length result of controlled transactions be- section 482 even if the income ulti-
tween USP, a United States manufacturing mately anticipated from a series of
company, and FSub, its foreign subsidiary, transactions has not been or is never
the district director considers applying the realized. For example, if a controlled
comparable profits method. The district di- taxpayer sells a product at less than an
rector identifies 50 uncontrolled taxpayers arm's length price to a related tax-
within the same industry that potentially payer in one taxable year and the sec-
could be used to apply the method.
ond controlled taxpayer resells the
(ii) Further review indicates that only 20 of
the uncontrolled manufacturers engage in product to an unrelated party in the
activities requiring similar capital invest- next taxable year, the district director
ments and technical know-how. Data with may make an appropriate allocation to
respect to five of the uncontrolled manufac- reflect an arm's length price for the
turers is very limited, and although some sale of the product in the first taxable
material differences can be identified and ad- year, even though the second con-
justed for, the level of comparability of these trolled taxpayer had not realized any
five uncontrolled comparables is signifi- gross income from the resale of the
cantly lower than that of the other 15. In ad-
product in the first year. Similarly, if
dition, for those five uncontrolled
comparables it is not possible to accurately a controlled taxpayer lends money to a
allocate costs between the business activity related taxpayer in a taxable year, the
associated with the relevant transactions district director may make an appro-
and other business activities. Therefore, pur- priate allocation to reflect an arm's
suant to §1.482-1(e)(2)(ii) only the other fif- length charge for interest during such
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 105 of 143
-96-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
taxable year even if the second con- If a controlled taxpayer files a separate
trolled taxpayer does not realize in- return, its true separate taxable in-
come during such year. Finally, even if come will be determined. If a con-
two controlled taxpayers realize an trolled taxpayer is a party to a consoli-
overall loss that is attributable to a dated return, the true consolidated
particular controlled transaction, an taxable income of the affiliated group
allocation under section 482 is not pre- and the true separate taxable income
cluded. of the controlled taxpayer must be de-
(B) Example. The following example termined consistently with the prin-
illustrates this paragraph (f)(1)(ii). ciples of a consolidated return.
Example. USSub is a U.S. subsidiary of FP, (2) Rules relating to determination of
a foreign corporation. Parent manufactures true taxable income. The following rules
product X and sells it to USSub. USSub func- must be taken into account in deter-
tions as a distributor of product X to unre- mining the true taxable income of a
lated customers in the United States. The controlled taxpayer.
fact that FP may incur a loss on the manu- (i) Aggregation of transactions-(A) In
facture and sale of product X does not by general. The combined effect of two or
itself establish that USSub, dealing with FP
at arm's length, also would incur a loss. An more separate transactions (whether
independent distributor acting at arm's before, during, or after the taxable
length with its supplier would in many cir- year under review) may be considered,
cumstances be expected to earn a profit if such transactions, taken as a whole,
without regard to the level of profit earned are so interrelated that consideration
by the supplier. of multiple transactions is the most re-
(iii) Nonrecognition provisions may not liable means of determining the arm's
bar allocation-(A) In general. If nec- length consideration for the controlled
essary to prevent the avoidance of transactions. Generally, transactions
taxes or to clearly reflect income, the will be aggregated only when they in-
district director may make an alloca- volve related products or services, as
tion under section 482 with respect to defined in § 1.6038A-3(c)(7)(vii).
transactions that otherwise qualify for- (B) Examples. The following examples
nonrecognition of gain or loss under illustrate this paragraph (f)(2)(i).
applicable provisions of the Internal Example 1. P enters into a license agree-
Revenue Code (such as section 351 or ment with 51, its subsidiary, that permits S1
1031). to use a proprietary manufacturing process
(B) Example. The following example and to sell the output from this process
illustrates this paragraph (f)(1)(iii). throughout a specified region. S1 uses the
manufacturing process and sells its output
Example. (i) In Year 1 USP, a United States to S2, another subsidiary of P, which in turn
corporation, bought 100 shares of UR, an un- resells the output to uncontrolled parties in
related corporation, for $100,000. In Year 2, the specified region. In evaluating the arm's
when the value of the UR stock had de- length character of the royalty paid by S1 to
creased to $40,000, USP contributed all 100 P, it may be appropriate to consider the
shares of UR stock to its wholly-owned sub- arm's length character of the transfer prices
sidiary in exchange for subsidiary's capital charged by S1 to S2 and the aggregate profits
stock. In Year 3, the subsidiary sold all of earned by S1 and S2 from the use of the man-
the UR stock for $40,000 to an unrelated ufacturing process and the sale to uncon-
buyer, and on its U.S. income tax return, trolled parties of the products produced by
claimed a loss of $60,000 attributable to the S1.
sale of the UR stock. USP and its subsidiary Example 2. S1, S2, and S3 are Country Z
do not file a consolidated return. subsidiaries of U.S. manufacturer P. S1 is
(ii) In determining the true taxable income the exclusive Country Z distributor of com-
of the subsidiary, the district director may puters manufactured by P. S2 provides mar-
disallow the loss of $60,000 on the ground keting services in connection with sales of P
that the loss was incurred by USP. National computers in Country Z, and in this regard
Securities Corp. v Commissioner, 137 F.2d 600 uses significant marketing intangibles pro-
(3rd Cir. 1943), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 794 (1943). vided by P. S3 administers the warranty pro-
(iv) Consolidated returns. Section 482 gram with respect to P computers in Coun-
try Z, including maintenance and repair
and the regulations thereunder apply services. In evaluating the arm's length
to all controlled taxpayers, whether character of the transfer price paid by 51 to
the controlled taxpayer files a separate P, of the fees paid by S2 to P for the use of
or consolidated U.S. income tax return. P marketing intangibles, and of the service
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 106 of 143
-97-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
fees earned by S2 and S3, it may be appro- the transaction as if the alternative
priate to consider the combined effects of had been adopted by the taxpayer. See
these separate transactions because they are §1 .482-1(d)(3) (Factors for determining
so interrelated that they are most reliably
analyzed on an aggregated basis. comparability, Contractual terms and
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Ex- Risk); §§1.482-3(e) and 1.482-4(d) (Un-
ample 2. In addition, Ul, U2, and U3 are un- specified methods).
controlled taxpayers that carry out func- (B) Example. The following example
tions comparable to those of Si, S2, and S3, illustrates this paragraph (f)(2)(ii).
respectively, with respect to computers pro-
duced by unrelated manufacturers. R1, R2, Example. P and S are controlled taxpayers.
and R3 are a controlled group of taxpayers P enters into a license agreement with S
(unrelated to the P controlled group) that that permits S to use a proprietary process
also carry out functions comparable to those for manufacturing product X. Using its sales
of Si, S2, and S3 with respect to computers and marketing employees, S sells product X
produced by their common parent. Prices to related and unrelated customers outside
charged to uncontrolled customers of the R the United States. If the license agreement
group differ from the prices charged to cus- between P and S has economic substance,
tomers of Ul, U2, and U3. In determining the district director ordinarily will not re-
whether the transactions of Ul, U2, and U3, structure the taxpayer's transaction to treat
or the transactions of Ri, R2, and 113 would P as if it had elected to exploit directly the
provide a more reliable measure of the arm's manufacturing process. However, the fact
length result, it is determined that the inter- that P could have manufactured product X
related R group transactions are more reli- may be taken into account under §1.482-4(d)
able than the wholly independent trans- in determining the arm's length consider-
actions of Ul, U2, and U3, given the inter- ation for the controlled transaction. For an
relationship of the P group transactions. example of such an analysis, see Example in
Example 4. P enters into a license agree- § 1.482-4(d)(2).
ment with S1 that permits S1 to use a pro-
priety process for manufacturing product X (iii) Multiple year data-(A) In general.
and to sell product X to uncontrolled parties The results of a controlled transaction
throughout a specified region. P also sells to ordinarily will be compared with the
Si product Y which is manufactured by P in results of uncontrolled comparables oc-
the United States, and which is unrelated to curring in the taxable year under re-
product X. Product Y is resold by 51 to un- view. It may be appropriate, however,
controlled parties in the specified region. In
to consider data relating to the uncon-
evaluating the arm's length character of the
royalty paid by S1 to P for the use of the trolled comparables or the controlled
manufacturing process for product X, and taxpayer for one or more years before
the transfer prices charged for unrelated or after the year under review. If data
product Y, it would not be appropriate to relating to uncontrolled comparables
consider the combined effects of these sepa- from multiple years is used, data relat-
rate and unrelated transactions. ing to the controlled taxpayer for the
(ii) Allocation based on taxpayer's ac- same years ordinarily must be consid-
tual transactions-(A) In general. The ered. However, if such data is not avail-
district director will evaluate the re- able, reliable data from other years, as
sults of a transaction as actually struc- adjusted under paragraph (d)(2) (Stand-
tured by the taxpayer unless its struc- ard of comparability) of this section
ture lacks economic substance. How- may be used.
ever, the district director may consider (B) Circumstances warranting consider-
the alternatives available to the tax- ation of multiple year data. The extent
payer in determining whether the to which it is appropriate to consider
terms of the controlled transaction multiple-year data depends on the
would be acceptable to an uncontrolled method being applied and the issue
taxpayer faced with the same alter- being addressed. Circumstances that
natives and operating under com- may warrant consideration of data
parable circumstances. In such cases from multiple years include the extent
the district director may adjust the to which complete and accurate data is
consideration charged in the controlled available for the taxable year under re-
transaction based on the cost or profit view, the effect of business cycles in
of an alternative as adjusted -to ac- the controlled taxpayer's industry, or
count for material differences between the effects of life cycles of the product
the alternative and the controlled or intangible being examined. Data
transaction, but will not restructure from one or more years before or after
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 107 of 143
-98-
§ 1.482-1 . 26 CFR Ch. I (4-1-05 Edition)
the taxable year under review must or- § 1.482-1(e) (Arm's length range). An ad-
dinarily be considered for purposes of justment in such a case ordinarily will
applying the provisions of § 1.482- be equal to the difference, if any, be-
l(d)(3)(iii) (Risk), §1.482-1(d)(4)(i) (Mar- tween the controlled taxpayer's result
ket share strategy), §1.482-4(f)(2) (Peri- for the-taxable year and the mid-point
odic adjustments), and §1.482-5 (Com- of the uncontrolled comparables' re-
parable profits method). On the other sults for that year. If the interquartile
hand, multiple-year data ordinarily range is used to determine the range of
will not be considered for purposes of average results for the multiple year
applying the comparable uncontrolled period, such adjustment will ordinarily
price method (except to the extent that be made to the median of all the re-
risk or market share strategy issues sults of the uncontrolled comparables
are present). for the taxable year. See Example 2 of
(C) Comparable effect over comparable §1.482-5(e) In other cases, the adjust-
period. Data from multiple years may ment normally will be made to the
be considered to determine whether the arithmetic mean of all the results of
same economic conditions that caused the uncontrolled comparables for the
the controlled taxpayer's results had a taxable year. However, an adjustment
comparable effect over a comparable will be made only to the extent that it
period of time on the uncontrolled would move the controlled taxpayer's
comparables that establish the arm's multiple year average closer to the
length range. For example, given that arm's length range for the multiple
uncontrolled taxpayers enter into year period or to any point within such
transactions with the ultimate expec- range. In determining a controlled tax-
tation of earning a profit, persistent payer's average result for a multiple
losses among controlled taxpayers may year period, adjustments made under
be an indication of non-arm's length this section for prior years will be
dealings. Thus, if a controlled taxpayer taken into account only if such adjust-
that realizes a loss with respect to a ments have been finally determined, as
controlled transaction seeks to dem- described in §1.482-1(g)(2)(iii). See Ex-
onstrate that the loss is within the ample 3 of §1.482-5(e).
arm's length range, the district direc- (E) Examples. The following exam-
tor may take into account data from ples, in which S and P are controlled
taxable years other than the taxable taxpayers, illustrate this paragraph
year of the transaction to determine (f)(2)(iii). Examples 1 and 4 also illus-
whether the loss was attributable to trate the principle of the arm's length
arm's length dealings. The rule of this range of paragraph (e) of this section.
paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C) is illustrated by
Example 3 of paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(E) of Example 1. P sold product Z to S for $60 per
this section. unit in 1995. Applying the resale price meth-
od to data from uncontrolled comparables
(D) Applications of methods using mul- for the same year establishes an arm's
tiple year averages. If a comparison of a length range of prices for the controlled
controlled taxpayer's average result transaction from $52 to $59 per unit. Since
over a multiple year period with the the price charged in the controlled trans-
average results of uncontrolled action falls outside the range, the district di-
comparables over the same period rector would ordinarily make an allocation
would reduce the effect of short-term under section 482. However, in this case there
variations that may be unrelated to are cyclical factors that affect the results of
transfer pricing, it may be appropriate
the uncontrolled comparables (and that of
the controlled transaction) that cannot be
to establish a range derived from the adequately accounted for by specific adjust-
average results of uncontrolled ments to the data for 1995. Therefore, the
comparables over a multiple year pe- district director considers results over mul-
riod to determine if an adjustment tiple years to account for these factors.
should be made. In such a case the dis- Under these circumstances, it is appropriate
trict director may make an adjustment to average the results of the uncontrolled
if the controlled taxpayer's average re- comparables over the years 1993, 1994, and
1995 to determine an arm's length range. The
sult for the multiple year period is not averaged results establish an arm's length
within such range. Such a range must range of $56 to $58 per unit. For consistency,
be determined in accordance with the results of the controlled taxpayers must
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 108 of 143
-99-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
also be averaged over the same years. The controlled taxpayer's loss did not have a
average price in the controlled transaction comparable effect over a comparable period
over the three years is $57. Because the con- of time on the uncontrolled comparables.
trolled transfer price of product Z falls with- Example 4. (i) USP, a U.S. corporation,
in the arm's length range, the district direc- manufactures product Y in the United States
tor makes no allocation. and sells it to FSub, which acts as USP's ex-
Example 2. (i) FP, a Country X corporation, clusive distributor of product Y in Country
designs and manufactures machinery in N. The resale price method described in
Country X. FP's costs are incurred in Coun- §1.482-3(c) is used to evaluate whether the
try X currency. USSub is the exclusive dis- transfer price charged by USP to FSub for
tributor of FP's machinery in the United the 1994 taxable year for product Y was arm's
States. The price of the machinery sold by length. For the period 1992 through 1994,
FP to USSub is expressed in Country X cur- FSub had a gross profit margin for each year
rency. Thus, USSub bears all of the currency of 13%. A, B, C and D are uncontrolled dis-
risk associated with fluctuations in the ex- tributors of products that compete directly
change rate between the time the contract is with product Y in country N. After making
signed and the payment is made. The prices appropriate adjustments in accordance with
charged by FP to USSub for 1995 are under §§1.482-1(d)(2) and 1.482-3(c), the gross profit
examination. In that year, the value of the margins for A, B, C, and D are as follows:
dollar depreciated against the currency of
Country X, and as a result, USSub's gross
1992 1993 1994
margin was only 8%.
(ii) UD is an uncontrolled distributor of
similar machinery that performs distribu- A ................................ 13 3 8
B ................................ 11 13 2
tion functions substantially the same as
70 .............................. 4 7 13
those performed by USSub, except that UD 7D .............................. 7 9 6
purchases and resells machinery in trans-
actions where both the purchase and resale
prices are denominated in U.S. dollars. Thus, (ii) Applying the provisions of §1.482-1(e),
UD had no currency exchange risk. UD's the district director determines that the
gross margin in 1995 was 10%. UD's average arm's length range of the average gross prof-
gross margin for the period 1990 to 1998 has it margins is between 7.33 and 8.67. The dis-
been 12%. trict director concludes that FSub's average
(iii) In determining whether the price gross margin of 13% is not within the arm's
charged by FP to USSub in 1995 was arm's length range, despite the fact that C's gross
length, the district director may consider profit margin for 1994 was also 13%, since the
USSub's average gross margin for an appro- economic conditions that caused S's result
priate period before and after 1995 to deter- did not have a comparable effect over a com-
mine whether USSub's average gross margin parable period of time on the results of C or
during the period was sufficiently greater the other uncontrolled comparables. In this
than UD's average gross margin during the case, the district director makes an alloca-
same period such that USSub was suffi- tion equivalent to adjusting FSub's gross
ciently compensated for the currency risk it profit margin for 1994 from 13% to the mean
bore throughout the period. See §1.482- of the uncontrolled comparables' results for
l(d)(3)(iii) (Risk). 1994 (7.25%).
