Taxation And Finance

Archive for October 27th, 2009

Tax authorities in different jurisdictions are likely to allocate individual multinational firms’ consolidated income across countries in different ways. This statement would be true even if tax authorities utilized the same transfer pricing methodology, given the sensitivity of one’s results to the particular “comparable companies” included in one’s sample (and, in the case of the CPM, the particular profit level indicator used).

However, as a practical matter, tax authorities are likely to use different transfer pricing methodologies in analyzing a given case.Most countries endorse the arm’s length standard in principle, and the U.S. and OECD provisions contain the same specific set of transfer pricing methodologies . However, the IRS has a clear predilection to use one particular profits-based method (the CPM), while OECD countries prefer transactions-based methods.

Different approved methodologies will generally produce different allocations of income, because the assumed unifying foundation across methods—primarily the basic concept of market equilibrium—does not in fact apply. The large number of cases handled by the competent authorities of different countries attests to this conundrum, which in turn creates the potential for double taxation on a significant scale.

Individual multinational corporations cannot accurately anticipate their country-specific tax liability in the absence of an Advance Pricing Agreement.Corporate taxpayers and tax authorities, respectively, also frequently utilize different firm samples and/or transfer pricing methodologies to determine their tax liability (taxpayers before an audit and tax authorities during an audit). Because the use of different samples and/or methods will often produce inconsistent results, firms acting in good faith may report substantially less income in a given jurisdiction than the tax authority in that jurisdiction believes is warranted.