The Valuation of Intangible Assets: Bridging the Divide ... · Divide between Transfer Pricing and...
-
Upload
nguyenkien -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of The Valuation of Intangible Assets: Bridging the Divide ... · Divide between Transfer Pricing and...
The Valuation of Intangible Assets: Bridging the
Divide between Transfer Pricing and Financial
Reporting
CBI Life Sciences Accounting & Reporting Congress
Andreas Chrysostomou
Susan Fickling-Munge
March 17, 2015
Agenda
Section 1: Introduction
• Purpose & Benefits of Presentation
• Intellectual Property in the News
• Value of Intellectual Property for Financial Reporting
Section 2: Overview of Financial Reporting (“FR”) and Transfer Pricing (“TP”) Analyses
• Intellectual Property Guidance
• Motivating Factors
• Valuation Methodologies
• Summary of Differences
Section 3: Case Study
• Introduction: Case Study
• Scenario 1: Purchase Price Allocation (“PPA”) Completed and Used for Transfer Pricing
• Scenario 2: PPA and TP Performed Independently
• Scenario 3: PPA and TP Coordinated Together
Section 4: Review Environment
• Key Audit Concerns, Financial Reporting
• Key IRS Concerns, Transfer Pricing
Section 5: Summary
Duff & Phelps 2November 6, 2014
Purpose & Benefits of Presentation
• Understanding the potential differences in the stated objectives in valuing intangible
assets/intellectual property for financial reporting and transfer pricing purposes.
• Understanding the differences in the valuation guidance and framework for intangible
assets/intellectual property for financial reporting and transfer pricing purposes.
• Understanding appropriate points of consistency between transfer pricing and financial
statement valuation
• Understanding the importance of compliance with regulatory guidance
• Understanding the benefit of coordinated and contemporaneous financial reporting and
transfer pricing valuations
• Understanding current “hot-button” regulatory/compliance issues and how to avoid/address
such issues.
Duff & Phelps 4November 6, 2014
Duff & Phelps 5
Intellectual Property in the News this Past Year…
Tax Court: Western Union/First Data Settles $2B Transfer
Pricing Litigation“Western Union and First Data agreed to a total of $1.18 billion in transfer pricing
related adjustments. The total adjustment included the recognition of $885 million of
additional income in 2003 related to First Data’s restructuring plan, which transferred
certain intangible assets out of the United States, and additional adjustments
between 2004 and 2011 to reach the $1.18 billion total.” – TaxTrials 12/16/2011
…and it will continue to be a hot button…
November 6, 2014
6Duff & Phelps
Value of Intangible Assets in a Purchase Price Allocations
Intangibles
Tangibles
38%
62%
1982 (1)
62%
38%
1992 (1)
87%
13%
2002E (2)
Percentage of market value relating to…
Source: Presentation: TPI-EPO Symposium in Istanbul, Turkey; “EPO on the road to e-business: May 23, 2001”
(1) Brookings Institute; [Source: Balanced Scorecard European Summit May 22, 2001]
(2) Brookings Institute data updated as of 12/31/2001
38%
November 6, 2014
Intellectual Property GuidanceRegulatory Framework
Financial Reporting
• Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 805, Business Combinations / IFRS 3
• ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement
• ASC 350, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other
• ASC 360, Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets
Fair Value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.
Transfer Pricing
• The OECD Guidelines (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has issued transfer pricing guidelines (OECD Guidelines) that have been adopted in some form by more than 50 countries (including the US)
• Local Country Rules – Many countries (including those that follow the OECD framework) have issued transfer pricing regulations with country-specific requirements
• US transfer pricing regulations are in Section 482, and that those regulations are among the most voluminous and comprehensive in the world
The arm’s-length standard is achieved if the results of the transaction are consistent with the results that would have been realized if uncontrolled taxpayers had engaged in the same transaction under the same circumstances (arm's length result).