Example 3. FP manufactures product X in
Country M and sells it to USSub, which dis- (iv) Product lines and statistical tech-
tributes X in the United States. USSub real- niques. The methods described in
izes losses with respect to the controlled §§1.482-2 through 1.482-6 are generally
transactions in each of five consecutive tax- stated in terms of individual trans-
able years. In each of the five consecutive actions. However, because a taxpayer
years a different uncontrolled comparable may have controlled transactions in-
realized a loss with respect to comparable
volving many different products, or
transactions equal to or greater than
USSub's loss. Pursuant to paragraph many separate transactions involving
(f)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, the district direc- the same product, it may be imprac-
tor examines whether the uncontrolled tical to analyze every individual trans-
comparables realized similar losses over a action to determine its arm's length
comparable period of time, and finds that price. In such cases, it is permissible to
each of the five comparables realized losses evaluate the arm's length results by
in only one of the five years, and their aver- applying the appropriate methods to
age result over the five-year period was a
the overall results for product lines or
profit. Based on this data, the district direc-
tor may conclude that the controlled tax- other groupings. In addition, the arm's
payer's results are not within the arm's length results of all related party
length range over the five year period, since transactions entered into by a con-
the economic conditions that resulted in the trolled taxpayer may be evaluated by
205-088 D-20
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 109 of 143
-100-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
employing sampling and' other valid Thus, if the district director makes an
statistical techniques. allocation of income, the district direc-
(v) Allocations apply to results, not tor will not only increase the income of
methods-(A) In general. In evaluating one member of the group, but cor-
whether the result of a controlled respondingly decrease the income of
transaction is arm's length, it is not the other member. In addition, where
necessary for the district director to appropriate, the district director may
determine whether the method or pro- make such further correlative alloca-
cedure that a controlled taxpayer em- tions as may be required by the initial
ploys to set the terms for its controlled correlative allocation.
transactions corresponds to the meth- (ii) Manner of carrying out correlative
od or procedure that might have been allocation. The district director will
used by a taxpayer dealing at arm's furnish to the taxpayer with respect to
length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. which the primary allocation is made a
Rather, the district director will evalu- written statement of the amount and
ate the result achieved rather than the nature of the correlative allocation.
method the taxpayer used to determine The correlative allocation must be re-
its prices. flected in the documentation of the
(B) Example, The following example other member of the group that is
illustrates this paragraph (f)(2)(v). maintained for U.S. tax purposes, with-
Example. (i) FS is a foreign subsidiary of P, out regard to whether it affects the
a U.S. corporation. P manufactures and sells U.S. income tax liability of the other
household appliances. FS operates as P's ex- member for any open year. In some cir-
clusive distributor in Europe. P annually es- cumstances the allocation will have an
tablishes the price for each of its appliances immediate U.S. tax effect, by changing
sold to FS as part of its annual budgeting,
production allocation and scheduling, and the taxable income computation of the
performance evaluation processes. FS's ag- other member (or the taxable income
gregate gross margin earned in its distribu- computation of a shareholder of the
tion business is 18%. other member, for example, under the
(ii) ED is an uncontrolled European dis- provisions of subpart F of the Internal
tributor of competing household appliances. Revenue Code). Alternatively, the cor-
After adjusting for minor differences in the relative allocation may not be re-
level of inventory, volume of sales, and war- flected on any U.S. tax return until a
ranty programs conducted by FS and ED,
ED's aggregate gross margin is also 18%. later year, for example when a dividend
Thus, the district director may conclude is paid.
that the aggregate prices charged by P for (iii) Events triggeringcorrelative alloca-
its appliances sold to FS are arm's length, tion. For purposes of this paragraph
without determining whether the budgeting, (g)(2), a primary allocation will not be
production, and performance evaluation considered to have been made (and
processes of P are similar to such processes therefore, correlative allocations are
used by ED.
not required to be made) until the date
(g) Collateral adjustments with respect of a final determination with respect to
to allocations under section 482-(l) In the allocation under section 482. For
general. The district director will take this purpose, a final determination in-
into account appropriate collateral ad- cludes--
justments with respect to allocations (A) Assessment of tax following exe-
under section 482. Appropriate collat- cution by the taxpayer of a Form 870
eral adjustments may include correl- (Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment
ative allocations, conforming adjust- and Collection of Deficiency in Tax and
ments, and setoffs, as described in this Acceptance of Overassessment) with re-
paragraph (g). spect to such allocation;
(2) Correlative allocations-(i) In gen- (B) Acceptance of a Form 870-AD
eral. When the district director makes (Offer of Waiver of Restriction on As-
an allocation under section 482 (re- sessment and Collection of Deficiency
ferred to in this paragraph (g)(2) as the in Tax and Acceptance of Overassess-
primary allocation), appropriate cor- ment);
relative allocations will also be made (C) Payment of the deficiency;
with respect to any other member of (D) Stipulation in the Tax Court of
the group affected by the allocation. the United States; or
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 110 of 143
-101-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
(E) Final determination of tax liabil- taken into account in computing Y's allow-
ity by offer-in-compromise, closing able depreciation or gain or loss on a subse-
agreement, or final resolution (deter- quent disposition of the factory.
mined under the principles of section Example 3. In 1995, X, a U.S. corporation,
makes a loan to Y, its foreign subsidiary not
7481) of a judicial proceeding. engaged in a U.S. trade or business. In 1997,
(iv) Examples. The following examples the district director, upon determining that
illustrate this paragraph (g)(2). In each the interest charged on the loan was not
example, X and Y are members of the arm's length, proposes to adjust X's income
same group of controlled taxpayers and to reflect an arm's length interest rate. X
each regularly computes its income on consents to an assessment reflecting such al-
a calendar year basis. location by executing Form 870, and an as-
sessment of the tax with respect to the sec-
Example 1. (i)In 1996, Y, a U.S. corporation, tion 482 allocation is made in 1997. The dis-
rents a building owned by X, also a U.S. cor- trict director notifies X in writing of the
poration. In 1998 the district director deter-
amount and nature of the correlative alloca-
mines that Y did not pay an arm's length
tion to be made with respect to Y. Although
rental charge. The district director proposes
the correlative adjustment does not have an
to increase X's income to reflect an arm's
effect on Y's U.S. income tax liability, the
length rental charge. X consents to the as-
sessment reflecting such adjustment by exe- adjustment must be reflected in the docu-
cuting Form 870, a Waiver of Restrictions on mentation of Y that is maintained for U.S.
Assessment and Collection of Deficiency in tax purposes. Thus, the adjustment must be
Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment. The reflected in the determination of the amount
assessment of the tax with respect to the ad- of Y's earnings and profits for 1995 and subse-
justment is made in 1998. Thus, the primary quent years, and the adjustment must be
allocation, as defined in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of made to the extent it has an effect on any
this section, is considered to have been made person's U.S. income tax liability for any
in 1998. taxable year.
(ii) The adjustment made to X's income
(3) Adjustments to conform accounts to
under section 482 requires a correlative allo-
cation with respect to Y's income. The dis- reflect section 482 allocations-() In gen-
trict director notifies X in writing of the eral. Appropriate adjustments must be
amount and nature of the adjustment made made to conform a taxpayer's accounts
with respect to Y. Y had net operating losses to reflect allocations made under sec-
in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. Although a tion 482. Such adjustments may include
correlative adjustment will not have an ef-
the treatment of an allocated amount
fect on Y's U.S. income tax liability for 1996,
an adjustment increasing Y's net operating as a dividend or a capital contribution
loss for 1996 will be made for purposes of de- (as appropriate), or, in appropriate
termining Y's U.S. income tax liability for cases, pursuant to such applicable rev-
1998 or a later taxable year to which the in- enue procedures as may be provided by
creased net operating loss may be carried. the Commissioner (see §601.601(d)(2) of
Example 2. (i) In 1995, X, a U.S. construc- this chapter), repayment of the allo-
tion company, provided engineering services
cated amount without further income
to Y, a U.S. corporation, in the construction
of Y's factory. In 1997, the district director tax consequences.
determines that the fees paid by Y to X for (ii) Example. The following example
its services were not arm's length and pro- illustrates the principles of this para-
poses to make an adjustment to the income graph (g)(3).
of X. X consents to an assessment reflecting
such adjustment by executing Form 870. An Example Conforming cash accounts. (i) USD,
assessment of the tax with respect to such a United States corporation, buys Product
adjustment is made in 1997. The district di- from its foreign parent, FP. In reviewing
rector notifies X in writing of the amount USD's income tax return, the district direc-
and nature of the adjustment to be made tor determines that the arm's length price
with respect to Y. would have increased USD's taxable income
(ii) The fees paid by Y for X's engineering by $5 million. The district director accord-
services properly constitute a capital ex- ingly adjusts USD's income to reflect its
penditure. Y does not place the factory into true taxable income.
service until 1998. Therefore, a correlative (ii) To conform its cash accounts to reflect
adjustment increasing Y's basis in the fac- the section 482 allocation made by the dis-
tory does not affect Y's U.S. income tax li- trict director, USD applies for relief under
ability for 1997. However, the correlative ad- Rev. Proc. 65-17, 1965-1 C.B. 833 (see
justment must be made in the books and §601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter), to treat
records maintained by Y for its U.S. income the $5 million adjustment as an account re-
tax purposes and such adjustment will be ceivable from FP, due as of the last day of
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 111 of 143
-102-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
the year of the transaction, with interest ac- ices, but does not charge S for the use of the
cruing therefrom. machine. No allocation will be made with re-
spect to the undercharge for the machine if
(4) Setoffs-(i) In general. If an alloca- P notifies the district director of the basis of
tion is made under section 482 with re- the claimed setoff within 30 days after the
spect to a transaction between con- date of the letter from the district director
trolled taxpayers, the district director transmitting the examination report noti-
will also take into account the effect of fying P of the proposed adjustment, estab-
any other non-arm's length transaction lishes that the excess amount charged for
between the same controlled taxpayers services was equal to an arm's length charge
in the same taxable year which will re- for the use of the machine and that the tax-
able income and income tax liabilities of P
sult in a setoff against the original sec- are not distorted, and documents the correl-
tion 482 allocation. Such setoff, how- ative allocations resulting from the proposed
ever, will be taken into account only if setoff.
the requirements of §1.482-1(g)(4)(ii) Example 2. The facts are the same as in Ex-
are satisfied. If the effect of the setoff ample 1, except that, if P had reported $25,000
is to change the characterization or as rental income and $25,000 less as service
source of the income or deductions, or income, it would have been subject to the
otherwise distort taxable income, in tax on personal holding companies. Alloca-
such a manner as to affect the U.S. tax tions will be made to reflect the correct
liability of any member, adjustments amounts of rental income and service in-
come.
will be made to reflect the correct
amount of each category of income or (h) Special rules-(1) Small taxpayer
deductions. For purposes of this setoff safe harbor. [Reserved]
provision, the term arm's length refers (2) Effect of foreign legal restrictions-
to the amount defined in paragraph (b) (i) In general. The district director will
(Arm's length standard) of this section, take into account the effect of a for-
without regard to the rules in §1.482-2 eign legal restriction to the extent
under which certain charges are that such restriction affects the results
deemed to be equal to arm's length. of transactions at arm's length. Thus,
(ii) Requirements. The district direc- a foreign legal restriction will be taken
tor will take a setoff into account only into account only to the extent that it
if the taxpayer- is shown that the restriction affected
(A) Establishes that the transaction an uncontrolled taxpayer under com-
that is the basis of the setoff was not parable circumstances for a com-
at arm's length and the amount of the parable period of time. In the absence
appropriate arm's length charge; of evidence indicating the effect of the
(B) Documents, pursuant to para- foreign legal restriction on uncon-
graph (g)(2) of this section, all correl- trolled taxpayers, the restriction will
ative adjustments resulting from the be taken into account only to the ex-
proposed setoff; and tent provided in paragraphs (h)(2) (iii)
(C) Notifies the district director of and (iv) of this section (Deferred in-
the basis of any claimed setoff within come method of accounting).
30 days after the earlier of the date of (ii) Applicable legal restrictions. For-
a letter by which the district director eign legal restrictions (whether tem-
transmits an examination report noti- porary or permanent) will be taken
fying the taxpayer of proposed adjust- into account for purposes of this para-
ments or the date of the issuance of the graph (h)(2) only if, and so long as, the
notice of deficiency. conditions set forth in paragraphs
(iii) Examples. The following exam- (h)(2)(ii) (A) through (D) of this section
ples illustrate this paragraph (g)(4). are met.
Example 1. P, a U.S. corporation, renders (A) The restrictions are publicly pro-
services to S, its foreign subsidiary in Coun- mulgated, generally applicable to all
try Y, in connection with the construction of similarly situated persons (both con-
S's factory. An arm's length charge for such trolled and uncontrolled), and not im-
services determined under §1.482-2(b) would posed as part of a commercial trans-
be $100,000. During the same taxable year P
makes available to S the use of a machine to action between the taxpayer and the
be used in the construction of the factory, foreign sovereign;
and the arm's length rental value of the ma- (B) The taxpayer (or other member of
chine is $25,000. P bills S $125,000 for the serv- the controlled group with respect to
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 112 of 143
-103-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-1
which the restrictions apply) has ex- may prescribe by applicable revenue
hausted all remedies prescribed by for- procedures. The election statement
eign law or practice for obtaining a must identify the affected trans-
waiver of such restrictions (other than actions, the parties to the trans-
remedies that would have a negligible actions, and the applicable foreign
prospect of success if pursued); legal restrictions.
(C) The restrictions expressly pre- (iv) Deferred income method of account-
vented the payment or receipt, in any ing. If the requirements of paragraph
form, of part or all of the arm's length (h)(2)(ii) of this section are satisfied,
amount that would otherwise be re- any portion of the arm's length
quired under section 482 (for example, a amount, the payment or receipt of
restriction that applies only to the de- which is prevented because of applica-
ductibility of an expense for tax pur- ble foreign legal restrictions, will be
poses is not a restriction on payment treated as deferrable until payment or
or receipt for this purpose); and receipt of the relevant item ceases to
(D) The related parties subject to the be prevented by the foreign legal re-
restriction did not engage in any ar- striction. For purposes of the deferred
rangement with controlled or uncon- income method of accounting under
trolled parties that had the effect of this paragraph (h)(2)(iv), deductions
circumventing the restriction, and (including the cost or other basis of in-
have not otherwise violated the restric- ventory and other assets sold or ex-
tion in any material respect. changed) and credits properly charge-
(iii) Requirement for electing the de- able against any amount so deferred,
ferred income method of accounting. If a are subject to deferral under the provi-
foreign legal restriction prevents the sions of § 1.461- 1(a)(4). In addition, in-
payment or receipt of part or all of the come is deferrable under this deferred
arm's length amount that is due with income method of accounting only to
respect to a controlled transaction, the the extent that it exceeds the related
restricted amount may be treated as deductions already claimed in open
deferrable if the following require- taxable years to which the foreign
ments are met- legal restriction applied.
(A) The controlled taxpayer estab- (v) Examples. The following examples,
lishes to the satisfaction of the district in which Sub is a Country FC sub-
director that the payment or receipt of sidiary of U.S. corporation, Parent, il-
the arm's length amount was prevented lustrate this paragraph (h)(2).
because of a foreign legal restriction Example 1. Parent licenses an intangible to
and circumstances described in para- Sub. FC law generally prohibits payments by
graph (h)(2)(ii) of this section; and any person within FC to recipients outside
(B) The controlled taxpayer whose the country. The FC law meets the require-
ments of paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section.
U.S. tax liability may be affected by There is no evidence of unrelated parties en-
the foreign legal restriction elects the tering into transactions under comparable
deferred income method of accounting, circumstances for a comparable period of
as described in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of time, and the foreign legal restrictions will
this section, on a written statement at- not be taken into account in determining the
tached to a timely U.S. income tax re- arm's length amount. The arm's length roy-
turn (or an amended return) filed be- alty rate for the use of the intangible prop-
fore the IRS first contacts any member erty in the absence of the foreign restriction
is 10% of Sub's sales in country FC. However,
of the controlled group concerning an because the requirements of paragraph
examination of the return for the tax- (h)(2)(ii) of this section are satisfied, Parent
able year to which the foreign legal re- can elect the deferred income method of ac-
striction applies. A written statement counting by attaching to its timely filed
furnished by a taxpayer subject to the U.S. income tax return a written statement
Coordinated Examination Program will that satisfies the requirements of paragraph
be considered an amended return for (h)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
Example 2. (i) The facts are the same as in
purposes of this paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(B) Example 1, except that Sub, although it
if it satisfies the requirements of a makes no royalty payment to Parent, ar-
qualified amended return for purposes ranges with an unrelated intermediary to
of §1.6664-2(c)(3) as set forth in those make payments equal to an arm's length
regulations or as the Commissioner amount on its behalf to Parent.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 113 of 143
-104-
§ 1.482-1 26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-05 Edition)
(ii) The district director makes an alloca- of intangible property) do not apply
tion of royalty income to Parent, based on until the payment that would be re-
the arm's length royalty rate of 10%. Fur- quired under section 482 has been deter-
ther, the district director determines that
because the arrangement with the third mined.
party had the effect of circumventing the FC (ii) Use of terms. A cost sharing pay-
law, the requirements of paragraph ment, for the purposes of section
(h)(2)(ii)(D) of this section are not satisfied. 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I), is calculated using the
Thus, Parent could not validly elect the de- provisions of section 936 and the regu-
ferred income method of accounting, and the lations thereunder and the provisions
allocation of royalty income cannot be of this paragraph (h)(3). The provisions
treated as deferrable. In appropriate cir-
cumstances, the district director may permit relating to cost sharing under section
the amount of the distribution to be treated 482 do not apply to payments made pur-
as payment by Sub of the royalty allocated suant to an election under section
to Parent, under the provisions of §1.482-1(g) 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I). Similarly, a profit
(Collateral adjustments). split payment, for the purposes of sec-
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Ex- tion 936(h)(5)(C)(ii)(I), is calculated
ample 1, except that the laws of FC do not using the provisions of section 936 and
prevent distributions from corporations to
their shareholders. Sub distributes an the regulations thereunder, not section
amount equal to 8% of its sales in country 482 and the regulations thereunder.
