Upload
buicong
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chamber of Tax Consultants 4th International Tax Conference Case studies in Transfer Pricing December, 2012 Mumbai
www.pwc.com
PwC PwC
Agenda
1 Business Models & Transfer Pricing nuances for manufacturing
2 Business Models & Transfer Pricing nuances for selling & distribution
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 2
PwC PwC
Business Models & Transfer Pricing nuances for manufacturing
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 3
PwC PwC
Manufacturing models & profitability
Toll Manufacturer
Contract Manufacturer
Licensed Manufacturer
Full Fledged Manufacturer
Incr
easi
ng p
rofit
pot
entia
l
Increasing functions, risks & intangibles
Does not exploit IP on own account; service provider
Exploits IP on own account; entrepreneur
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 4
PwC PwC
Manufacturing Models – FAR comparisons Functions, Assets &
Risks (FAR) Full fledged
Manufacturer Licensed Manufacturer Contract Manufacturer Toll Manufacturer
Manufactures On own behalf On own behalf For Principal For Principal
R&D Carries itself/ CSA Rarely carries out R&D No No
A&M Does itself Does itself No No
Distribution Does itself Does itself No No
Procurement Does itself Does itself Generally does itself* No
Production scheduling Does itself Does itself No No
IP Owner Licensee ; exploitation rights; pays royalty
Licensee; no exploitation rights
Licensee; no exploitation rights
Inventory Owner Owner Owner* Does not own
Market & price risk Bears Bears Does not bear Does not bear
Technology risk Bears Partially bears Does not bear Does not bear
Inventory risk Bears Bears Does not bear Does not bear
Capacity risk Bears Bears Does not bear; unless not captive Does not bear
Product/ Service risk Bears (Product) Bears (Product) Bears (Service) Bears (Service)
FAR: Functions; Assets; Risks Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 5
PwC PwC
Indian customers – conventional model
Plain vanilla license manufacturer
INDIA
Tech & Brand Royalty
Principal Co
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
India Sub Co (License Mfg)
Mfg division
Sales division
Supplier Indian customer
• Commercial issues – - Insufficient repatriation of entrepreneurial profits through
routine royalty ? Cap on royalty recently withdrawn - How to achieve portability of profits, from economic & tax
perspective ? • TP Assessment issues –
- Tendency to treat India Sub Co as “tested party” - Entrepreneurial results tested against entrepreneurial
comparables third party turnover exposed to TP
Entrepreneurial results trapped in India
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 6
PwC PwC
Indian customers – conventional licensed manufacturer model
• India Sub Co's turnover for manufacturing segment Rs 10000 crore
• Components imported from global AEs Rs 2000 crore [supplied at say "cost plus" margin (low/ moderate) by foreign AE suppliers] constitutes 30% of total material cost of India Sub Co
• Royalty paid by India Sub Co to Principal Sub Co @ 3% of turnover Rs 300 crore
• India Sub Co has return on sales (ROS) of 2%
• Under overall TNMM, average ROS of comparables is 6% TP adjustment works out to 4% of total turnover of India Sub Co Rs 400 crore
• Proper method test import of components under cost plus/ TNMM from foreign side; royalties under CUP from royalty databases
• Proportionate adjustments not ideal solution
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 7
PwC PwC
Indian customers – major import of materials from foreign principal
INDIA
Principal Co
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
Import of materials
Entrepreneurial profits embedded
in import price
India Sub Co (Value added Distributor)
Assembly division Say 15% of VAE [or 6% ROCE]
Sales division Say ROS 3 to 4%
VAE = value added expenses ROCE = return on capital employed
Indian customer
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 8
PwC PwC
Indian customers – major localisation Indian entrepreneurial model
• Significant localisation in India; also, “significant peoples functions” for manufacturing performed in India
• Difficult to segregate manufacturing & distribution functions • India Sub Co entrepreneur, albeit licensed manufacturer • Not proper to benchmark combined results of India Sub Co against
Indian entrepreneurs • If significant intangibles not embedded in imported components,
price to be tested in hands of Principal Co on cost plus/ TNMM • If significant intangibles embedded in imported components, price
may be tested with residual profit split analysis • Royalty needs to be justified on stand alone basis, as per CUP
analysis from global royalty databases, e.g. RoyaltyStat
INDIA
Tech & Brand Royalty
Principal Co
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
India Sub Co (License Mfg)
Mfg division
Sales division
Supplier Indian customer
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 9
PwC PwC
Indian customers – major localisation non integrated principal structure
Bundled Tech & Brand Royalty and fees for other non-routine,
value added services (Residual Profits)
Capable of assuming major risks & performing major significant people functions ?