Duff & Phelps 8November 6, 2014
Intellectual Property GuidanceFinancial Reporting Valuations
• Under ASC 805, the cost of an acquired company should be assigned to the tangible and intangible
assets acquired and liabilities assumed on the basis of their Fair Values at the date of the acquisition
• An intangible asset does not derive its value from physical attributes but rather from the intellectual
content of the item or from other intangible properties
– It is identifiable
– Provides control over a resource
– Results in future economic benefits
– Should be considered equivalent to Intangible Property
– Categories include: Technology-based, Marketing-related, Customer-related, Artistic-related, and
Contract-based
• An intangible asset is recognized separately from goodwill if it meets the following criteria:
– Arises from contractual or legal rights (even if cannot be separated and/or sold), or
– Is capable of being separated or divided and sold, transferred, licensed, rented, or exchanged
» Regardless of intent
» Either individually or with a related contract, asset or liability
• Excess of the purchase price over the Fair Value of the net assets acquired, including the identified
intangible assets, is recorded as goodwill
Duff & Phelps 9November 6, 2014
Intellectual Property GuidanceTransfer Pricing
• Under Section 1.482-7 cost sharing regulations, the definition for Platform Contribution Transaction (“PCT”) is much broader than 482 and 936 below and allow for more similarities with the definitions used in a financial reporting valuation.
• Under Section 1.482-4(b), intangibles comprise any of the following items and have substantial value independent of the services of any individual:
– Patents, inventions, formulae, processes, designs, patterns, or know-how;
– Copyrights and literary, musical, or artistic compositions;
– Trademarks, trade names, or brand names;
– Franchises, licenses, or contracts;
– Methods, programs, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; and
– Other similar items.
• Under Section 936(h)(3)(B), intangibles include:
– Contractual/legally protected rights;
– Methods, programs, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data;
– Other similar items that do not derive their value from physical attributes, but from the intellectual content of the item from other intangible properties
• Typically involves either an analysis of trademarks/trade names or technology/know-how
Duff & Phelps 10November 6, 2014
Motivating Factors
Valuation
• Low value for intangibles means low amortization; however, there’s a trade off….
• Need to consider potential for future intangible asset and goodwill impairment:
– Indefinite-lived intangibles and goodwill are not amortized; they are tested annually for impairment under ASC 350
» Impairment test based on standalone intangible asset cash flows exposes asset to an annual impairment test based on fair value
» Reporting Unit structure and relative contribution of organic growth vs. growth via acquisition are significant factors in goodwill impairment testing
– Long-lived intangibles are tested for impairment under ASC 360;
» Test depends on the way in which “Asset Groups” are defined and, in practice, is typically based on pre-tax, undiscounted cash flow
Transfer Pricing
• Tax authorities are keenly focused on protecting the domestic tax revenue base
• Tax rate management (Decreasing ETR with the largest cost item on the income statement)
• Non-compliance can lead to adjustments on audit, penalties on top of those adjustments, potential double taxation, and then impacting the tax provisions
• Mitigate risks, time and costs related to Audits(e.g., US ASC 740)
• To appease their external auditors
• Compliance with US Contemporaneous Annual Requirement (1.6662-6(d))
Duff & Phelps 11November 6, 2014
Intellectual Property GuidanceKey Differences of IP Definitions Between Financial Reporting and Transfer Pricing
Analyses
Duff & Phelps 12
Financial Reporting Valuations Transfer Pricing
Asset rather than entity perspective;
bifurcates similar assets based on
Unit of Account; highest and best use
premise of value
Analyses typically looks at a bundle of
intangible assets / legal entity
Buyer-specific synergies are excluded from
IP values; they would be reflected in the
residual goodwill amount to the extent they
were paid for as part of the purchase price
• Buyer-specific synergies may be
included in arm's length price to the
extent they would affect arm's length
outcome
• May increase the value of the
intellectual property, compared to PPA
Values existing technology as a wasting
asset as it exists at the date of acquisition
• Values not only the contributions of
technology as it exists currently, but also
the contributions of that technology to
future development efforts
• May also increase the value of the
intellectual property, compared to PPA
November 6, 2014
Valuation MethodologiesIncome Approach
Financial Reporting
• Income Approach is generally used in the valuation of income producing intangible assets under two common methods:
– Multi-Period Excess Earnings Method (MPEEM)
» value of the intangible is the present value of the after-tax cash flows in excess of contributory asset charges for the use of tangible and other intangible assets
– Relief-from-Royalty Method
» based on hypothetical royalties saved due to ownership of the asset
Transfer Pricing
• The income method calculates the NPV of profits attributable to relevant contributions/intangibles, which are derived through the calculation of income remaining after profits have been assigned to routine functions. While this is different than the PPA approach, it has the equivalent objective.