FC. Because the laws of FC did not expressly (i) Definitions. The definitions set
prevent all forms of payment from Sub to forth in paragraphs (i) (1) through (10)
Parent, Parent cannot validly elect the de- of this section apply to §§ 1.482-1
ferred income method of accounting with re- through 1.482-8.
spect to any of the arm's length royalty (1) Organization includes an organiza-
amount. In appropriate circumstances, the tion of any kind, whether a sole propri-
district director may permit the 8% that was
distributed to be treated as payment by Sub etorship, a partnership, a trust, an es-
of the royalty allocated to Parent, under the tate, an association, or a corporation
provisions of §1.482-1(g) (Collateral adjust- (as each is defined or understood in the
ments). Internal Revenue Code or the regula-
Example 4. The facts are the same as in Ex- tions thereunder), irrespective of the
ample 1, except that Country FC law permits place of organization, operation, or
the payment of a royalty, but limits the conduct of the trade or business, and
amount to 5% of sales, and Sub pays the 5% regardless of whether it is a domestic
royalty to Parent. Parent demonstrates the
existence of a comparable uncontrolled or foreign organization, whether it is
transaction for purposes of the comparable an exempt organization, or whether it
uncontrolled transaction method in which an is a member of an affiliated group that
uncontrolled party accepted a royalty rate of files a consolidated U.S. income tax re-
5%. Given the. evidence of the comparable turn, or a member of an affiliated
uncontrolled transaction, the 5% royalty group that does not file a consolidated
rate is determined to be the arm's length U.S. income tax return.
royalty rate. (2) Trade or business includes a trade
(3) Coordination with section 936-(i) or business activity of any kind, re-
Cost sharing under section 936. If a pos- gardless of whether or where organized,
sessions corporation makes an election whether owned individually or other-
under section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I), the cor- wise, and regardless of the place of op-
poration must make a section 936 cost eration. Employment for compensation
sharing payment that is at least equal will constitute a separate trade or
to the payment that would be required business from the employing trade or
under section 482 if the electing cor- business.
poration were a foreign corporation. In (3) Taxpayer means any person, orga-
determining the payment that would nization, trade or business, whether or
be required under section 482 for this not subject to any internal revenue
purpose, the provisions of §§ 1.482-1 and tax.
1.482-4 will be applied, and to the ex- (4) Controlled includes any kind of
tent relevant to the valuation of intan- control, direct or indirect, whether le-
gibles, §§1.482-5 and 1.482-6 will be ap- gally enforceable or not, and however
plied. The provisions of section exercisable or exercised, including con-
936(h)(5)(C)(i)(H) (Effect of Election- trol resulting from the actions of two
electing corporation treated as owner or more taxpayers acting in concert or
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 114 of 143
-105-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-2
with a common goal or purpose. It is comparable profits method, an uncon-
the reality of the control that is deci- trolled comparable is any uncontrolled
sive, not its form or the mode of its ex- taxpayer from which data is used to es-
ercise. A presumption of control arises tablish a comparable operating profit.
if income or deductions have been arbi- (j) Effective dates-(1) The regulations
trarily shifted. in this are generally effective for tax-
(5) Controlled taxpayer means any one able years beginning after October 6,
of two or more taxpayers owned or con- 1994.
trolled directly or indirectly by the (2) Taxpayers may elect to apply
same interests, and includes the tax- retroactively all of the provisions of
payer that owns or controls the other these regulations for any open taxable
taxpayers. Uncontrolled taxpayer means year. Such election will be effective for
any one of two or more taxpayers not the year of the election and all subse-
owned or controlled directly or indi- quent taxable years.
rectly by the same interests. (3) Although these regulations are
(6) Group, controlled group, and group generally effective for taxable years as
of controlled taxpayers mean the tax- stated, the final sentence of section 482
payers owned or controlled directly or (requiring that the income with respect
indirectly by the same interests. to transfers or licenses of intangible
(7) Transaction means any sale, as- property be commensurate with the in-
signment, lease, license, loan, advance, come attributable to the intangible) is
contribution, or any other transfer of generally effective for taxable years
any interest in or a right to use any beginning after December 31, 1986. For
property (whether tangible or intan- the period prior to the effective date of
gible, real or personal) or money, how- these regulations, the final sentence of
ever such transaction is effected, and section 482 must be applied using any
whether or not the terms of such trans- reasonable method not inconsistent
action are formally documented. A with the statute. The IRS considers a
transaction also includes the perform- method that applies these regulations
ance of any services for the benefit of, or their general principles to be a rea-
or on behalf of, another taxpayer. sonable method.
(8) Controlled transaction or controlled (4) These regulations will not apply
transfer means any transaction or with respect to transfers made or li-
transfer between two or more members censes granted to foreign persons be-
of the same group of controlled tax- fore November 17, 1985, or before Au-
payers. The term uncontrolled trans- gust 17, 1986, for transfers or licenses to
action means any transaction between others. Nevertheless, they will apply
two or more taxpayers that are not with respect to transfers or licenses be-
members of the same group of con- fore such dates if, with respect to prop-
trolled taxpayers. erty transferred pursuant to an earlier
(9) True taxable income means, in the and continuing transfer agreement,
case of a controlled taxpayer, the tax- such property was not in existence or
able income that would have resulted owned by the taxpayer on such date.
had it dealt with the other member or (5) The last sentences of paragraphs
members of the group at arm's length. (b)(2)(i) and (c)(1) of this section and of
It does not mean the taxable income paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of § 1.482-5 apply for
resulting to the controlled taxpayer by taxable years beginning on or after Au-
reason of the particular contract, gust 26, 2003.
transaction, or arrangement the con- [T.D. 8552, 59 FR 34990, July 8, 1994, as amend-
trolled taxpayer chose to make (even ed by T.D. 9088, 68 FR 51177, Aug. 26, 2003]
though such contract, transaction, or
arrangement is legally binding upon § 1.482-2 Determination of taxable in-
the parties thereto). come in specific situations.
(10) Uncontrolled comparable means (a) Loans or advances-(1) Interest on
the uncontrolled transaction or uncon- bona fide indebtedness-(i) In general.
trolled taxpayer that is compared with Where one member of a group of con-
a controlled transaction or taxpayer trolled entities makes a loan or ad-
under any applicable pricing method- vance directly or indirectly to, or oth-
ology. Thus, for example, under the erwise becomes a creditor of, another
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 115 of 143
-106-
§ 1.482-4 26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-05 Edition)
length result for a transfer of intan- (6) Other similar items. For purposes
gible property under §1.482-4. For ex- of section 482, an item is considered
ample, if the transfer of a machine con- similar to those listed in paragraph
veys the right to exploit a manufac- (b)(1) through (5) of this section if it de-
turing process incorporated in the ma- rives its value not from its physical at-
chine, then the arm's length consider- tributes but from its intellectual- con-
ation for the transfer of that right tent or other intangible properties.
must be determined separately under (c) Comparable uncontrolled trans-
§ 1.482-4. action method-(1) In general. The com-
[T.D. 8552, 59 FR 35011, July 8, 1994; 60 FR parable uncontrolled transaction meth-
16382, Mar. 30, 1995] od evaluates whether the amount
charged for a controlled transfer of in-
§ 1.482-4 Methods to determine taxable tangible property was arm's length by
income in connection with a trans- reference to the amount charged in a
fer of intangible property. comparable uncontrolled transaction.
(a) In general. The arm's length The amount determined under this
amount charged in a controlled trans- method may be adjusted as required by
fer of intangible property must be de- paragraph (f)(2) of this section (Peri-
termined under one of the four meth- odic adjustments).
ods listed in this paragraph (a). Each of (2) Comparabilityand reliability consid-
the methods must be applied in accord- erations-(i)In general. Whether results
ance with all of the provisions of derived from applications of this meth-
§ 1.482-1, including the best method rule od are the most reliable measure of an
of §1.482-1(c), the comparability anal- arm's length result is determined using
ysis of § 1.482-1(d), and the arm's length the factors described under the best
range of §1.482-1(e). The arm's length method rule in § 1.482-1(c). The applica-
consideration for the transfer of an in- tion of these factors under the com-
tangible determined under this section parable uncontrolled transaction meth-
must be commensurate with the in- od is discussed in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii),
come attributable to the intangible. (iii), and (iv) of this section.
See § 1.482-4(f)(2) (Periodic adjust- (ii) Reliability. If an uncontrolled
ments). The available methods are- transaction involves the transfer of the
(1) The comparable uncontrolled same intangible under the same, or
transaction method, described in para- substantially the same, circumstances
graph (c) of this section; as the controlled transaction, the re-
(2) The comparable profits method, sults derived from applying the com-
described in § 1.482-5; parable uncontrolled transaction meth-
(3) The profit split method, described od will generally be the most direct
in § 1.482-6; and and reliable measure of the arm's
(4) Unspecified methods described in length result for the controlled trans-
paragraph (d) of this section. fer of an intangible. Circumstances be-
(b) Definition of intangible. For pur- tween the controlled and uncontrolled
poses of section 482, an intangible is an transactions will be considered sub-
asset that comprises any of the fol- stantially the same if there are at most
lowing items and has substantial value only minor differences that have a defi-
independent of the services of any indi- nite and reasonably ascertainable ef-
vidual- fect on the amount charged and for
(1) Patents, inventions, formulae, which appropriate adjustments are
processes, designs, patterns, or know- made. If such uncontrolled trans-
how; actions cannot be identified, uncon-
(2) Copyrights and literary, musical, trolled transactions that involve the
or artistic compositions; transfer of comparable intangibles
(3) Trademarks, trade names, or under comparable circumstances may
brand names; be used to apply this method, but the
(4) Franchises, licenses, or contracts; reliability of the analysis will be re-
(5) Methods, programs, systems, pro- duced.
cedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, (iii) Comparability-(A) In general. The
forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or degree of comparability between con-
technical data; and trolled and uncontrolled transactions
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 116 of 143
-107-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-4
is determined by applying the com- ample 3 of § 1.482-4(c)(4). Finally, the re-
parability provisions of §1.482-1(d). Al- liability of a measure of profit poten-
though all of the factors described in tial is affected by the extent to which
§1.482-1(d)(3) must be considered, spe- the profit attributable to the intan-
cific factors may be particularly rel- gible can be isolated from the profit at-
evant to this method. In particular, the tributable to other factors, such as
application of this method requires functions performed and other re-
that the controlled and uncontrolled sources employed.
transactions involve either the same (2) Comparablecircumstances. In evalu-
intangible property or comparable in- ating the comparability of the cir-
tangible property, as defined in para- cumstances of the controlled and un-
graph (c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section. In controlled transactions, although all of
addition, because differences in con- the factors described in §1.482-1(d)(3)
tractual terms, or the economic condi- must be considered, specific factors
tions in which transactions take place, that may be particularly relevant to
could materially affect the amount this method include the following-
charged, comparability under this (i) The terms of the transfer, includ-
method also depends on similarity with ing the exploitation rights granted in
respect to these factors, or adjust- the intangible, the exclusive or non-
ments to account for material dif- exclusive character of any rights
ferences in such circumstances. granted, any restrictions on use, or any
(B) Factors to be considered in deter- limitations on the geographic area in
mining comparability-(1) Comparable in- which the rights may be exploited;
tangible property. In order for the intan- (ii) The stage of development of the
gible property involved in an uncon- intangible (including, where appro-
trolled transaction to be considered priate, necessary governmental approv-
comparable to the intangible property als, authorizations, or licenses) in the
involved in the controlled transaction, market in which the intangible is to be
both intangibles must- used;
(i) Be used in connection with similar (iii) Rights to receive updates, revi-
products or processes within the same
sions, or modifications of the intan-
general industry or market; and
gible;
(ii) Have similar profit potential. The
profit potential of an intangible is (iv) The uniqueness of the property
most reliably measured by directly cal- and the period for which it remains
culating the net present value of the unique, including the degree and dura-
tion of protection afforded to the prop-
benefits to be realized (based on pro-
spective profits to be realized or costs erty under the laws of the relevant
to be saved) through the use or subse- countries;
quent transfer of the intangible, con- (v) The duration of the license, con-
sidering the capital investment and tract, or other agreement, and any ter-
start-up expenses required, the risks to mination or renegotiation rights;
be assumed, and other relevant consid- (vi) Any economic and product liabil-
erations. The need to reliably measure ity risks to be assumed by the trans-
profit potential increases in relation to feree;
both the total amount of potential (vii) The existence and extent of any
profits and the potential rate of return collateral transactions or ongoing busi-
on investment necessary to exploit the ness relationships between the trans-
intangible. If the information nec- feree and transferor; and
essary to directly calculate net present (viii) The functions to be performed
value of the benefits to be realized is by the transferor and transferee, in-
unavailable, and the need to reliably cluding any ancillary or subsidiary
measure profit potential is reduced be- services.
cause the potential profits are rel- (iv) Data and assumptions. The reli-
atively small in terms of total amount ability of the results derived from the
and rate of return, comparison of profit comparable uncontrolled transaction
potential may be based upon the fac- method is affected by the completeness
tors referred to in paragraph and accuracy of the data used and the
(c)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section. See Ex- reliability of the assumptions made to
205-088 D-21
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 117 of 143
-108-
§ 1.482-4 26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-05 Edition)
apply this method. See §1.482-1(c) (Best counts for a substantial part of the value of
method rule). FP's products.
(ii) FP licenses its U.S. subsidiary, USSub,
(3) Arm's length range. See §1.482- exclusive North American rights to use the
l(e)(2) for the determination of an patented technology for producing compo-
arm's length range. nent X, a heat exchanger used for cooling op-
(4) Examples. The following examples erating mechanisms in industrial equipment.
illustrate the principles of this para- Component X incorporates proven tech-
graph (c). nology that makes it somewhat more effi-
cient than the heat exchangers commonly
Example 1. (i) USpharm, a U.S. pharma- used in industrial equipment. FP also agrees
ceutical company, develops a new drug Z to provide technical support to help adapt
that is a safe and effective treatment for the component X to USSub's products and to as-
disease zeezee. USpharm has obtained pat- sist with initial production. Under the terms
ents covering drug Z in the United States of the license agreement USSub pays FP a
and in various foreign countries. USpharm royalty equal to 3 percent of sales of USSub
has also obtained the regulatory authoriza- equipment incorporating component X.
tions necessary to market drug Z in the (iii) FP does not license unrelated parties
United States and in foreign countries. to use component X, but many similar com-
(ii) USpharm licenses its subsidiary in ponents are transferred between uncon-
country X, Xpharm, to produce and sell drug trolled taxpayers. Consequently, the district
Z in country X. At the same time, it licenses director decides to apply the comparable un-
an unrelated company, Ydrug, to produce controlled transaction method to evaluate
and sell drug Z in country Y, a neighboring whether the 3 percent royalty for component
X is an arm's length royalty.
country. Prior to licensing the drug, (iv) The district director uses a database of
USpharm had obtained patent protection and
company documents filed with the Securities
regulatory approvals in both countries and and Exchange Commission (SEC) to identify
both countries provide similar protection for potentially comparable license agreements
intellectual property rights. Country X and
between uncontrolled taxpayers that are on
country Y are similar countries in terms of file with the SEC. The district director iden-
population, per capita income and the inci-
tifies 40 license agreements that were en-
dence of disease zeezee. Consequently, drug Z
is expected to sell in similar quantities and tered into in the same year as the controlled
transfer or in the prior or following year,
at similar prices in both countries. In addi-
and that relate to transfers of technology as-
tion, costs of producing and marketing drug
Z in each country are expected to be approxi- sociated with industrial equipment that has
similar applications to USSub's products.
mately the same.