Capable of assuming minor risks & performing less significant people functions ?
INDIA
Principal Co
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
India Sub Co (License Mfg)
Mfg division Say FCMU 5 to 6%
Sales division Say ROS 3 to 4%
Supplier Indian customer
• Liability on account of technology Principal Co • Principal Co advises on material sourcing, production scheduling • Manufacturing division limited risk manufacturer • If possible, Principal Co advises on marketing strategy,
reimburses A&M costs Sales division’s limited profile • Residual profits repatriated as “bundled royalties”/ industrial
franchise fees same economic result of principal structure • Robust drafting of license agreement necessary
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 10
PwC PwC
Export of products – inbound (Foreign) MNCs
INDIA
F Co
I Co
Indian customer
Products License
of IP
• Business Model : - I Co operates as contract manufacturer for F Co for exports - For exports, I Co receives “Cost Plus” or “ROCE” - I Co operates as licensed manufacturer for domestic market
• Issues : - Revenue compares export & domestic prices/ profits of products - Makes adjustment for export segment - FAR analysis key solution two markets not comparable - FAR for domestic market entrepreneur (higher functions & risks) - FAR for export market service provider (lower functions & risks)
Products
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 11
PwC PwC
Export of products – outbound (Indian) MNCs
INDIA
F Co
I Co
Indian customer
Products
• Business Model : - I Co is principal or entrepreneur, owning IP - Sells products to F Co (subsidiary) for distribution - F Co receives arm’s length distribution margin - I Co could incur loss for export for market penetration
• Issues : - Revenue tests I Co’s export margins - Compares export & domestic prices/ profits or with Indian comparables - Makes adjustment for export segment - FAR analysis only solution - I Co is entrepreneur, carrying IP, bearing risks can never be tested - F Co (distributor) as tested party - F Co’s margin to be compared with foreign regional distributors
Products
License of brand
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 12
PwC PwC
Business Models & Transfer Pricing nuances for selling & distribution
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 13
PwC PwC
Selling & distribution models & profitability
Marketing support service provider
Sales/ Commission Agent
Commissionaire *
Limited risk distributor
Normal marketing distributor
Super marketing distributor
Does not take title
Takes title
Increasing functions, risks & intangibles
Incr
easi
ng p
rofit
pot
entia
l
*Commissionaire model not relevant for “common law” countries like India
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 14
PwC PwC
Sales / Commission agent
• I Co identifies customers for F Co
• I Co negotiates/ concludes contracts with customers
• I Co receives arm’s length commission @% of sales
• How to compute commission @% of sales ?