• Under US cost sharing regulations, the arm’s length amount is the value of the PCT Payment itself, without regard to such tax effects for either the payee or payor
• Outside cost sharing, the income method would be an “unspecified method” under Section 1.482-4
• There is no tax amortization benefit included in Transfer Pricing valuations, since the analysis is performed on a pre-tax basis
Duff & Phelps 13November 6, 2014
Valuation MethodologiesMarket Approach
Financial Reporting
• Market Approach - value based on market prices in actual transactions and on asking prices for
comparable assets; valuation process is a comparison and correlation between the subject
asset and other similar assets
– Although appropriate for certain tangible assets, difficult to apply to intangible assets due to
the lack of available public data in a format that could be reasonably used to infer a value
– This approach can be used to determine market-based royalty rates to apply in the Income
Approach, Relief-from-Royalty Method
Transfer Pricing
• The Acquisition Price Method (“APM”) under Section 1.482-7 is similar to a market approach
where the purchase price is the market price of the contributed intangible
• Only gets applied and is reliable under certain conditions
• A Market Capitalization Method (“MCM”) approach is rarely applied, but could be considered a
market method…likely would not be applied in an acquisition situation
• Both APM and MCM can be applied as “Unspecified Method” under Section 1.482-4
Duff & Phelps 14November 6, 2014
Valuation MethodologiesCost Approach
Financial Reporting
• Cost Approach considers the concept of replacement cost as an indicator of value
– Value determined on the basis of what it would cost (usually at the current price level) to
replace the asset in its current form/functionality
– Considers elements of developer’s profit and opportunity cost
– Distinguishable from a cost savings approach based on expected future savings
Transfer Pricing
• In the OECD draft intangibles guidance, it states that cost-based methods will rarely be reliable
for valuing intangibles
• Not typically used in Transfer Pricing Analyses
• Relative intangible development costs are sometimes used as a proxy for relative value of
contributions by each party in RPSM applications
Duff & Phelps 15November 6, 2014
Summary of Overall Key Differences
Financial Reporting Valuations Transfer Pricing Valuations
Standard and premise of value Fair Value / Unit of Account Arm’s Length Standard (Value) / Entity
Analysis
Goodwill Is a residual concept, as projections used to
value assets only include market participant
assumptions and exclude buyer-specific
synergies
• Buyer-specific synergies may be included
in arm's length price to the extent they
would affect arm's length outcome
• - May increase the value of the intellectual
property, compared to PPA
Treatment of future technology All future technology value, except for
IPR&D, accrues to goodwill; pre-existing IP
may be at the early, peak or later stages of
life cycle as reflected in projections;
amortization may begin immediately, but IP
value may increase for some time; if pre-
existing technology contributes to future
technology, its value contribution will be
captured and included as part of value
• Values not only the contributions of
technology as it exists currently, but also
the contributions of that technology to
future development efforts
• May also increase the value of the
intellectual property, compared to PPA
Reporting Unit / Legal Entity Fair value measured in the aggregate, and
then assigned or allocated to Reporting
Units; at times, though, cash flows may
reside at the RU level, which would align
some values to RUs
Legal Entity level analysis
Post-tax versus Pre-tax cash
flows
Valuation is performed on a post-tax basis;
add-back of tax amortization benefit
somewhat reduces the differential between
FR and TP values
Valuation is performed on a pre-tax basis
Duff & Phelps 16November 6, 2014
Intro to Case Study
Summary of Facts
• Acquiring Company purchased the Acquired Company in a stock deal
• The Acquiring Company has a Qualified Cost Sharing Arrangement (“QCSA”) where IP is split
between USP (US) and the Ireland Holding Company (Rest of World)
• The Acquired Company has IP spread all over between Europe, US, and Asia
• For the stock deal, the Acquired Company is being purchased by the USP
Duff & Phelps 18
USP
European
Operations
IRE
(Euro Hold Co)
Acquiring Company
European
Operations
US Co.