Further review of these uncontrolled agree-
(iii) USpharm and Xpharm establish terms ments indicates that 25 of them involved
for the license of drug Z that are identical in components that have 'a similar level of
every material respect, including royalty technical sophistication as component X and
rate, to the terms established between could be expected to play a similar role in
USpharm and Ydrug. In this case the district contributing to the total value of the final
director determines that the royalty rate es- product.
tablished in the Ydrug license agreement is a (v) The district director makes a detailed
reliable measure of the arm's length royalty review of the terms of each of the 25 uncon-
rate for the Xpharm license agreement. trolled agreements and finds that 15 of them
Example 2. The facts are the same as in Ex- are similar to the controlled agreement in
ample 1, except that the incidence of the dis- that they all involve-
ease zeezee in Country Y is much higher (A) The transfer of exclusive rights for the
than in Country X. In this case, the profit North American market;
potential from exploitation of the right to (B) Products for which the market could be
make and sell drug Z is likely to be much expected to be of a similar size to the market
higher in country Y than it is in Country X. for the products into which USSub incor-
Consequently, the Ydrug license agreement porates component X;
is unlikely to provide a reliable measure of (C) The transfer of patented technology;
the arm's length royalty rate for the (D) Continuing technical support;
Xpharm license. (E) Access to technical improvements;
Example 3. (i) FP, is a foreign company (F) Technology of a similar age; and
that designs, manufactures and sells indus- (G) A similar duration of the agreement.
trial equipment. FP has developed propri- (vi) Based on these factors and the fact
etary components that are incorporated in that none of the components to which these
its products. These components are impor- license agreements relate accounts for a sub-
tant in the operation of FP's equipment and stantial part of the value of the final prod-
some of them have distinctive features, but ucts, the district director concludes that
other companies produce similar components these fifteen intangibles have similar profit
and none of these components by itself ac- potential to the component X technology.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 118 of 143
-109-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-4
(vii) The 15 uncontrolled comparables ments conveyed identical rights to the li-
produce the following royalty rates: censees. Moreover, there appear to have been
no significant changes in the European mar-
Royalty ket for migraine headache treatments since
License rate
(percent) Lessplit was licensed. However, at the time
that Lessplit was licensed there were several
1 ................................................ .......................... 1.0 other similar drugs already on the market to
2 ........................................................................... 1.0 which Lessplit was not in all cases superior.
3 ........................................................................... 1.2 5 Consequently, the projected and actual
4 ................... .......................... 1.25
5 .................................................................... .... . 1 .5
Lessplit profits were substantially less than
6 ....................................................................... 1.5 the projected Nosplit profits. Thus, USdrug
7 .......... . .... .................................. 1.75 concludes that the profit potential of
8 ........................................................................... 2 .0 Lessplit is not similar to the profit potential
9 ........................................................................... 2 .0 of Nosplit, and the Lessplit license agree-
10 ........................................................................ 2 .0 ment consequently is not a comparable un-
1 1 ......................................................................... 2 .25
12 ......................................................................... 2 .5 controlled transaction for purposes of this
13 ........................................................................ 2 .5 paragraph (c) in spite of the other indicia of
14 ........................................................................ 2.75 comparability between the two intangibles.
15 ......................................................................... 3 .0
(d) Unspecified methods-(1) In general.
(viii) Although the uncontrolled Methods not specified in paragraphs
comparables are clearly similar to the con- (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section may be
trolled transaction, it is likely that uniden- used to evaluate whether the amount
tified material differences exist between the charged in a controlled transaction is
uncontrolled comparables and the controlled arm's length. Any method used under
transaction. Therefore, an appropriate sta- this paragraph (d) must be applied in
tistical technique must be used to establish
accordance with the provisions of
the arm's length range. In this case the dis-
trict director uses the interquartile range to §1.482-1. Consistent with the specified
determine the arm's length range. Therefore, methods, an unspecified method should
the arm's length range covers royalty rates take into account the general principle
from 1.25 to 2.5 percent, and an adjustment is that uncontrolled taxpayers evaluate
warranted to the 3 percent royalty charged the terms of a transaction by consid-
in the controlled transfer. The district direc- ering the realistic alternatives to that
tor determines that the appropriate adjust- transaction, and only enter into a par-
ment corresponds to a reduction in the roy-
ticular transaction if none of the alter-
alty rate to 2.0 percent, which is the median
of the uncontrolled comparables. natives is preferable to it. For exam-
Example 4. (i) USdrug, a U.S. pharma- ple, the comparable uncontrolled trans-
ceutical company, has developed a new drug, action method compares a controlled
Nosplit, that is useful in treating migraine transaction to similar uncontrolled
headaches and produces no significant side transactions to provide a direct esti-
effects. Nosplit replaces another drug, mate of the price the parties would
Lessplit, that USdrug had previously pro- have agreed to had they resorted di-
duced and marketed as a treatment for mi-
graine headaches. A number of other drugs rectly to a market alternative to the
for treating migraine headaches are already controlled transaction. Therefore, in
on the market, but Nosplit can be expected establishing whether a controlled
rapidly to dominate the worldwide market transaction achieved an arm's length
for such treatments and to command a pre- result, an unspecified method should
mium price since all other treatments provide information on the prices or
produce side effects. Thus, USdrug projects profits that the controlled taxpayer
that extraordinary profits will be derived
could have realized by choosing a real-
from Nosplit in the U.S. market and other
markets. istic alternative to the controlled
(ii) USdrug licenses its newly established transaction. As with any method, an
European subsidiary, Eurodrug, the rights to unspecified method will not be applied
produce and market Nosplit in the European unless it provides the most reliable
market. In setting the royalty rate for this measure of an arm's length result
license, USdrug considers the royalty that it under the principles of the best method
established previously when it licensed the rule. See §1.482-1(c). Therefore, in ac-
right to produce and market Lessplit in the
cordance with § 1.482-1(d) (Com-
European market to an unrelated European
pharmaceutical company. In many respects parability), to the extent that a meth-
the two license agreements are closely com- od relies on internal data rather than
parable. The drugs were licensed at the same uncontrolled comparables, its reli-
stage in their development and the agree- ability will be reduced. Similarly, the
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 119 of 143
-110-
§ 1.482-4 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
reliability of a method will be affected more than one year, the consideration
by the reliability of the data and as- charged in each taxable year may be
sumptions used to apply the method, adjusted to ensure that it is commen-
including any projections used. surate with the income attributable to
(2) Example. The following example il- the intangible. Adjustments made pur-
lustrates an application of the prin- suant to this paragraph (f)(2) shall be
ciple of this paragraph (d). consistent with the arm's length stand-
ard and the provisions of §1.482-1. In
Example. (i) USbond is a U.S. company that
licenses to its foreign subsidiary, Eurobond, determining whether to make such ad-
a proprietary process that permits the manu- justments in the taxable year under ex-
facture of Longbond, a long-lasting indus- amination, the district director may
trial adhesive, at a substantially lower cost consider all relevant facts and cir-
than otherwise would be possible. Using the cumstances throughout the period the
proprietary process, Eurobond manufactures intangible is used. The determination
Longbond and sells it to related and unre- in an earlier year that the amount
lated parties for the market price of $550 per
ton. Under the terms of the license agree- charged for an intangible was an arm's
ment, Eurobond pays USbond a royalty of length amount will not preclude the
$100 per ton of Longbond sold. USbond also district director in a subsequent tax-
manufactures and markets Longbond in the able year from making an adjustment
United States. to the amount charged for the intan-
(ii) In evaluating whether the consider- gible in the subsequent year. A periodic
ation paid for the transfer of the proprietary adjustment under the commensurate
process to Eurobond was arm's length, the with income requirement of section 482
district director may consider, subject to the may be made in a subsequent taxable
best method rule of §1.482-1(c), USbond's al-
ternative of producing and selling Longbond year without regard to whether the
itself. Reasonably reliable estimates indicate taxable year of the original transfer re-
that if USbond directly supplied Longbond to mains open for statute of limitation
the European market, a selling price of $300 purposes. For exceptions to this rule
per ton would cover its costs and provide a see paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
reasonable profit for its functions, risks and (ii) Exceptions-(A) Transactions in-
investment of capital associated with the volving the same intangible. If the same
production of Longbond for the European intangible was transferred to an uncon-
market. Given that the maiket price of
Longbond was $550 per ton, by licensing the trolled taxpayer under substantially
proprietary process to Eurobond, USbond the same circumstances as those of the
forgoes $250 per ton of profit over the profit controlled transaction; this trans-
that would be necessary to compensate it for action serves as the basis for the appli-
the functions, risks and investment involved cation of the comparable uncontrolled
in supplying Longbond to the European mar- transaction method in the first taxable
ket itself. Based on these facts, the district year in which substantial periodic con-
director concludes that a royalty of $100 for sideration was required to be paid; and
the proprietary process is not arm's length.
the amount paid in that year was an
(e) Coordination with tangible property arm's length amount, then no alloca-
rules. See §1.482-3(f) for the provisions tion in a subsequent year will be made
regarding the coordination between the under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this para-
tangible property and intangible prop- graph for a controlled transfer of in-
erty rules. tangible property.
(f) Special rules for transfers of intan- (B) Transactions involving comparable
gible property-(1) Form of consideration. intangible. If the arm's length result is
If a transferee of an intangible pays derived from the application of the
nominal or no consideration and the comparable uncontrolled transaction
transferor has retained a substantial method based on the transfer of a com-
interest in the property, the arm's parable intangible under comparable
length consideration shall be in the circumstances to those of the con-
form of a royalty, unless a different trolled transaction, no allocation will
form is demonstrably more appro- be made under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of
priate. this section if each of the following
(2) Periodic adjustments-(i) General facts is established-
rule. If an intangible is transferred (1) The controlled taxpayers entered
under an arrangement that covers into a written agreement (controlled
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 120 of 143
-111-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-4
agreement) that provided for an uncontrolled transaction method, no
amount of consideration with respect allocation will be made under para-
to each taxable year subject to such graph (f)(2)(i) of this section if each of
agreement, such consideration was an the following facts is established-
arm's length amount for the first tax- (1) The controlled taxpayers entered
able year in which substantial periodic into a written agreement (controlled
consideration was required to be paid agreement) that provided for an
under the agreement, and such agree- amount of consideration with respect
ment remained in effect for the taxable to each taxable year subject to such
year under review; agreement, and such agreement re-
(2) There is a written agreement set- mained in effect for the taxable year
ting forth the terms of the comparable under review;
uncontrolled transaction relied upon to (2) The consideration called for in the
establish the arm's length consider- controlled agreement was an arm's
ation (uncontrolled agreement), which length amount for the first taxable
contains no provisions that would per- year in which substantial periodic con-
mit any change to the amount of con- sideration was required to be paid, and
sideration, a renegotiation, or a termi- relevant supporting documentation
nation of the agreement, in cir- was prepared contemporaneously with
cumstances comparable to those of the the execution of the Controlled agree-
controlled transaction in the taxable ment;
year under review (or that contains (3) There have been no substantial
provisions permitting only specified, changes in the functions performed by
non-contingent, periodic changes to the transferee since the controlled
the amount of consideration); agreement was executed, except
(3) The controlled agreement is sub- changes required by events that were
stantially similar to the uncontrolled not foreseeable; and
agreement, with respect to the time pe- (4) The total profits actually earned
riod for which it is effective and the or the total cost savings realized by
provisions described in paragraph the controlled transferee from the ex-
(f)(2)(ii)(B)(2) of this section; ploitation of the intangible in the year
(4) The controlled agreement limits under examination, and all past years,
use of the intangible to a specified field are not less than 80% nor more than
or purpose in a manner that is con- 120% of the prospective profits or cost
sistent with industry practice and any savings that were foreseeable when the
such limitation in the uncontrolled controlled agreement was entered into.
agreement; (D) Extraordinary events. No alloca-
(5) There were no substantial changes tion will be made under paragraph
in the functions performed by the con- (f)(2)(i) of this section if the following
trolled transferee after the controlled requirements are met-
agreement was executed, except (1) Due to extraordinary events that
changes required by events that were were beyond the control of the con-
not foreseeable; and trolled taxpayers and that could not
(6) The aggregate profits actually reasonably have been anticipated at
earned or the aggregate cost savings the time the controlled agreement was
actually realized by the controlled tax- entered into, the aggregate actual prof-
payer from the exploitation of the in- its or aggregate cost savings realized
tangible in the year under examina- by the taxpayer are less than 80% or
tion, and all past years, are not less more than 120% of the prospective prof-
than 80% nor more than 120% of the its or cost savings; and
prospective profits or cost savings that (2) All of the requirements of para-
were foreseeable when the com- graph (f)(2)(ii) (B) or (C) of this section
parability of the uncontrolled agree- are otherwise satisfied.
ment was established under paragraph (E) Five-year period. If the require-
(c)(2) of this section. ments of § 1.482-4 (f)(2)(ii)(B) or
(C) Methods other than comparable un- (f)(2)(ii)(C) are met for each year of the
controlled transaction. If the arm's five-year period beginning with the
length amount was determined under first year in which substantial periodic
any method other than the comparable consideration was required to be paid,
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 121 of 143
-112-
§ 1.482-4 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
then no periodic adjustment will be (v) The total profits earned through Year 5
made under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this were not less than 80% nor more than 120%
section in any subsequent year. of the profits that were projected when the
license was entered into. If the district direc-
(iii) Examples. The following exam- tor determines that the other requirements
ples illustrate this paragraph (f)(2). of §1.482-4(f)(2)(ii)(C) were met, no adjust-
Example 1. (i) USdrug, a U.S. pharma- ment will be made to the royalty rate be-
ceutical company, has developed a new drug, tween USdrug and Eurodrug for the license
Nosplit, that is useful in treating migraine of Nosplit.
headaches and produces no significant side Example 2. (i) The facts are the same as in
effects. A number of other drugs for treating Example 1, except that Eurodrug's actual
migraine headaches are already on the mar- profits earned were much higher than the
ket, but Nosplit can be expected rapidly to projected profits, as follows:
dominate the worldwide market. for such
Profit
treatments and to command a premium price projections Actual profits
since all other treatments produce side ef-
fects. Thus, USdrug projects that extraor- Year 1 ................................ 200 250
dinary profits will be derived from Nosplit in Year 2 ................................ 250 500
Year 3 .......................... ..... 500 800
the U.S. and European markets. Year 4 ................................ 350 700
(ii) USdrug licenses its newly established Year 5 ................................ 100 600
European subsidiary, Eurodrug, the rights to
produce and market Nosplit for the Euro- Total ............................ 1400 2850
pean market for 5 years. In setting the roy-
alty rate for this license, USdrug makes pro- (ii) In examining USdrug's tax return for
jections of the annual sales revenue and the Year 5, the district director considers the ac-
annual profits to be derived from the exploi- tual profits realized by Eurodrug in Year 5,
tation of Nosplit by Eurodrug. Based on the and all past years. Accordingly, although
projections, a royalty rate of 3.9% is estab- Years 1 through 4 may be closed under the
lished for the term of the license. statute of limitations, for purposes of deter-
(iii) In Year 1, USdrug evaluates the roy- mining whether an adjustment should be
alty rate it received from Eurodrug. Given made with respect to the royalty rate in
the high profit potential of Nosplit, USdrug Year 5 with respect to Nosplit, the district
is unable to locate any uncontrolled trans- director aggregates the actual profits from
actions dealing with licenses of comparable those years with the profits of Year 5. How-
intangible property. USdrug therefore deter- ever, the district director will make an ad-
mines that the comparable uncontrolled justment, if any, only with respect to Year 5.
transaction method will not provide a reli- Example 3. (i) FP, a foreign corporation, li-
able measure of an arm's length royalty. censes to USS, its U.S. subsidiary, a new air-
However, applying the comparable profits filtering process that permits manufacturing
method to Eurodrug, USdrug determines plants to meet new environmental standards.
that a royalty rate of 3.9% will result in The license runs for a 10-year period, and the
Eurodrug earning an arm's length return for profit derived from the new process is pro-
its manufacturing and marketing functions. jected to be $15 million per year, for an ag-
(iv) In Year 5, the U.S. income tax return gregate profit of $150 million.
for USdrug is examined, and the district di- (ii) The royalty rate for the license is
rector must determine whether the royalty based on a comparable uncontrolled trans-
rate between USdrug and Eurodrug is com- action involving a comparable intangible
mensurate with the income attributable to under comparable circumstances. The re-
Nosplit. In making this determination, the quirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B)(1)
district director considers whether any of through (5) of this section have been met.
the exceptions in §1.482-4(f)(2)(ii) are applica- Specifically, FP and USS have entered into a
ble. In particular, the district director com- written agreement that provides for a roy-
pares the profit projections attributable to alty in each year of the license, the royalty
Nosplit made by USdrug against the actual rate is considered arm's length for the first
profits realized by Eurodrug. The projected taxable year in which a substantial royalty
and actual profits are as follows: was required to be paid, the license limited
the use of the process to a specified field,
projections Actual profits consistent with industry practice, and there
are no substantial changes in the functions
Year 1 ................................ 200 250 performed by USS after the license was en-
Year 2 ................................ 250 300 tered into.
