Transfer Pricing, Business Restructurings and Intangibles - Case Studies: UPS v. Commissioner; DSG Retail Ltd. v. HMRC

22 Pages Posted: 15 Oct 2010 Last revised: 2 Dec 2019

See all articles by Richard Thompson Ainsworth

Richard Thompson Ainsworth

NYU - Graduate Tax Program; Boston University - School of Law

Date Written: October 13, 2010

Abstract

United Parcel Service of America, the largest motor carrier in the US, and DSG Retail the largest retailer of electrical goods in the UK, restructured operations and established captive insurance companies in offshore tax havens. In both instances, these restructurings removed sizeable amounts of income from the domestic tax base.

The IRS and HMRC opened transfer pricing audits. The UPS case involved tax year 1984 and was settled in 2003; DSG Retail involved 1997 through 2005 and was settled in 2009. Both settlements came on the heels of government-favorable court decisions, and prior to the addition of Chapter IX to the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (the Guidelines).

The OECD added Chapter IX on Transfer Pricing Aspects of Business Restructurings, to the Guidelines on July 22, 2010. The core transfer pricing issue in a captive insurance case (in OECD terms) is the measure of compensation that should be returned to a domestic company by its captive on the transfer to it of (a) the business opportunity, or (b) the right to provide re-insurance on policies that underwrite risks of retail customers. Twenty days prior to announcing business restructuring additions to the Guidelines, the OECD initiated a new project on transfer pricing and intangibles. The stated reason for the project was that the OECD had experienced considerable difficulty with the treatment of intangibles in the business restructuring meetings.

UPS and DSG are case studies for the application of transfer pricing rules in a business restructuring context where a critical element involves the transfer of an intangible. This paper considers how the arguments and outcomes in these cases inform the present discussion on transfer pricing and intangibles.

UPS and DSG, when read in conjunction with the new OECD Guidelines on business restructurings, present a full range of analytical approaches to transfer pricing and captive insurance companies. There is Judge Ruwe’s sham transaction approach; there is the profit split approach followed in DSG; there is the possibility of CUPs and TNMMs; then there are the more recent approaches suggested by the OECD – transferring a going concern, and transferring an intangible asset.

It will be interesting to see how the new OECD project on the Transfer Pricing Aspects of Intangibles will deal with question like this. It may well be that the answer to an intangible transfers may bring us back full circle to the return on capital profit splits from Grenada Industries and DSG.

Keywords: Transfer Pricing, Captive Insurance, DSG Retail, UPS, Profit Split, OECD, Business Restructuring, Intangibles, Tax shelter, CUP, TNMM

JEL Classification: K22, K33, K34

Suggested Citation

Ainsworth, Richard Thompson, Transfer Pricing, Business Restructurings and Intangibles - Case Studies: UPS v. Commissioner; DSG Retail Ltd. v. HMRC (October 13, 2010). 60 Tax Notes International 767 (December 6, 2010), Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No. 10-34, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1691576 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1691576

Richard Thompson Ainsworth (Contact Author)

NYU - Graduate Tax Program ( email )

Bobst Library, E-resource Acquisitions
20 Cooper Square 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-711
United States

Boston University - School of Law ( email )

765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,052
Abstract Views
4,872
Rank
39,099
PlumX Metrics