Acquired Company (Pre-Deal)
Asia
Operations
Singapore
(Asia Co)
Germany
Parent
November 6, 2014
Intro to Case StudySummary of Purchase Price Allocation Results
• Acquiring Company structured as a single Reporting Unit; intangible assets and goodwill valued on a consolidated basis and not valued with respect to specific legal entities
• Identified intangible assets included: Customer Relationships, Technology, and trade/brand names (“Trade Names”)
• Acquired Company was direct competitor of Acquiring Company, who expected to achieve certain operating synergies, some deemed to be market participant-based and others buyer-specific
• Deal price was $460 million for debt and equity, plus $40 million for assumed current liabilities for an implied total asset value of $500 million. For ASC 805 purposes, intangibles were valued in the aggregate at $220 million, as follows:
– Customer Relationships = $90 million
– Technology = $90 million
– Trade Names = $40 million
Other Values were as follows:
– Tangible = $180 million
– Residual Purchase Price = $100 million
(excluding DTL)
• Pre-acquisition and post-acquisition/Fair Value balance sheets are presented on the next slide
Duff & Phelps 19
Acquired Company (Pre-Deal)
European
Operations
US Co.
Asia
Operations
Singapore
(Asia Co)
Germany
Parent
PPADeal $500MIP $220 M
November 6, 2014
Intro to Case Study
Scenario Options
• Scenario 1: PPA Completed and Used for Transfer Pricing
• Scenario 2: PPA and TP Performed Independently
• Scenario 3: PPA and TP Coordinated Together
Duff & Phelps 21November 6, 2014
Scenario 1: PPA Completed and Used for Transfer Pricing
Potential Conflicts Post PPA during Transfer Pricing Review
• Client relied upon PPA to derive appropriate PCT payments associated with the transfer of
IP into the relevant entities to conform with client's existing CSA structure
• Client’s reliance on PPA value resulted in substantial undervaluation of transferred IP for
transfer pricing purposes because of different treatment and definitions of intangible life,
buyer specific synergies, pre-tax vs. post-tax analyses, etc.
• Upon audit, client subject to substantial adjustments and penalties due to lack of regulatory
compliance and potential double taxation (if Competent Authority not granted)
• Unexpected financial statement hit to tax rate when financial auditors evaluate income tax
provision in light of the undervaluation
Duff & Phelps 22
USP
European
Operations
IRE
(Euro Hold Co)
Acquiring Company
European
Operations
US Co.
Acquired Company
Asia
Operations
Singapore
(Asia Co)
Germany
Parent
November 6, 2014
Scenario 2: PPA and TP Performed Independently
Potential Conflict in Values not Bridged in PPA vs. Transfer Pricing
• Duplicative efforts of company personnel to produce the same information for two providers
• Different projections were inadvertently used (dates, sources, etc.) for the two different analyses
• Different approaches to valuing tangible assets and routine returns were inadvertently used
• Different discount rates were used because of different assumptions utilized by the practitioners (e.g., equity risk premiums)
• Different comparable sets used to examine the same intangible assets (e.g., trademarks)
• When independent studies examined by external auditor or tax authority (and they do ask for both), can cause concerns from inconsistent values. This is due in part to inconsistent projections and assumptions rather than appropriate differences driven by different regulatory guidance.
Duff & Phelps 23
USP
European
Operations
IRE
(Euro Hold Co)
Acquiring Company
European
Operations
US Co.
Acquired Company
Asia
Operations
Singapore
(Asia Co)
Germany
Parent
PPADeal $500MIP $220 M
November 6, 2014
Scenario 3: PPA and TP Coordinated Together
Duff & Phelps 24
Goal: Have studies not conflict with each other inappropriately
“Allocations or other valuations done for accounting purposes may provide a useful
starting point, but will not be conclusive for purposes of the best-method analysis in
evaluating the arm’s length charge….”
-IRS statement in BNA Transfer Pricing Report on April 22, 2010
“Reconciliation of Purchase Price Allocations and Transfer Pricing”
USP
European
Operations
IRE
(Euro Hold Co)
Acquiring Company
European
Operations
US Co.