Year 3 ................................ 500 600 (iii) In examining Year 4 of the license, the
Year 4 ................................ 350 200 district director determines that the aggre-
Year 5 ................................ 100 100 gate actual profits earned by USS through
Year 4 are $30 million, less than 80% of the
Total .......................... 1400 1450
projected profits of $60 million. However,
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 122 of 143
-113-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-4
USS establishes to the satisfaction of the l(d)(3)(ii)(B) (Identifying contractual
district director that the aggregate actual terms).
profits from the process are less than 80% of (B) Intangible property that is not le-
the projected profits in Year 3 because an gally protected. In the case of intangible
earthquake severely damaged USS's manu-
property that is not legally protected,
facturing plant. Because the difference be-
tween the projected profits and actual prof- the developer of the intangible will be
its was due to an extraordinary event that considered the owner. Except as pro-
was beyond the control of USS, and could vided in §1.482-7T, if two or more con-
not reasonably have been anticipated at the trolled taxpayers jointly develop an in-
time the license was entered into, the re- tangible, for purposes of section 482,
quirement under §1.482-4(f)(2)(ii)(D) has been only one of the controlled taxpayers
met, and no adjustment under this section is will be regarded as the developer and
made. owner of the intangible, and the other
(3) Ownership of intangible property- participating members will be regarded
(i) In general. If the owner of the rights as assisters. Ordinarily, the developer
to exploit an intangible transfers such is the controlled taxpayer that bore
rights to a controlled taxpayer, the the largest portion of the direct and in-
owner must receive an amount of con- direct costs of developing the intan-
sideration with respect to such transfer gible, including the provision, without
that is determined in accordance with adequate compensation, of property or
the provisions of this section. If an- services likely to contribute substan-
other controlled taxpayer provides as- tially to developing the intangible. A
sistance to the owner in connection controlled taxpayer will be presumed
with the development or enhancement not to have borne the costs of develop-
ment if, pursuant to an agreement en-
of an intangible, such person may be
tered into before the success of the
entitled to receive consideration with
project is known, another person is ob-
respect to such assistance. See §1.482-
ligated to reimburse the controlled
4(f)(3)(iii) (Allocations with respect to
taxpayer for its costs. If it cannot be
assistance provided to the owner). Be- determined which controlled taxpayer
cause the right to exploit an intangible
bore the largest portion of the costs of
can be subdivided in various ways, a
development, all other facts and cir-
single intangible may have multiple cumstances will be taken into consid-
owners for purposes of this paragraph eration, including the location of the
(3)(i). Thus, for example, the owner of a development activities, the capability
trademark may license to another per- of each controlled taxpayer to carry on
son the exclusive right to use that the project independently, the extent
trademark in a specified geographic to which each controlled taxpayer con-
area for a specified period of time trols the project, and the conduct of
(while otherwise retaining the right to the controlled taxpayers.
use the intangible). In such a case, (iii) Allocations with respect to assist-
both the licensee and the licensor will ance provided to the owner. Allocations
be considered owners for purposes of may be made to reflect an arm's length
this paragraph (f)(3)(i), with respect to consideration for assistance provided
their respective exploitation rights. to the owner of an intangible in con-
(ii) Identification of owner-(A) Legally nection with the development or en-
protected intangible property. The legal hancement of the intangible. Such as-
owner of a right to exploit an intan- sistance may include loans, services, or
gible ordinarily will be considered the the use of tangible or intangible prop-
owner for purposes of this section. erty. Assistance does not, however, in-
Legal ownership may be acquired by clude expenditures of a routine nature
operation of law or by contract under that an unrelated party dealing at
which the legal owner transfers all or arm's length would be expected to
part of its rights to another, Further, incur under circumstances similar to
the district director may impute an those of the controlled taxpayer. The
agreement to convey legal ownership if amount of any allocation required with
the conduct of the controlled taxpayers respect to that assistance must be de-
indicates the existence in substance of termined in accordance with the appli-
such an agreement. See § 1.482- cable rules under section 482.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 123 of 143
-114-
§ 1.482-4 26 CFR Ch. I (4-1-05 Edition)
(iv) Examples. The principles of this consistent with that status, its activities re-
paragraph are illustrated by the fol- lated to the development of the trademark
lowing examples. are not considered to be a service performed
for the benefit of FP, and no allocation is
Example 1. A, a member of a controlled made with respect to such activities.
group, allows B, another member of the con-
trolled group and the owner of an intangible, (4) Consideration not artificially lim-
to use tangible property, such as laboratory ited. The arm's length consideration for
equipment, in connection with the develop- the controlled transfer of an intangible
ment of the intangible. Any allocations with
respect to the owner's use of the property is not limited by the consideration paid
will be determined under § 1.482-2(c). in any uncontrolled transactions that
Example 2. FP, a foreign producer of cheese, do not meet the requirements of the
markets the cheese in countries other than comparable uncontrolled transaction
the United States under the tradename method described in paragraph (c) of
Fromage Frere. FP owns all the worldwide
rights to this name. The name is widely this section. Similarly, the arm's
known and is valuable outside the United length consideration for an intangible
States but is not known within the United is not limited by the prevailing rates of
States. In 1995, FP decides to enter the consideration paid for the use or trans-
United States market and incorporates U.S. fer of intangibles within the same or
subsidiary, USSub, to be its U.S. distributor
similar industry.
and to supervise the advertising and other
marketing efforts that will be required to de- (5) Lump sum payments-(i) In general.
velop the name Fromage Frere in the United If an intangible is transferred in a con-
States. USSub incurs expenses that are not trolled transaction for a lump sum,
reimbursed by FF for developing the U.S. that amount must be commensurate
market for Fromage Frere. These expenses
are comparable to the levels of expense in- with the income attributable to the in-
curred by independent distributors in the tangible. A lump sum is commensurate
U.S. cheese industry when introducing a with income in a taxable year if the
product in the U.S. market under a brand equivalent royalty amount for that
name owned by a foreign manufacturer. taxable year is equal to an arm's
Since USSub would have been expected to length royalty. The equivalent royalty
incur these expenses if it were unrelated to
FP, no allocation to USSub is made with re- amount for a taxable year is the
spect to the market development activities amount determined by treating the
performed by USSub. lump sum as an advance payment of a
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Ex- stream of royalties over the useful life
ample 2, except that the expenses incurred by of the intangible (or the period covered
USSub are significantly larger than the ex-
penses incurred by independent distributors by an agreement, if shorter), taking
under similar circumstances. FP does not re- into account the projected sales of the
imburse USSub for its expenses. The district licensee as of the date of the transfer.
director concludes based on this evidence Thus, determining the equivalent roy-
that an unrelated party dealing at arm's alty amount requires a present value
length under similar circumstances would
not have engaged in the same level of activ- calculation based on the lump sum, an
ity relating to the development of FP's mar- appropriate discount rate, and the pro-
keting intangibles. The expenditures in ex- jected sales over the relevant period.
cess of the level incurred by the independent The equivalent royalty amount is sub-
distributors therefore are considered to be a ject to periodic adjustments under
service provided to FP that adds to the value § 1.482-4(f)(2)(i) to the same extent as an
of FP's trademark for Fromage Frere. Ac-
cordingly, the district director makes an al- actual royalty payment pursuant to a
location under section 482 for the fair mar- license agreement.
ket value of the services that USSub is con- (ii) Exceptions. No periodic adjust-
sidered to have performed for FP. ment will be made under paragraph
Example 4. The facts are the same as in Ex- (f)(2)(i) of this section if any of the ex-
ample 3, except that FP and USSub conclude
a long term agreement under which USSub ceptions to periodic adjustments pro-
receives the exclusive right to distribute vided in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this sec-
cheese in the United States under FP's tion apply.
trademark. USSub purchases cheese from FP (iii) Example. The following example
at an arm's length price. Since USSub is the illustrates the principle of this para-
owner of the trademark under paragraph graph (f)(5).
(f)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, and its conduct is
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 124 of 143
-115-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-5
Example. Calculation of the equivalent roy- (b) Determination of arm's length re-
alty amount. (i) FSub is the foreign sub- sult-(l) In general. Under the com-
sidiary of USP, a U.S. company. USP li- parable profits method, the determina-
censes FSub the right to produce and sell the
whopperchopper, a patented new kitchen ap- tion of an arm's length result is based
pliance, for the foreign market. The license on the amount of operating profit that
is for a period of five years, and payment the tested party would have earned on
takes the form of a single lump-sum charge related party transactions if its profit
of $500,000 that is paid at the beginning of the level indicator were equal to that of an
period. uncontrolled comparable (comparable
(ii) The equivalent royalty amount for this operating profit). Comparable oper-
license is determined by deriving an equiva-
lent royalty rate equal to the lump-sum pay- ating profit is calculated by deter-
ment divided by the present discounted value mining a profit level indicator for an
of FSub's projected sales of whopperchoppers uncontrolled comparable, and applying
over the life of the license. Based on the the profit level indicator to the finan-
riskiness of the whopperchopper business, an cial data related to the tested party's
appropriate discount rate is determined to be most narrowly identifiable business ac-
10 percent. Projected sales of tivity for which data incorporating the
whopperchoppers for each year of the license
are as follows: controlled transaction is available (rel-
evant business activity). To the extent
Year Projected possible, profit level indicators should
sales
be applied solely to the tested party's
1 .............................. $2,500,000 financial data that is related to con-
2 .............................. 2,600,000 trolled transactions. The tested party's
3 2 ,70 0,000 reported operating profit is compared
...........................................................
4 ........ 2,700,000
....................................
2,750,000
to the comparable operating profits de-
5 ...................................................................
rived from the profit level indicators of
(iii) Based on this information, the present uncontrolled comparables to determine
discounted value of the projected whether the reported operating profit
whopperchopper sales is approximately $10 represents an arm's length result.
million, yielding an equivalent royalty rate (2) Tested party-(i) In general. For
of approximately 5%. Thus, the equivalent purposes of this section, the tested
royalty amounts for each year are as follows: party will be the participant in the
Projected Equivalent roy- controlled transaction whose operating
Year sales alty amount profit attributable to the controlled
1 ................... $2,500,000 $125,000 transactions can be verified using the
2 .................... 2,600,000 130,000 most reliable data and requiring the
3 .................... 2,700,000 135,000 fewest and most reliable adjustments,
4 ........... ................ 2,700,000 135,000 and for which reliable data regarding
2,750,000
5 ......................................... 137,500
uncontrolled comparables can be lo-
(iv) If in any of the five taxable years the cated. Consequently, in most cases the
equivalent royalty amount is determined not tested party will be the least complex
to be an arm's length amount, a periodic ad- of the controlled taxpayers and will
justment may be made pursuant to §1.482- not own valuable intangible property
4(f)(2)(i). The adjustment in such case would or unique assets that distinguish it
be equal to the difference between the equiv- from potential uncontrolled
alent royalty amount and the arm's length comparables.
royalty in that taxable year. (ii) Adjustments for tested party. The
[T.D. 8552, 59 FR 35016, July 8, 1994] tested party's operating profit must
first be adjusted to reflect all other al-
§ 1.482-5 Comparable profits method. locations under section 482, other than
(a) In general. The comparable profits adjustments pursuant to this section.
method evaluates whether the amount (3) Arm's length range. See §1.482-
charged in a controlled transaction is l(e)(2) for the determination of the
arm's length based on objective meas- arm's length range. For purposes of the
ures of profitability (profit level indi- comparable profits method, the arm's
cators) derived from uncontrolled tax- length range will be established using
payers that engage in similar business comparable operating profits derived
activities under similar circumstances. from a single profit level indicator.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 125 of 143
-116-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
estimate the relative values of these intangi- with the rules of §1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)
bles, the district director compares the ra- (Identifying contractual terms), the
tios of the capitalized value of expenditures district director may apply the rules of
as of 1995 on Nulon-related research and de-
velopment and marketing over the 1995 sales this section to any arrangement that
related to such expenditures. in substance constitutes a cost sharing
(vi) Because XYZ's protective product re- arrangement, notwithstanding a fail-
search and development expenses support the ure to comply with any requirement of
worldwide protective product sales of the this section. A qualified cost sharing
XYZ group, it is necessary to allocate such arrangement, or an arrangement to
expenses among the worldwide business ac-
which the district director applies the
tivities to which they relate. The district di-
rector determines that it is reasonable to al- rules of this section, will not be treated
locate the value of these expenses based on as a partnership to which the rules of
worldwide protective product sales. Using in- subchapter K apply. See §301.7701-3(e)
formation on the average useful life of its in- of this chapter. Furthermore, a partici-
vestments in protective product research and pant that is a foreign corporation or
development, the district director capitalizes nonresident alien individual will not be
and amortizes XYZ's protective product re- treated as engaged in trade or business
search and development expenses. This anal-
ysis indicates that the capitalized research within the United States solely by rea-
and development expenditures have a value son of its participation in such an ar-
of $0.20 per dollar of global protective prod- rangement. See generally §1.864-2(a).
uct sales in 1995. (2) Limitation on allocations. The dis-
(vii) XYZ-Europe's expenditures on Nulon trict director shall not make alloca-
research and development and marketing tions with respect to a qualified cost
support only its sales in Europe. Using infor- sharing arrangement except to the ex-
mation on the average useful life of XYZ-Eu-
rope's investments in marketing and re- tent necessary to make each controlled
search and development, the district director participant's share of the costs (as de-
capitalizes and amortizes XYZ-Europe's ex- termined under paragraph (d) of this
penditures and determines that they have a section) of intangible development
value in 1995 of $0.40 per dollar of XYZ-Eu- under the qualified cost sharing ar-
rope's Nulon sales. rangement equal to its share of reason-
(viii) Thus, XYZ and XYZ-Europe together ably anticipated benefits attributable
contributed $0.60 in capitalized intangible to such development, under the rules of
development expenses for each dollar of
XYZ-Europe's protective product sales for this section. If a controlled taxpayer
1995, of which XYZ contributed one-third (or acquires an interest in intangible prop-
$0.20 per dollar of sales). Accordingly, the erty from another controlled taxpayer
district director determines that an arm's (other than in consideration for bear-
length royalty for the Nulon license for the ing a share of the costs of the intangi-
1995 taxable year is $60 million, i.e., one- ble's development), then the district
third of XYZ-Europe's $180 million in resid- director may make appropriate alloca-
ual Nulon profit. tions to reflect an arm's length consid-
[T.D. 8552, 59 FR 35025, July 8, 1994; 60 FR eration for the acquisition of the inter-
16382, Mar. 30, 1995] est in such intangible under the rules
of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6.