• CUP – ― Third party agreements of same industry ― Global databases, e.g. RoyaltyStat; KT Mine ― Can third party commission rate apply blindly ? ― Intensity of functions has significant role to play ― Intensity of functions VAE/ Turnover ― Higher VAE/ Turnover higher commission ― Lower VAE/ Turnover lower commission rate
• RPM (Gross margin of distributors) –
― Select distributors with similar range of VAE/ Turnover ― Screening for debtors/ inventory functions
• Sanity check of OP/ VAE (dialect of Berry Ratio)
F Co
I Co Customer
Commission/ Fees
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 15
PwC PwC
Sales / Commission agent – sanity check • I Co’s (agent) operating costs [VAE] in India Rs 50 crore
• Sales made directly by F Co to Indian customers Rs 25000 crore
• Intensity of functions [VAE/ Sales] 0.2%
• Random third party agent’s commission rate in industry 5%
• Accounts of third party agents not available no information of intensity of functions
• Market intelligence third party agents are small players, dealing in unorganised market
• F Co’s products sell predominantly on strength of IP [technology, brand, etc]
• Thirds party agents deal in unbranded products; more efforts to sell; nurture relationship, etc
• Bargaining power of I Co, vis-à-vis F Co, far less as compared to local small player agents, vis-à-vis their
principals
• Applying 5% rate Rs 1250 crore commission of I Co OP of Rs 1200 crore [1250 – 50]
• OP/ VAE of 2400% [1200/ 50 x 100] absurd result; cannot be applied
• Indian databases OP/ VAE of commission agents appx 30 to 40% (no information of commission rate)
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 16
PwC PwC
Sales / Commission agent – sanity check …. contd
• Distributors with commensurate FAR profile selected Gross Margin of 1.5%; VAE/ Sales of 1%
• Applying commission rate of 1.5% on I Co Commission of Rs 375 crore; OP of Rs 325 crore
• OP/ VAE of 650% [325/ 50 x 100] exorbitant; comparable OP/ VAE 30 to 40%
• Mathematical fallacy I Co’s intensity of functions is 0.2%; while comparable distributors’ is 1%
• I Co’s intensity of functions [OP/ VAE] is 1/5th of comparable distributors
• Adjust comparable distributors’ gross margin 1/5th of 1.5% 0.3% [arm’s length commission for I Co]
• Applying commission rate of 0.3% to I Co Commission of Rs 75 crore OP of Rs 25 crore [75 – 50]
• OP/ VAE 50% [25/ 50 x 100], as against comparable commission agents’ OP/ VAE of 30 to 40%
• Still high, however best case scenario
• Else, apply commission rate w.r.t 30 to 40% of operating profits 0.08% [40% of 50/ 25000 x 100]
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 17
PwC PwC
Super Marketing Distributor
I Co – Residual Profits / Split of Profits Buy-sell distributor Performs marketing/sales promotion functions on own account Spend on marketing much higher than industry standards Main driver of sales (selling functions more important than technology/ patent) Performs debtors/ inventory functions; & bears associated risks Creates & owns marketing intangibles Can suffer start up losses; enjoys future super profits Remuneration policy Cost plus (on F Co side) or residual split of profits
F Co - Cost Plus/ Split of Profits Technology/ patent routine in nature Routine manufacturer entitled to cost plus/ROCE Technology/patent has sufficient value, but almost same as marketing intangibles - split of profits
F Co
I Co Customer
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
Routine/ moderate Trade Intangibles
Significant Marketing Intangibles
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 18
PwC PwC
Marketing Intangible – General Concept
• India Sub Co has license of brand & distribution rights from Principal Co • A&M; distribution network key business drivers • Who should incur A&M, distribution expenses ? “Bright line concept” • No straight-jacket formula fact driven depends on profile of India Sub Co • Who performs significant peoples functions, key decisions on A&M ? • Revenue cannot dictate business model substance is the key
INDIA
Principal Co
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
Indian customer India Sub Co
Distributor
Marketing intangibles trademark (brand, logo), trade name, distribution network, customer lists etc.