Acquired Company
Asia
Operations
Singapore
(Asia Co)
Germany
Parent
November 6, 2014
Case Study Take AwayBenefits & Synergies when Financial Reporting & Transfer Pricing Coordinated
Together
• Company time savings of management and operational personnel through joint interviews
• Leverage same comparables (e.g., trademark/technology comparables) to save costs on both
analyses
• Utilize same initial financial projections that reduces company management‘s time and allows
single set of financials to be leveraged by both analyses
• Create “bridge” from financial reporting valuation of intangible assets to transfer pricing
valuation of IP
• Enhance ability to support tax positions (e.g., ASC 740) upon audit by IRS and/or other taxing
authorities
– Demonstrate same assumptions used to report information to investors which were signed
off on by Company‘s auditors
– Post-acquisition, demonstrate consistency with valuations prepared for intangible asset /
goodwill impairment purposes
• Reduce audit risks in both the US and non-US locations
• Enable identification of potential planning opportunities (e.g., intercompany debt , IP migration,
intercompany product or service pricing) through streamlined and more defensible legal entity
valuations
Duff & Phelps 25November 6, 2014
“PCAOB inspection reports released in the past two years found a threefold increase in valuation-related audit
problems, spurring securities and audit regulators to alert managers and auditors that they are personally responsible for understanding the assumptions that underlie third-party
value estimates.”- “Delving Into the Value Riddle.” The Wall Street Journal. January 15, 2013.
Duff & Phelps 27
Key Audit Concerns - Fair Value in Financial ReportingThe PCAOB
November 6, 2014
Key Audit Concerns - Fair Value in Financial ReportingPCAOB - Fair Value Measurements (FVM)
• The PCAOB identified a number of audit risks based on its 2007 through 2010 inspection cycles of domestic registrants leading to the current heightened scrutiny from audit firms
• Audit risks for non-financial instruments included:
– Failure to sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by issuers to estimate the fair value of reporting units in their goodwill impairment assessments and the fair value of intangible assets acquired in a business combination
– Failure to challenge issuers’ conclusions that goodwill did not need to be tested for impairment more frequently than annually despite the existence of impairment indicators
• Audit risks related to financial instruments included:
– Failure to sufficiently evaluate reasonableness of management’s assumptions
– Failure to adequately understand methods and/or assumptions used by third-party pricing services
– Failure to evaluate significant differences between independent estimates used or developed by firms and the fair values recorded by issuers
– Failure to sufficiently test significant, difficult-to-value securities
– Failure to sufficiently test to determine whether fair value disclosures were in conformity with ASC 820
Duff & Phelps 28November 6, 2014
Key Audit Concerns - Fair Value in Financial ReportingAreas of Focus
• Outline of the overall sales process (e.g. auction sales process involving multiple bidders, distressed sale, strategic or financial buyers, etc.) and the buyer’s investment thesis
• Source of the prospective financial information (PFI) used as a basis for the value of the RUs and intangible assets and support that the PFI relied on appropriate market participant assumptions
• Support for assumed buyer specific assumptions, both quantification of value and why value is not achievable by other market participants
• Reconciliation of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for the subject company to the transaction internal rate of return (IRR).
• Determination of asset discount rates
• Support for allocation of profit to each identifiable intangible asset
• Quantitative support for the estimation customer retention rates
• Support for royalty rates used in the valuation of trade names, technology, and other assets Concluded remaining economic life (RUL) of the various subject intangible assets.
• Communication is critical; meeting with the audit team and their valuation specialist at the outset of the project and at significant milestones should reduce the likelihood of unpleasant surprises during the audit review process, ultimately translating into lower audit fees
Duff & Phelps 29November 6, 2014
Key Concerns - Transfer PricingAreas of Focus and Current Transfer Pricing Environment
• Any audit of intangible transfer pricing will focus on key factors such as validity of projections,
appropriate determination of discount rates, appropriateness of returns assigned to routine
contributions, appropriate valuation on a pre-tax basis
• Tax implications of the allocation of offshore profits among subsidiaries through transfer pricing
was the #1 tax concern for 2013 – CEB Survey in CFO Magazine (February 2013)
• Tax Authorities are focusing on key service charges such as IT, Marketing, Advertising,
Engineering, R&D and Legal as they may be viewed as intangible generating functions
• Extremely high level of press and attention that “risky” transfer pricing structures are
grabbing—especially for ANY type of valuable IP (e.g., Google in US Audit for ETR of 2.4%)
• Non-compliance can result in penalties, interest, and audit issues
• Tends to be largest tax exposure for company’s ASC 740 (FIN 48) disclosure
• Service, intangibles and financing transactions are increasingly in the sights of tax authorities
• Tax authorities are discussing and exchanging information on taxpayers
• Transfer pricing audits are increasing in significance, intrusiveness and scope
• Emerging markets are coming to the forefront of audit activity (e.g., India and China)
• Advanced markets are increasing their audits (e.g., Canada)
• BEPS !