§ 1.482-7 Sharing of costs. See paragraph (g) of this section. An
(a) In general-(1) Scope and applica- interest in an intangible includes any
tion of the rules in this section. A cost commercially transferable interest, the
sharing arrangement is an agreement benefits of which are susceptible of
under which the parties agree to share valuation. See §1.482-4(b) for the defini-
the costs of development of one or tion of an intangible.
more intangibles in proportion to their (3) Coordinationwith §1.482-1. A quali-
shares of reasonably anticipated bene- fied cost sharing arrangement produces
fits from their individual exploitation results that are consistent with an
of the interests in the intangibles as- arm's length result within the meaning
signed to them under the arrangement. of §1.482-1(b)(1) if, and only if, each
A taxpayer may claim that a cost shar- controlled participant's share of the
ing arrangement is a qualified cost costs (as determined under paragraph
sharing arrangement only if the agree- (d) of this section) of intangible devel-
ment meets the requirements of para- opment under the qualified cost shar-
graph (b) of this section. Consistent ing arrangement equals its share of
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 126 of 143
-117-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
reasonably anticipated benefits attrib- (iii) A description of the scope of the
utable to such development (as re- research and development to be under-
quired by paragraph (a)(2) of this sec- taken, including the intangible or class
tion) and all other requirements of this of intangibles intended to be developed;
section are satisfied. (iv) A description of each partici-
(4) Cross references. Paragraph (c) of pant's interest in any covered intangi-
this section defines participant. Para- bles. A covered intangible is any intan-
graph (d) of this section defines the gible property that is developed as a re-
costs of intangible development. Para- sult of the research and development
graph (e) of this section defines the an- undertaken under the cost sharing ar-
ticipated benefits of intangible devel- rangement (intangible development
opment. Paragraph (f) of this section area);
provides rules governing cost alloca- (v) The duration of the arrangement;
tions. Paragraph (g) of this section pro- and
vides rules governing transfers of in- (vi) The conditions under which the
tangibles other than in consideration arrangement may be modified or ter-
for bearing a share of the costs of the minated and the consequences of such
modification or termination, such as
intangible's development. Rules gov-
the interest that each participant will
erning the character of payments made receive in any covered intangibles.
pursuant to a qualified cost sharing ar- (c) Participant-(1) In general. For
rangement are provided in paragraph purposes of this section, a participant
(h) of this section. Paragraph (i) of this is a controlled taxpayer that meets the
section provides accounting require- requirements of this paragraph (c)(1)
ments. Paragraph (j) of this section (controlled participant) or an uncon-
provides administrative requirements. trolled taxpayer that is a party to the
Paragraph (k) of this section provides cost sharing arrangement (uncon-
an effective date. Paragraph (1) pro- trolled participant). See §1.482-1(i)(5)
vides a transition rule. for the definitions of controlled and un-
(b) Qualified cost sharing arrangement. controlled taxpayers. A controlled tax-
A qualified cost sharing arrangement payer may be a controlled participant
must- only if it-
(1) Include two or more participants; (i) Reasonably anticipates that it
(2) Provide a method to calculate will derive benefits from the use of cov-
each controlled participant's share of ered intangibles;
intangible development costs, based on (ii) Substantially complies with the
factors that can reasonably be expected accounting requirements described in
to reflect that participant's share of paragraph (i) of this section; and
anticipated benefits; (iii) Substantially complies with the
(3) Provide for adjustment to the con- administrative requirements described
trolled participants' shares of intan- in paragraph (j) of this section.
gible development costs to account for (iv) The following example illustrates
changes in economic conditions, the paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section:
business operations and practices of Example. Foreign Parent (FP) is a foreign
the participants, and the ongoing de- corporation engaged in the extraction of a
velopment of intangibles under the ar- natural resource. FP has a U.S. subsidiary
rangement; and (USS) to which FP sells supplies of this re-
(4) Be recorded in a document that is source for sale in the United States. FP en-
contemporaneous with the formation ters into a cost sharing arrangement with
USS to develop a new machine to extract the
(and any revision) of the cost sharing natural resource. The machine uses a new
arrangement and that includes- extraction process that will be patented in
(i) A list of the arrangement's par- the United States and in other countries.
ticipants, and any other member of the The cost sharing arrangement provides that
controlled group that will benefit from USS will receive the rights to use the ma-
the use of intangibles developed under chine in the extraction of the natural re-
source in the United States, and FP will re-
the cost sharing arrangement; ceive the rights in the rest of the world. This
(ii) The information described in resource does not, however, exist in the
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this sec- United States. Despite the fact that USS has
tion; received the right to use this process in the
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 127 of 143
-118-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-05 Edition)
United States, USS is not a qualified partici- (3) Treatment of consolidated group.
pant because it will not derive a benefit from For purposes of this section, all mem-
the use of the intangible developed under the bers of the same affiliated group (with-
cost sharing arrangement.
in the meaning of section 1504(a)) that
(2) Treatment of a controlled taxpayer join in the filing of a consolidated re-
that is not a controlled participant-(i)In turn for the taxable year under section
general. If a controlled taxpayer that is 1501 shall be treated as one taxpayer.
not a controlled participant (within (d) Costs-(l) Intangible development
the meaning of this paragraph (c)) pro- costs. For purposes of this section, a
vides assistance in relation to the re- controlled participant's costs of devel-
search and development undertaken in oping intangibles for a taxable year
the intangible development area, it
mean all of the costs incurred by that
must receive consideration from the
participant related to the intangible
controlled participants under the rules
development area, plus all of the cost
of §1.482-4(f)(3)(iii) (Allocations with
respect to assistance provided to the sharing payments it makes to other
controlled and uncontrolled partici-
owner). For purposes of paragraph (d)
of this section, such consideration is pants, minus all of the cost sharing
treated as an operating expense and payments it receives from other con-
each controlled participant must be trolled and uncontrolled participants..
treated as incurring a share of such Costs incurred related to the intangible
consideration equal to its share of rea- development area consist of the fol-
sonably anticipated benefits (as defined lowing items: operating expenses as de-
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section). fined in §1.482-5(d)(3), other than depre-
(ii) Example. The. following example ciation or amortization expense, plus
illustrates this paragraph (c)(2): (to the extent not included in such op-
erating expenses, as defined in §1.482-
Example. (i) U.S. Parent (USP), one foreign 5(d)(3)) the charge for the use of any
subsidiary (FS), and a second foreign sub-
sidiary constituting the group's research tangible property made available to
arm (R+D) enter into a cost sharing agree- the qualified cost sharing arrangement.
ment to develop manufacturing intangibles If tangible property is made available
for a new product line A. USP and FS are as- to the qualified cost sharing arrange-
signed the exclusive rights to exploit the in- ment by a controlled participant, the
tangibles respectively in the United States determination of the appropriate
and the rest of the world, where each pres-
ently manufactures and sells various exist- charge will be governed by the rules of
ing product lines. R+D is not assigned any §1.482-2(c) (Use of tangible property).
rights to exploit the intangibles. R+D's ac- Intangible development costs do not in-
tivity consists solely in carrying out re- clude the consideration for the use of
search for the group. It is reliably projected any intangible property made available
that the shares of reasonably anticipated to the qualified cost sharing arrange-
benefits of USP and FS will be 66%% and ment. See paragraph (g)(2) of this sec-
33 A, respectively, and the parties' agreement tion. If a particular cost contributes to
provides that USP and FS will reimburse
66%% and 331/3%, respectively, of the intan- the intangible development area and
gible development costs incurred by R+D other areas or other business activi-
with respect to the new intangible. ties, the cost must be allocated be-
(ii) R+D does not qualify as a controlled tween the intangible development area
participant within the meaning of paragraph and the other areas or business activi-
(c) of this section, because it will not derive ties on a reasonable basis. In such a
any benefits from the use of covered intangi- case, it is necessary to estimate the
bles. Therefore, R+D is treated as a service
provider for purposes of this section and total benefits attributable to the cost
must receive arm's length consideration for incurred. The share of such cost allo-
the assistance it is deemed to provide to USP cated to the intangible development
and FS, under the rules of §1.482-4(f)(3)(iii). area must correspond to covered intan-
Such consideration must be treated as intan- gibles' share of the total benefits. Costs
gible development costs incurred by USP and that do not contribute to the intan-
FS in proportion to their shares of reason- gible development area are not taken
ably anticipated benefits (i.e., 66%% and
331%, respectively). R+D will not be consid- into account.
ered to bear any share of the intangible de- (2) Stock-based compensation-(i) In
velopment costs under the arrangement. general. For purposes of this section, a
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 128 of 143
-119-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
controlled participant's operating ex- apply to the transfer of stock pursuant
penses include all costs attributable to to the exercise of an option that meets
compensation, including stock-based the requirements of section 422(a) or
compensation. As used in this section, 423(a).
the term stock-based compensation (2) Deductions of foreign controlled par-
means any compensation provided by a ticipants. Solely for purposes of this
controlled participant to an employee paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A), an amount is
or independent contractor in the form treated as an allowable deduction of a
of equity instruments, options to ac- controlled participant to the extent
quire stock (stock options), or rights that a deduction would be allowable to
with respect to (or determined by ref- a United States taxpayer.
erence to) equity instruments or stock (3) Modification of stock option. Solely
options, including but not limited to for purposes of this paragraph
property to which section 83 applies (d)(2)(iii)(A), if the repricing or other
and stock options to which section 421 modification of a stock option is deter-
applies, regardless of whether ulti- mined, under paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this
mately settled in the form of cash, section, to constitute the grant of a
stock, or other property. new stock option not related to the de-
(ii) Identification of stock-based com- velopment of intangibles, the stock op-
pensation related to intangible develop- tion that is repriced or otherwise modi-
ment. The determination of whether fied will be treated as being exercised
stock-based compensation is related to immediately before the modification,
the intangible development area within provided that the stock option is then
the meaning of paragraph (d)(1) of this exercisable and the fair market value
section is made as of the date that the of the underlying stock then exceeds
stock-based compensation is granted. the price at which the stock option is
Accordingly, all stock-based compensa- exercisable. Accordingly, the amount
tion that is granted during the term of of the deduction that would be allow-
the qualified cost sharing arrangement able (or treated as allowable under this
and is related at date of grant to the paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A)) to the con-
development of intangibles covered by trolled participant upon exercise of the
the arrangement is included as an in- stock option immediately before the
tangible development cost under para- modification must be taken into ac-
graph (d)(1) of this section. In the case count as an operating expense as of the
of a repricing or other modification of date of the modification.
a stock option, the determination of (4) Expiration or termination of quali-
whether the repricing or other modi- fied cost sharing arrangement.Solely for
fication constitutes the grant of a new purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A),
stock option for purposes of this para- if an item of stock-based compensation
graph (d)(2)(ii) will be made in accord- related to the development of intangi-
ance with the rules of section 424(h) bles is not exercised during the term of
and related regulations. a qualified cost sharing arrangement,
(iii) Measurement and timing of stock- that item of stock-based compensation
based compensation expense-(A) In gen- will be treated as being exercised im-
eral. Except as otherwise provided in mediately before the expiration or ter-
this paragraph (d)(2)(iii), the operating mination of the qualified cost sharing
expense attributable to stock-based arrangement, provided that the stock-
compensation is equal to the amount based compensation is then exercisable
allowable to the controlled participant and the fair market value of the under-
as a deduction for Federal income tax lying stock then exceeds the price at
purposes with respect to that stock- which the stock-based compensation is
based compensation (for example, exercisable. Accordingly, the amount
under section 83(h)) and is taken into of the deduction that would be allow-
account as an operating expense under able (or treated as allowable under this
this section for the taxable year for paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A)) to the con-
which the deduction is allowable. trolled participant upon exercise of the
(1) Transfers to which section 421 ap- stock-based compensation must be
plies. Solely for purposes of this para- taken into account as an operating ex-
graph (d)(2)(iii)(A), section 421 does not pense as of the date of the expiration
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 129 of 143
-120-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
.654
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 130 of 143
-121-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
granted stock options that have been costs for the taxable year under a
or will be taken into account under the qualified cost sharing arrangement
general rule of paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) must be compared to its share of rea-
of this section, then except in cases sonably anticipated benefits under the
specified in the last sentence of para- arrangement. A controlled partici-
graph (d)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section, pant's share of intangible development
the controlled participants may make costs is determined under paragraph
the election described in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. A controlled par-
(d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section only with ticipant's share of reasonably antici-
the consent of the Commissioner, and pated benefits under the arrangement
the consent will apply only to stock is determined under paragraph (f)(3) of
options granted in taxable years subse- this section. In determining whether
quent to the taxable year in which con- benefits were reasonably anticipated,
sent is obtained. it may be appropriate to compare ac-
(3) Examples. The following examples tual benefits to anticipated benefits, as
illustrate this paragraph (d): described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this
Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. section.
Subsidiary (USS) enter into a qualified cost (2) Share of intangible development
sharing arrangement to develop a better costs-(i) In general. A controlled par-
mousetrap. USS and FP share the costs of ticipant's share of intangible develop-
FP's research and development facility that ment costs for a taxable year is equal
will be exclusively dedicated to this re- to its intangible development costs for
search, the salaries of the researchers, and the taxable year (as defined in para-
reasonable overhead costs attributable to
the project. They also share the cost of a graph (d) of this section), divided by
conference facility that is at the disposal of the sum of the intangible development
the senior executive management of each costs for the taxable year (as defined in
company but does not contribute to the re- paragraph (d) of this section) of all the
search and development activities in any controlled participants.
measurable way. In this case, the cost of the (ii) Example. The following example
conference facility must be excluded from illustrates this paragraph (f)(2):
the amount of intangible development costs.
Example 2. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Example (i) U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign
Subsidiary (FS) enter into a qualified cost Subsidiary (FS), and Unrelated Third Party
sharing arrangement to develop a new de- (UTP) enter into a cost sharing arrangement
vice. USP and FS share the costs of a re- to develop new audio technology. In the first
search and development facility, the salaries year of the arrangement, the controlled par-
of researchers, and reasonable overhead costs ticipants incur $2,250,000 in the intangible de-
attributable to the project. USP also incurs velopment area, all of which is incurred di-
costs related to field testing of the device, rectly by USP. In the first year, UTP makes
but does not include them in the amount of a $250,000 cost sharing payment to USP, and
intangible development costs of the cost FS makes a $800,000 cost sharing payment to
sharing arrangement. The district director USP, under the terms of the arrangement.
may determine that the field testing costs For that year, the intangible development
are intangible development costs that must costs borne by USP are $1,200,000 (its
be shared. $2,250,000 intangible development costs di-
(e) Anticipated benefits-(1) Benefits. rectly incurred, minus the cost sharing pay-
Benefits are additional income gen- ments it receives of $250,000 from UTP and
$800,000 from FS); the intangible develop-
erated or costs saved by the use of cov- ment costs borne by FS are $800,000 (its cost
ered intangibles. sharing payment); and the intangible devel-
(2) Reasonably anticipated benefits. For opment costs borne by all of the controlled
purposes of this section, a controlled participants are $2,000,000 (the sum of the in-
participant's reasonably anticipated tangible development costs borne by USP
benefits are the aggregate benefits that and FS of $1,200,000 and $800,000, respec-
it reasonably anticipates that it will tively). Thus, for the first year, USP's share
derive from covered intangibles. of intangible development costs is 60%
(f) Cost allocations-(1) In general. For ($1,200,000 divided by $2,000,000), and FS's
share of intangible development costs is 40%
purposes of determining whether a cost ($800,000 divided by $2,000,000).
allocation authorized by paragraph (ii) For purposes of determining whether a
(a)(2) of this section is appropriate for cost allocation authorized by paragraph
a taxable year, a controlled partici- § 1.482-7(a)(2) is appropriate for the first year,
pant's share of intangible development the district director must compare USP's
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 131 of 143
-122-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
and FS's shares of intangible development covered intangibles to another con-
costs for that year to their shares of reason- trolled taxpayer, such participant's
ably anticipated benefits. See paragraph benefits from the transferred intangi-
(f)(3) of this section.
bles must be measured by reference to
(3) Share of reasonably anticipated ben- the transferee's benefits, disregarding
efits-(i) In general. A controlled par- any consideration paid by the trans-
ticipant's share of reasonably antici- feree to the controlled participant
pated benefits under a qualified cost (such as a royalty pursuant to a license
sharing arrangement is equal to its agreement). Anticipated benefits are
reasonably anticipated benefits (as de- measured either on a direct basis, by
fined in paragraph (e)(2) of this sec- reference to estimated additional in-
tion), divided by the sum of the reason- come to be generated or costs to be
ably anticipated benefits (as defined in saved by the use of covered intangibles,
paragraph (e)(2) of this section) of all or on an indirect basis, by reference to
the controlled participants. The antici- certain measurements that reasonably
pated benefits of an uncontrolled par- can be assumed to be related to income
ticipant will not be included for pur- generated or costs saved. Such indirect
poses of determining each controlled bases of measurement of anticipated
participant's share of anticipated bene- benefits are described in paragraph
fits. A controlled participant's share of (f)(3)(iii) of this section. A controlled
reasonably anticipated benefits will be participant's anticipated benefits must
determined using the most reliable es- be measured on the most reliable basis,
timate of reasonably anticipated bene- whether direct or indirect. In deter-
fits. In determining which of two or mining which of two bases of measure-
more available estimates is most reli- ment of reasonably anticipated bene-
able, the quality of the data and as- fits is most reliable, the factors set
sumptions used in the analysis must be forth in §1.482-1(c)(2)(ii) (Data and as-
taken into account, consistent with sumptions) must be taken into ac-
§1.482-1(c)(2)(ii) (Data and assump- count. It normally will be expected
tions). Thus, the reliability of an esti- that the basis that provided the most
mate will depend largely on the com- reliable estimate for a particular year
pleteness and accuracy of the data, the will continue to provide the most reli-
soundness of the assumptions, and the able estimate in subsequent years, ab-
relative effects of particular defi- sent a material change in the factors
ciencies in data or assumptions on dif- that affect the reliability of the esti-
ferent estimates. If two estimates are mate. Regardless of whether a direct or
equally reliable, no adjustment should indirect basis of measurement is used,
be made based on differences in the re- adjustments may be required to ac-
sults. The following factors will be par- count for material differences in the
ticularly relevant in determining the activities that controlled participants
reliability of an estimate of antici- undertake to exploit their interests in
pated benefits- covered intangibles. See Example 6 of
(A) The reliability of the basis used paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) of this section.
for measuring benefits, as described in (iii) Indirect bases for measuring antici-
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section; and pated benefits. Indirect bases for meas-
(B) The reliability of the projections uring anticipated benefits from partici-
used to estimate benefits, as described pation in a qualified cost sharing ar-
in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section. rangement include the following:
(ii) Measure of benefits. In order to es- (A) Units used, produced or sold. Units
timate a controlled participant's share of items used, produced or sold by each
of anticipated benefits from covered in- controlled participant in the business
tangibles, the amount of benefits that activities in which covered intangibles
each of the controlled participants is are exploited may be used as an indi-
reasonably anticipated to derive from rect basis for measuring its anticipated
covered intangibles must be measured benefits. This basis of measurement
on a basis that is consistent for all will be more reliable to the extent that
such participants. See paragraph each controlled participant is expected
(f)(3)(iii)(E), Example 8, of this section. to have a similar increase in net profit
If a controlled participant transfers or decrease in net loss attributable to
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 132 of 143
-123-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
the covered intangibles per unit of the urement used and additional income
item or items used, produced or sold. generated or costs saved by the use of
This circumstance is most likely to covered intangibles. For example, a di-
arise when the covered intangibles are vision of costs based on employee com-
exploited by the controlled partici- pensation would be considered unreli-
pants in the use, production or sale of able unless there were a relationship
substantially uniform items under between the amount of compensation
similar economic conditions. and the expected income of the con-
(B) Sales. Sales by each controlled trolled participants from the use of
participant in the business activities in covered intangibles.
which covered intangibles are exploited (E) Examples. The following examples
may be used as an indirect basis for illustrate this paragraph (f)(3)(iii):
measuring its anticipated benefits.