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 19
PwC PwC
Marketing Intangible – General Concept … contd • Limited risk distributor –
― Guaranteed ROS A&M expenses borne by Principal through reimbursement or pricing ― Economic ownership of marketing intangibles vests with Principal
• Normal risk taking distributors –
― Gross Margin based return ― Intensity of functions [VAE/ Sales] key test for selecting comparables ― Comparables with commensurate VAE/ Sales, likely to have same degree of A&M spend ― No issues on account of marketing intangibles/ bright line
• Super distributors –
― If VAE/ Sales [also A&M/ Sales] of comparables < that of taxpayer distributor, then what ? ― Say, Taxpayer’s GP/ Sales is 40%; and A&M/ Sales is 10% ― Say, comparables’ GP/ Sales is 25%; and A&M / Sales is 5% ― Revenue Taxpayer to receive reimbursement from principal for excess 5% of A&M spend ― One option taxpayer outside realm of comparability apply residual profit split ― Other option if Revenue, accepts same comparables for testing pricing of products under
RPM, then logical conclusion excess 5% A&M spend compensated by excess 15% GP
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 20
PwC PwC
Normal distributor – Case Study • I Co’s gross margin 45% on sales
• I Co’s VAE/ Turnover 25%
• Gross margin of comparable companies selected in TP Study 20% on sales
• VAE/Turnover of comparable companies 7% on sales
• Revenue accepts comparables in TP Study; applies “bright line” test by comparing A&M/Turnover (10%) of I Co with A&M/ Turnover (2%) of comparables
• Intensity of functions of comparable companies critical for benchmarking
• Fresh analysis conducted by applying VAE/Turnover filter (say 15 to 30%)
- Average Gross margin 40% on sales
- Average VAE/Turnover 23% on sales
- Average A&M/Turnover 9.5% on sales
• No TP adjustment
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 21
PwC PwC
Marketing Intangible – Licensed Manufacturer
• India Sub Co operates as licensed manufacturer • Raw materials sourced from third parties; minimal from Principal Co • Principal Co supplies raw materials at nominal cost plus • Nil/ routine royalty for mere license of tech/ brand • India Sub Co takes all key decisions on A&M/ distribution, etc • India Sub Co bears all A&M/ distribution expenses (on own account) • Revenue Principal Co to pick-up “extra” A&M/ distribution expenses • I Co (entrepreneur) cannot be compared non-issue • Taxpayers to take first corrective steps not “test” India Sub Co
INDIA Tech & Brand Royalty
Principal Co
Flow of legal title of goods Physical movement of goods
Supplier
Indian customer India Sub Co
Distributor
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 22
PwC PwC
Overall TNMM – Illustration of risk in TP audit • India Sub Co's turnover for manufacturing segment INR 10,000 crore • Components imported from global AEs INR 3,000 crore [supplied at “cost plus”
margin (low/ moderate) by foreign AE suppliers] constitutes 25% of total manufacturing cost in hands of India Sub Co
• Royalty paid by India Sub Co to Principal @ 3% of turnover INR 300 crore • India Sub Co has return on sales (ROS) of 6% as compared to average ROS of 5% of
comparables selected under overall TNMM taxpayer claims transactions at arm’s length
• Revenue accepts comparables in TP Study; applies “bright line” test by comparing A&M/Turnover (8%) of I Co with A&M/ Turnover (2%) of comparables INR 600 crore adjustment made
• No adjustment could be made if royalty and imports tested separately
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 23
PwC PwC
• Evaluate contribution (& related benefits) of each entity in developing marketing intangibles do efforts/ costs lead to :
- increase in value of IP owned by Principal Co; or - merely enhancing value of rights/benefits of India Sub Co [sole distributor/ seller ]
• Who undertakes key decision making activities – development of marketing strategy, authority to take decisions etc ?
• Significance of local marketing in taxpayer’s industry • Commercial expediency of marketing efforts & costs in relation to benefits/returns • Is business substance properly captured in the contracts ?
- Legal vs. economic ownership - Safeguards on license agreement long term duration of agreement;
compensation on termination of license agreement, to be highlighted
• Corroborative analysis may be undertaken to compute subsidy, if any, given to Indian licensee by foreign licensor
• Robust upfront documentation (including legal contract) covering FAR analysis & economic/ commercial realities utmost necessity
Marketing Intangibles – Key considerations
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 24
PwC PwC
• Reward for additional marketing efforts of distributor can come by any of the following three options
- Enhanced gross margin - Application of profit split - Reimbursement of A&M expenses
• Position well supported by OECD discussion draft on intangibles (Example 5),
ATO Ruling (Example 3)
Marketing Intangibles – Key considerations
Chamber of Tax Consultants - International Tax Conference 25
PwC PwC
Thank You
© 2012 [PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited]. All rights reserved. In this document, “PwC” refers to [PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited] which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity.
26