This discussion presents a simplified illustration of the issues with respect to the unspecified method applied in Medtronic III in contrast to the IRS' extreme CPM approach and a traditional RPSM approach based on sound financial economics.
Use of the CPM/TNMM to determine royalty rates for valuable intangibles in transfer pricing is incompatible with basic financial economics.
Applied properly, the Comparable Profits Method (CPM) can be a useful approach for well-defined transfer pricing issues, such as the appropriate profitability of a sales affiliate. Unfortunately, CPM is often applied mechanically without regard for economic principles and functional comparability.
Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules have allowed multinationals to shift income to tax havens in certain situations. We explore through the lens of the Macopolo case how Brazil could benefit from adoption of the arm's length standard.
The Israel Tax Authority is questioning whether costs plus markup models Israeli R&D affiliates are at arm's length. This could present issues for multinationals that have not been giving proper consideration to cost base, asset intensity and ownership of valuable intangibles in their benchmarking.
A recent article asserted that state tax authorities should use the Comparable Profits Method (CPM) with care in the evaluation of transfer pricing for tangible goods. However, some of the examples cited, including the recent Coca Cola case, in their piece are misplaced for reasons we will address.
Changes to tax laws are often seen as the primary solution to curb profit shifting. However, proper application of the arm's length principle alongside BEPS CbCR disclosures already offer powerful tools in this endeavor.