This basis of measurement will be more Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S.
Subsidiary (USS) both produce a feedstock
reliable to the extent that each con- for the manufacture of various high-perform-
trolled participant is expected to have ance plastic products. Producing the feed-
a similar increase in net profit or de- stock requires large amounts of electricity,
crease in net loss attributable to cov- which accounts for a significant portion of
ered intangibles per dollar of sales. its production cost. FP and USS enter into a
This circumstance is most likely to cost sharing arrangement to develop a new
arise if the costs of exploiting covered process that will reduce the amount of elec-
intangibles are not substantial relative tricity required to produce a unit of the feed-
stock. FP and USS currently both incur an
to the revenues generated, or if the electricity cost of X% of its other production
principal effect of using covered intan- costs and rates for each are expected to re-
gibles is to increase the controlled par- main similar in the future. How much the
ticipants' revenues (e.g., through a new process, if it is successful, will reduce
price premium on the products they the amount of electricity required to
sell) without affecting their costs sub- produce a unit of the feedstock is uncertain,
stantially. Sales by each controlled but it will be about the same amount for
participant are unlikely to provide a both companies. Therefore, the cost savings
each company is expected to achieve after
reliable basis for measuring benefits implementing the new process are similar
unless each controlled participant op- relative to the total amount of the feedstock
erates at the same market level (e.g., produced. Under the cost sharing arrange-
manufacturing, distribution, etc.). ment FP and USS divide the costs of devel-
(C) Operating profit. Operating profit oping the new process based on the units of
of each controlled participant from the the feedstock each is anticipated to produce
activities in which covered intangibles in the future. In this case, units produced is
are exploited may be used as an indi- the most reliable basis for measuring bene-
fits and dividing the intangible development
rect basis for measuring its anticipated costs because each participant is expected to
benefits. This basis of measurement have a similar decrease in costs per unit of
will be more reliable to the extent that the feedstock produced.
such profit is largely attributable to Example 2. The facts are the same as in Ex-
the use of covered intangibles, or if the ample 1, except that USS pays X% of its
share of profits attributable to the use other production costs for electricity while
of covered intangibles is expected to be FP pays 2X% of its other production costs.
similar for each controlled participant. In this case, units produced is not the most
This circumstance is most likely to reliable basis for measuring benefits and di-
viding the intangible development costs be-
arise when covered intangibles are in- cause the participants do not expect to have
tegral to the activity that generates a similar decrease in costs per unit of the
the profit and the activity could not be feedstock produced. The district director de-
carried on or would generate little termines that the most reliable measure of
profit without use of those intangibles. benefit shares may be based on units of the
(D) Other bases for measuring antici- feedstock produced if FP's units are weight-
pated benefits. Other bases for meas- ed relative to USS's units by a factor of 2.
uring anticipated benefits may, in This reflects the fact that FP pays twice as
much as USS as a percentage of its other
some circumstances, be appropriate, production costs for electricity and, there-
but only to the extent that there is ex- fore, FP's savings per unit of the feedstock
pected to be a reasonably identifiable would be twice USS's savings from any new
relationship between the basis of meas- process eventually developed.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 133 of 143
-124-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Ex- (iii) In this case, the controlled taxpayers'
ample 2, except that to supply the particular basis for measuring benefits is the most reli-
needs of the U.S. market USS manufactures able.
the feedstock with somewhat different prop- Example 6. The facts are the same as in Ex-
erties than FP's feedstock. This requires ample 5, except that FP distributes its fer-
USS to employ a somewhat different produc- tilizers directly while USS sells to inde-
tion process than does FP. Because of this pendent distributors. In this case, sales of
difference, it will be more costly for USS to USS and FP are not the most reliable basis
adopt any new process that may be devel- for measuring benefits unless adjustments
oped under the cost sharing agreement. In are made to account for the difference in
market levels at which the sales occur.
this case, units produced is not the most re-
Example 7. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S.
liable basis for measuring benefit shares. In
Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing
order to reliably determine benefit shares,
arrangement to develop materials that will
the district director offsets the reasonably be used to train all new entry-level employ-
anticipated costs of adopting the new process ees. FP and USS determine that the new ma-
against the reasonably anticipated total sav- terials will save approximately ten hours of
ings in electricity costs. training time per employee. Because their
Example 4. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign entry-level employees are paid on differing
Subsidiary (FS) enter into a cost sharing ar- wage scales, FP and USS decide that they
rangement to develop new anesthetic drugs. should not divide costs based on the number
USP obtains the right to use any resulting of entry-level employees hired by each.
patent in the U.S. market, and FS obtains Rather, they divide costs based on compensa-
the right to use the patent in the European tion paid to the entry-level employees hired
market. USP and FS divide costs on the by each. In this case, the basis used for
basis of anticipated operating profit from measuring benefits is the most reliable be-
each patent under development. USP antici- cause there is a direct relationship between
pates that it will receive a much higher prof- compensation paid to new entry-level em-
it than FS per unit sold because drug prices ployees and costs saved by FP and USS from
are uncontrolled in the U.S., whereas drug the use of the new training materials.
prices are regulated in many European coun- Example 8. U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Sub-
tries. In this case, the controlled taxpayers' sidiary 1 (FS1) and Foreign Subsidiary 2
basis for measuring benefits is the most reli- (FS2) enter into a cost sharing arrangement
able. to develop computer software that each will
Example 5. (i) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. market and install on customers' computer
Subsidiary (USS) both manufacture and sell systems. The participants divide costs on the
basis of projected sales by USP, FS1, and FS2
fertilizers. They enter into a cost sharing ar-
rangement to develop a new pellet form of a of the software in their respective geo-
common agricultural fertilizer that is cur- graphic areas. However, FSl plans not only
rently available only in powder form. Under to sell but also to license the software to un-
related customers, and FS1's licensing in-
the cost sharing arrangement, USS obtains
come (which is a percentage of the licensees'
the rights to produce and sell the new form
sales) is not counted in the projected bene-
of fertilizer for the U.S. market while FP ob-
fits. In this case, the basis used for meas-
tains the rights to produce and sell the fer-
uring the benefits of each participant is not
tilizer for the rest of the world. The costs of
the most reliable because all of the benefits
developing the new form of fertilizer are di-
received by participants are not taken into
vided on the basis of the anticipated sales of account. In order to reliably determine ben-
fertilizer in the participants' respective mar-
efit shares, FSI's projected benefits from li-
kets. censing must be included in the measure-
(ii) If the research and development is suc- ment on a basis that is the same as that used
cessful the pellet form will deliver the fer- to measure its own and the other partici-
tilizer more efficiently to crops and less fer- pants' projected benefits from sales (e.g., all
tilizer will be required to achieve the same participants might measure their benefits on
effect on crop growth. The pellet form of fer- the basis of operating profit).
tilizer can be expected to sell at a price pre-
mium over the powder form of fertilizer (iv) Projections used to estimate antici-
based on the savings in the amount of fer- pated benefits-(A) In general. The reli-
tilizer that needs to be used. If the research ability of an estimate of anticipated
and development is successful, the costs of benefits also depends upon the reli-
producing pellet fertilizer are expected to be ability of projections used in making
approximately the same as the costs of pro- the estimate. Projections required for
ducing powder fertilizer and the same for
this purpose generally include a deter-
both FP and USS. Both FP and USS operate
at approximately the same market levels, mination of the time period between
selling their fertilizers largely to inde- the inception of the research and devel-
pendent distributors. opment and the receipt of benefits, a
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 134 of 143
-125-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
projection of the time over which bene- share. Further, the district director
fits will be received, and a projection of will not make an allocation based on
the benefits anticipated for each year such divergence if the difference is due
in which it is anticipated that the in- to an extraordinary event, beyond the
tangible will generate benefits. A pro- control of the participants, that could
jection of the relevant basis for meas- not reasonably have been anticipated
uring anticipated benefits may require at the time that costs were shared. For
a projection of the factors that under- purposes of this paragraph, all con-
lie it. For example, a projection of op- trolled participants that are not U.S.
erating profits may require a projec- persons will be treated as a single con-
tion of sales, cost of sales, operating trolled participant. Therefore, an ad-
expenses, and other factors that affect justment based on an unreliable projec-
operating profits. If it is anticipated tion will be made to the cost shares of
that there will be significant variation foreign controlled participants only if
among controlled participants in the there is a matching adjustment to the
timing of their receipt of benefits, and cost shares of controlled participants
consequently benefit shares are ex- that are U.S. persons. Nothing in this
pected to vary significantly over the paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(B) will prevent the
years in which benefits will be re- district director from making an allo-
ceived, it may be necessary to use the cation if the taxpayer did not use the
present discounted value of the pro- most reliable basis for measuring an-
jected benefits to reliably determine
ticipated benefits. For example, if the
each controlled participant's share of
those benefits. If it is not anticipated taxpayer measures anticipated benefits
based on units sold, and the district di-
that benefit shares will significantly
rector determines that another basis is
change over time, current annual ben-
efit shares may provide a reliable pro- more reliable for measuring antici-
jection of anticipated benefit shares. pated benefits, then the fact that ac-
This circumstance is most likely to tual units sold were within 20% of the
occur when the cost sharing arrange- projected unit sales will not preclude
ment is a long-term arrangement, the an allocation under this section.
arrangement covers a wide variety of (0) Foreign-to-foreign adjustments.
intangibles, the composition of the Notwithstanding the limitations on ad-
covered intangibles is unlikely to justments provided in paragraph
change, the covered intangibles are un- (f)(3)(iv)(B) of this section, adjustments
likely to generate unusual profits, and to cost shares based on an unreliable
each controlled participant's share of projection also may be made solely
the market is stable. among foreign controlled participants
(B) Unreliable projections. A signifi- if the variation between actual and
cant divergence between projected ben- projected benefits has the effect of sub-
.efit shares and actual benefit shares stantially reducing U.S. tax.
may indicate that the projections were (D) Examples. The following examples
not reliable. In such a case, the district illustrate this paragraph (f)(3)(iv):
director may use actual benefits as the
Example 1. (i) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S.
most reliable measure of anticipated Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing
benefits. If benefits are projected over arrangement to develop a new car model.
a period of years, and the projections The participants plan to spend four years de-
for initial years of the period prove to veloping the new model and four years pro-
be unreliable, this may indicate that ducing and selling the new model. USS and
the projections for the remaining years FP project total sales of $4 billion and $2 bil-
of the period are also unreliable and lion, respectively, over the planned four
thus should be adjusted. Projections years of exploitation of the new model. Cost
will not be considered unreliable based shares are divided for each year based on
projected total sales. Therefore, USS bears
on a divergence between a controlled 66%% of each year's intangible development
participant's projected benefit share costs and FP bears 33%% of such costs.
and actual benefit share if the amount (ii) USS typically begins producing and
of such divergence for every controlled selling new car models a year after FP be-
participant is less than or equal to 20% gins producing and selling new car models.
of the participant's projected benefit The district director determines that in
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 135 of 143
-126-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
order to reflect USS's one-year lag in intro- total sales, respectively. The divergence be-
ducing new car models, a more reliable pro- tween USP's projected and actual benefit
jection of each participant's share of benefits shares is greater than 20% of USP's projected
would be based on a projection of all four benefit share and is not due to an extraor-
years of sales for each participant, dis- dinary event beyond the control of the par-
counted to present value. ticipants. The district director concludes
Example 2. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign that the projection of anticipated benefit
Subsidiary (FS) enter into a cost sharing ar- shares was unreliable, and uses actual bene-
rangement to develop new and improved fits as the basis for an adjustment to the
household cleaning products. Both partici- cost shares borne by USP and FS.
pants have sold household cleaning products Example 7. U.S. Parent (USP), a U.S. cor-
for many years and have stable market poration, and its foreign subsidiary (FS)
shares. The products under development are enter a cost sharing arrangement in year 1.
unlikely to produce unusual profits for ei- They project that they will begin to receive
ther participant. The participants divide benefits from covered intangibles in years 4
costs on the basis of each participant's cur- through 6, and that USP will receive 60% of
rent sales of household cleaning products. In total benefits and FS 40% of total benefits.
this case, the participants' future benefit In years 4 *through 6, USP and FS actually
shares are reliably projected by current sales receive 50% each of the total benefits. In
of cleaning products. evaluating the reliability of the partici-
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Ex- pants' projections, the district director com-
ample 2, except that FS's market share is pares these actual benefit shares to the pro-
rapidly expanding because of the business jected benefit shares. Although USP's actual
failure of a competitor in its geographic benefit share (50%) is within 20% of its pro-
area. The district director determines that jected benefit share (60%), FS's actual ben-
the participants' future benefit shares are efit share (50%) is not within 20% of its pro-
not reliably projected by current sales of jected benefit share (40%). Based on this dis-
cleaning products and that FS's benefit pro- crepancy, the district director may conclude
jections should take into account its growth that the participants' projections were not
in sales. reliable and may use actual benefit shares as
Example 4. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. the basis for an adjustment to the cost
Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing shares borne by USP and FS.
arrangement to develop synthetic fertilizers. Example 8. Three controlled taxpayers,
and insecticides. FP and USS share costs on USP, FS1 and FS2 enter into a cost sharing
the basis of each participant's current sales arrangement. FSl and FS2 are foreign. USP
of fertilizers and insecticides. The market is a United States corporation that controls
shares of the participants have been stable all the stock of FS1 and FS2. The partici-
for fertilizers, but FP's market share for in- pants project that they will share the total
secticides has been expanding. The district benefits of the covered intangibles in the fol-
director determines that the . participants' lowing percentages: USP 50%; FS1 30%; and
projections of benefit shares are reliable FS2 20%. Actual benefit shares are as fol-
with regard to fertilizers, but not reliable lows: USP 45%; FSi 25%; and FS2 30%. In
with regard to insecticides; a more reliable evaluating the reliability of the partici-
projection of benefit shares would take into pants' projections, the district director com-
account the expanding market share for in- pares these actual benefit shares to the pro-
secticides. jected benefit shares. For this purpose, FSi
Example 5. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign and FS2 are treated as a single participant.'
Subsidiary (FS) enter into a cost sharing ar- The actual benefit share received by USP
rangement to develop new food products, di- (45%) is within 20% of its projected benefit
viding costs on the basis of projected sales share (50%). In addition, the non-US partici-
two years in the future. In year 1, USP and pants' actual benefit share (55%) is also
FS project that their sales in year 3 will be within 20% of their projected benefit share
equal, and they divide costs accordingly. In (50%). Therefore, the district director con-
year 3, the district director examines the cludes that the participants' projections of
participants' method for dividing costs. USP future benefits were reliable, despite the fact
and FS actually accounted for 42% and 58% that FS2's actual benefit share (30%) is not
of total sales, respectively. The district di- within 20% of its projected benefit share
rector agrees that sales two years in the fu- (20%).
ture provide a reliable basis for estimating Example 9. The facts are the same as in Ex-
benefit shares. Because the differences be- ample 8. In addition, the district director de-
tween USP's and FS's actual and projected termines that FS2 has significant operating
benefit shares are less than 20% of their pro- losses and has no earnings and profits, and
jected benefit shares, the projection of fu- that FS1 is profitable and has earnings and
ture benefits for year 3 is reliable. profits. Based on all the evidence, the dis-
Example 6. The facts are the same as in Ex- trict director concludes that the participants
ample 5, except that the in year 3 USP and arranged that FS1 would bear a larger cost
FS actually accounted for 35% and 65% of share than appropriate in order to reduce
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 136 of 143
-127-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
FS1's earnings and profits and thereby re- USS and FP have obtained the following
duce inclusions USP otherwise would be sales results through the year 2001:
deemed to have on account of FS1 under sub-
part F. Pursuant to §1.482-7 (f)(3)(iv)(C), the SALES
district director may make an adjustment [In millions of dollars]
solely to the cost shares borne by FS1 and
FS2 because FS2's projection of future bene- Year USS FP
fits was unreliable and the variation between
actual and projected benefits had the effect 0 17
1997 ..............................................
of substantially reducing USP's U.S. income 17 35
1998 ..............................................
tax liability (on account of FS1 subpart F in- 25 41
1999 ..............................................
come). 38 41
2000 ..............................................
Example 10. (i)(A) Foreign Parent (FP) and 39 41
2001 ..............................................
U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost shar-
ing arrangement in 1996 to develop a new (B) USS's sales initially grew more slowly
treatment for baldness. USS's interest in than projected while FP's sales grew more
any treatment developed is the right to quickly. In each of the first three years of
produce and sell the treatment in the U.S. the period the share of total sales of at least
market while FP retains rights to produce one of the parties diverged by over 20% from
and sell the treatment in the rest of the its projected share of sales. However, by the
world. USS and FP measure their antici- year 2001 both parties' sales had leveled off
pated benefits from the cost sharing arrange- at approximately their projected values.
ment based on their respective projected fu- Taking into account this leveling off of sales
ture sales of the baldness treatment. The fol- and all the facts and circumstances, the dis-
lowing sales projections are used: trict director determines that it is appro-
priate to use the original projections for the
SALES remaining years of sales. Combining the ac-
[In millions of dollars] tual results through the year 2001 with the
projections for subsequent years, and using a
Year USS FP discount rate of 10%, the present discounted
19 97 ............................................................... 5 10 value of sales is approximately $141.6 million
199 8 ............................................................... 20 20 for USS and $187.3 million for FP. This result
1999 ............................. 30
............................... 30 implies that USS and FP obtain approxi-
2000 ............................................................... 40 40 mately 43.1% and 56.9%, respectively, of the
200 1 ............................................................... 40 40 anticipated benefits from the baldness treat-
2002 ............................................................... 40 40 ment. Because these benefit shares are with-
2003 ............................................................... 40 40 in 20% of the benefit shares calculated based
2004 ............................................................... 20 20
on the original sales projections, the district
2005 ............................................................... 10 10
200 6 ............................................................... 5 5 director determines that, based on the dif-
ference between actual and projected benefit
(B) In 1997, the first year of sales, USS is shares, the original projections were not un-
projected to have lower sales than FP due to reliable. No adjustment is made based on the
lags in U.S. regulatory approval for the difference between actual and projected ben-
baldness treatment. In each subsequent year efit shares.
USS and FP are projected to have equal Example 11. (i) The facts are the same as in
sales. Sales are projected to build over the Example 10, except that the actual sales re-
first three years of the period, level off for sults through the year 2001 are as follows:
several years, and then decline over the final
years of the period as new and improved SALES
baldness treatments reach the market. [In millions of dollars]
(ii) To account for USS's lag in sales in the
first year, the present discounted value of Year USS FP
sales over the period is used as the basis for
measuring benefits. Based on the risk associ- 0 17
199 7 ..............................................
ated with this venture, a discount rate of 10 17
199 8 ..............................................
35
1999 25 44
..............................................
percent is selected. The present discounted
value of projected sales is determined to be 2000 ..............................................
34 54
approximately $154.4 million for USS and 36 55
200 1 ..............................................
$158.9 million for FP. On this basis USS and
FP are projected to obtain approximately (ii) Based on the discrepancy between the
49.3% and 50.7% of the benefit, respectively, projections and the actual results and on
and the costs of developing the baldness consideration of all the facts, the district di-
treatment are shared accordingly. rector determines that for the remaining
(iii) (A) In the year 2002 the district direc- years the following sales projections are
tor examines the cost sharing arrangement. more reliable than the original projections:
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 137 of 143
-128-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
205-088 D-22
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 139 of 143
-130-
§ 1.482-7 26 CFR Ch. 1(4-1-05 Edition)
one-fifth of the future costs in exchange for over time (two-thirds). An allocation is made
part of the fourth member's territory reason- under §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6
ably anticipated to yield benefits amounting from FP to USS to recognize USS' one-third
to one-fifth of the total benefits. The fair interest in the intangibles. No allocation is
market value of intangible property within made from FS to USS because FS did not ex-
the arrangement at the time the fifth com- ploit USS's interest in covered intangibles.
pany joins the arrangement is $45 million. Example 3. U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Sub-
The new member must pay one-fifth of that sidiary 1 (FS1), and Foreign Subsidiary 2
amount (that is, $9 million total) to the (FS2) enter into a cost sharing arrangement
fourth member from whom it acquired its in- to develop a cure for the common cold. Costs
terest in covered intangibles. are shared USP-50%, FS1-40% and FS2-10%
Example 2. U.S. Subsidiary (USS), Foreign on the basis of projected units of cold medi-
Subsidiary (FS) and Foreign Parent (FP) cine to be produced by each. After ten years
enter into a cost sharing arrangement to de- of research and development, FS1 withdraws
velop new products within the Group X prod- from the arrangement, transferring its inter-
uct line. USS manufactures and sells Group
ests in the intangibles under development to
X products in North America, FS manufac- USP in exchange for a lump sum payment of
tures and sells Group X products in South
$10 million. The district director may review
America, and FP manufactures and sells
this lump sum payment, under the provi-
Group X products in the rest of the world.
sions of § 1.482-4(f)(5), to ensure that the
USS, FS and FP project that each will man-
amount is commensurate with the income
ufacture and sell a third of the Group X
attributable to the intangibles.
products under development, and they share
costs on the basis of projected sales of manu- Example 4. (i) Four members A, B, C, and D
factured products. When the new Group X of a controlled group form a cost sharing ar-
products are developed, however, USS ceases rangement to develop the next generation
to manufacture Group X products, and FP technology for their business. Based on a re-
sells its Group X products to USS for resale liable projection of their future benefits, the
in the North American market. USS earns a participants agree to bear shares of the costs
return on its resale activity that is appro- incurred during the term of the agreement in
priate given its function as a distributor, but the following percentages: A 40%; B 15%; C
does not earn a return attributable to ex- 25%; and D 20%. The arm's length charges,
ploiting covered intangibles. The district di- under the rules of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4
rector determines that USS's share of the through 1.482-6, for the use of the existing in-
costs (one-third) was greater than its share tangible property they respectively make
of reasonably anticipated benefits (zero) and available to the cost sharing arrangement
that it has transferred an interest in the in- are in the following amounts for the taxable
tangibles for which it should receive a pay- year: A 80X; B 40X; C 30X; and D 30X. The
ment from FP, whose share of the intangible provisional (before offsets) and final buy-in
development costs (one-third) was less than payments/receipts among A, B, C, and D are
its share of reasonably anticipated benefits shown in the table as follows:
[All amounts stated in X's]
A B C D
(ii) The first row/first column shows A's of payments by C and D of 15X and 6X, re-
provisional buy-in payment equal to the spectively.
product of 10OX (sum of 40X, 3OX, and 3OX) Example 5. A and B, two members of a con-
and A's share of anticipated benefits of 40%. trolled group form a cost sharing arrange-
The second row/first column shows A's provi- ment with an unrelated third party C to de-
sional buy-in receipts equal to the sum of velop a new technology useable in their re-
the products of 80X and B's, C's, and D's an- spective businesses. Based on a reliable pro-
ticipated benefits shares (15%, 25%, and 20%, jection of their future benefits, A and B
respectively). The other entries in the first agree to bear shares of 60% and 40%, respec-
two rows of the table are similarly com- tively, of the costs incurred during the term
puted. The last row shows the final buy-in of the agreement. A also makes available its
receipts/payments after offsets. Thus, for the existing technology for purposes of the re-
taxable year, A and B are treated as receiv- search to be undertaken. The arm's length
ing the 8X and 13X, respectively, pro rata out charge, under the rules of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-
4 through 1.482-6, for the use of the existing
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 140 of 143
-131-
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury § 1.482-7
technology is 100X for the taxable year. and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6. Any pay-
Under its agreement with A and B, C must ment that in substance constitutes a
make a specified cost sharing payment as cost sharing payment will be treated as
well as a payment of 5OX for the taxable year
on account of the pre- existing intangible such for purposes of this section, re-
property made available to the cost sharing gardless of its characterization under
arrangement. B's provisional buy-in pay- foreign law.
ment (before offsets) to A for the taxable (2) Examples. The following examples
year is 40X (the product of 100X and B's an- illustrate this paragraph (h):
ticipated benefits share of 40%). C's payment
of 50X is shared provisionally between A and Example 1. U.S. Parent (USP) and its whol-
B in accordance with their shares of reason- ly owned Foreign Subsidiary (FS) form a
ably anticipated benefits, 30X (50X times cost sharing arrangement to develop a mini-
60%) to A and 20X (50X times 40%) to B. B's ature widget, the Small R. Based on a reli-
final buy-in payment (after offsets) is 20X able projection of their future benefits, USP
(40X less 20X). A is treated as receiving the agrees to bear 40% and PS to bear 60% of the
70X total provisional payments (40X plus costs incurred during the term of the agree-
30X) pro rata out of the final payments by B ment. The principal costs in the intangible
and C of 20X and 5OX, respectively. development area are operating expenses in-
curred by FS in Country Z of 10OX annually,
(h) Character of paymehts made pursu- and operating expenses incurred by USP in
ant to a qualified cost sharing arrange- the United States also of 10OX annually. Of
ment-(1) In general. Payments made the total costs of 200X, USP's share is 80X
pursuant to a qualified cost sharing ar- and FS's share is 120X, so that FS must
rangement (other than payments de- make a payment to USP of 20X. This pay-
scribed in paragraph (g) of this section) ment will be treated as a reimbursement of
generally will be considered costs of 20X of USP's operating expenses in the
developing intangibles of the payor and United States. Accordingly, USP's Form 1120
reimbursements of the same kind of
will reflect an 80X deduction on account of
activities performed in the United States for
costs of developing intangibles of the purposes of allocation and apportionment of
payee. For purposes of this paragraph the deduction to source. The Form 5471 for
(h), a controlled participant's payment FS will reflect a 10OX deduction on account
required under a qualified cost sharing of activities performed in Country Z, and a
arrangement is deemed to be reduced 20X deduction on account of activities per-
to the extent of any payments owed to formed in the United States.
it under the arrangement from other Example 2. The facts are the same as in Ex-
controlled or uncontrolled partici- ample 1, except that the 10OX of costs borne
pants. Each payment received by a
by USP consist of 5X of operating expenses
incurred by USP in the United States and
payee will be treated as coming pro 95X of fair market value rental cost for a fa-
rata out of payments made by all cility in the United States. The depreciation
payors. Such payments will be applied deduction attributable to the U.S. facility is
pro rata against deductions for the tax- 7X. The 20X net payment by FS to USP will
able year that the payee is allowed in first be applied in reduction pro rata of the
connection with the qualified cost 5X deduction for operating expenses and the
sharing arrangement. Payments re- 7X depreciation deduction attributable to
the U.S. facility. The 8X remainder will be
ceived in excess of such deductions will
treated as rent for the U.S. facility.
be treated as in consideration for use of
the tangible property made available (i) Accounting requirements. The ac-
to the qualified cost sharing arrange- counting requirements of this para-
ment by the payee. For purposes of the graph are that the controlled partici-
research credit determined under sec- pants in a qualified cost sharing ar-
tion 41, cost sharing payments among rangement must use a consistent meth-
controlled participants will be treated od of accounting to measure costs and
as provided for intra-group trans- benefits, and must translate foreign
actions in § 1.41-6(e). Any payment currencies on a consistent basis.
made or received by a taxpayer pursu- (j) Administrative requirements--(1) In
ant to an arrangement that the district general. The administrative require-
director determines not to be a quali- ments of this paragraph consist of the
fied cost sharing arrangement, or a documentation requirements of para-
payment made or received pursuant to graph (j)(2) of this section and the re-
paragraph (g) of this section, will be porting requirements of paragraph
subject to the provisions of §§1.482-1 (j)(3) of this section.
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 141 of 143
-132-
§ 1.482-8 26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-05 Edition)
(2) Documentation-(i) Requirements. A (3) Reporting requirements. A con-
controlled participant must maintain trolled participant must attach to its
sufficient documentation to establish U.S. income tax return a statement in-
that the requirements of paragraphs dicating that it is a participant in a
(b)(4) and (c)(1) of this section have qualified cost sharing arrangement,
been met, as well as the additional doc- and listing the other controlled partici-
umentation specified in this paragraph pants in the arrangement. A controlled
(j)(2)(i), and must provide any such doc- participant that is not required to file
umentation to the Internal Revenue a U.S. income tax return must ensure
Service within 30 days of a request (un- that such a statement is attached to
less an extension is granted by the dis- Schedule M of any Form 5471 or to any
trict director). Documents necessary to Form 5472 filed with respect to that
establish the following must also be participant.
maintained- (k) Effective date. This section applies
(A) The total amount of costs in- for taxable years beginning on or after
curred pursuant to the arrangement; January 1, 1996. However, paragraphs
(B) The costs borne by each con- (a)(3), (d)(2) and (j)(2)(i)(F) of this sec-
trolled participant; tion apply for stock-based compensa-
(C) A description of the method used tion granted in taxable years beginning
to determine each controlled partici- on or after August 26, 2003.
pant's share of the intangible develop- (1) Transition rule. A cost sharing ar-
ment costs, including the projections rangement will be considered a quali-
used to estimate benefits, and an expla- fied cost sharing arrangement, within
nation of why that method was se- the meaning of this section, if, prior to
lected; January 1, 1996, the arrangement was a
(D) The accounting method used to bona fide cost sharing arrangement
determine the costs and benefits of the under the provisions of §1.482-7T (as
intangible development (including the contained in the 26 CFR part 1 edition
method used to translate foreign cur- revised as of April 1, 1995), but only if
rencies), and, to the extent that the the arrangement is amended, if nec-
method materially differs from U.S.
essary, to conform with the provisions
generally accepted accounting prin-
of this section by December 31, 1996.
ciples, an explanation of such material
differences; [T.D. 8632, 60 FR 65557, Dec. 20, 1995, as
(E) Prior research, if any, undertaken amended by T.D. 8670, 61 FR 21956, May 13,
in the intangible development area, 1996; 61 FR 33656, June 28, 1996; T.D. 8930, 66
any tangible or intangible property FR 295, Jan. 3, 2001; T.D. 9088, 68 FR 51177,
made available for use in the arrange- Aug. 26, 2003; 69 FR 13473, Mar. 23, 2004]
ment, by each controlled participant, § 1.482-8 Examples of the best method
and any information used to establish rule.
the value of pre-existing and covered
intangibles; and In accordance with the best method
(F) The amount taken into account rule of § 1.482-1(c), a method may be ap-
as operating expenses attributable to plied in a particular case only if the
stock-based compensation, including comparability, quality of data, and re-
the method of measurement and timing liability of assumptions under that
used with respect to that amount as method make it more reliable than any
well as the data, as of date of grant, other available measure of the arm's
used to identify stock-based compensa- length result. The following examples
tion related to the development of cov- illustrate the comparative analysis re-
ered intangibles. quired to apply this rule. As with all of
(ii) Coordination with penalty regula- the examples in these regulations,
tion. The documents described in para- these examples are based on simplified
graph (j)(2)(i) of this section will sat- facts, are provided solely for purposes
isfy the principal documents require- of illustrating the type of analysis re-
ment under §1.6662-6(d)(2)(iii)(B) with quired under the relevant rule, and do
respect to a qualified cost sharing ar- not provide rules of general applica-
rangement. tion. Thus, conclusions reached in
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: -133-
10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 142 of 143
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 28.1-1.
The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1.
The brief is 13,976 words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2(b).
The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable, and is filed by (1) separately represented parties; (2) a party or parties filing a
single brief in response to multiple briefs; or (3) a party or parties filing a single brief in response to a
longer joint brief filed under Rule 32-2(b). The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the longer length limit authorized by court order dated
The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6). The brief is
words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable.
This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a longer brief pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2
(a) and is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32
(f), if applicable. The brief’s type size and type face comply with Fed. R .App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a longer brief pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 29-2
(c)(2) or (3) and is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R.
App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and
(6).
This brief complies with the length limits set forth at Ninth Circuit Rule 32-4.
The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The brief’s type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
(Rev.12/1/16)
Case: 17-72922, 03/30/2018, ID: 10818687, DktEntry: 21, Page 143 of 143
-134-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
foregoing brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users
16402087.1