Duff & Phelps 30November 6, 2014
Summary
Risks if PPA and Transfer Pricing Analysis are not Coordinated:
• Tax risks due to differences in values between analyses
• Misalignment of the placement of IP in global transfer pricing policy
• Audit risks due to inconsistent values of intellectual property (External Auditor or Tax Authority)
• Challenges to transfer intellectual property post acquisition
Benefits of Performing PPA and Transfer Pricing Analysis jointly:
• Time savings company management and operational personnel through joint interviews
• Leverage information gathering from company (and have same starting point)
• Cost saving through use of same initial comparables joint team efficiencies
• Enhance ability to support tax positions (e.g., ASC 740) upon audit by IRS and/or other taxing
authorities through bridging differences
• Reduce audit risks in both the US and non-US locations
• Enable identification of potential planning opportunities
Duff & Phelps 32November 6, 2014
Andreas Chrysostomou
Andreas Chrysostomou is a managing director in the New York office, part of the Valuation Advisory Services
business unit and the Duff & Phelps global industry leader for the Healthcare and Life Sciences industry group.
Andreas has more than 20 years of corporate finance and valuation experience.
Andreas has developed expertise in all areas of business valuations, including the determining of business
enterprise value, valuation intangible assets for corporate and individual clients with particular focus on
pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty chemicals industries. He also has extensive experience in the
telecom, consumer product and manufacturing and financial services industries.
Andreas is a member of the Duff & Phelps committee responsible for providing assistance and feedback to the
Financial Accounting Standards Board on valuation matters and responded to comments and had discussion
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on valuation issues. Additionally, Andreas has extensive
experience in performing valuation under the International Financial Reporting Standards. He has also been a
speaker on valuation of intangible assets issues at numerous conferences and has written a number of related
papers Andreas’ clients includes Shire, NPS, Merck, Sanofi, Genzyme, Novartis, Baxter, Amgen, Takeda
(Nycomed), Actelion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Teva, HealthSouth, Radiation Therapy Services, Medco, GE Health,
Alere, MagnaCare, and many more.
Prior to Duff & Phelps, Andreas was a managing director for Standard & Poor’s Corporate Value Consulting
(CVC) for four years. Andreas was also with CVC for five years after spending two years with the Auditing and
Business Advisory Services of PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Andreas received his M.B.A. in international corporate finance and investments and his B.B.A. in accounting and
operations management from the Bernard M. Baruch College, City University of New York. He is a certified
public accountant in New York and also certified by the London Chamber of Commerce in accounting. Andreas
is also a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and an active member of the New
York State Society of Certified Public Accountants’ International Accounting and Auditing Committee.
Duff & Phelps, LLC
Managing Director, Valuation Advisory Services, Integrated HealthCare Industry Leader
New York
+1 212 871 5994
33
Susan Fickling-Munge
Susan Fickling-Munge is a managing director in the Chicago office of Duff & Phelps. She is a member of the
Transfer Pricing practice, leveraging more than 15 years of transfer pricing and valuation experience. Susan has
worked closely with global companies in a vast range of industries, assisting them with transfer pricing planning,
documentation and defense.
Susan has extensive experience in international and multistate tax planning projects, employing various transfer
pricing techniques to help support her clients’ tax strategies. She has also assisted clients on unilateral advance
pricing agreements. She has helped to develop real options models and valuation techniques to support
complex transfer pricing and tax structuring scenarios.
Before joining Duff & Phelps, Susan was a vice president of transfer pricing for Charles River Associates, a
transfer pricing manager in the international tax division of Arthur Andersen LLP and a transfer pricing consultant
at KPMG LLP.
Susan earned her MBA at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and her BA from Scripps College.
She also studied at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Quito, Ecuador, and is fluent in Spanish.
Duff & Phelps 34
Duff & Phelps, LLC
Managing Director, Valuation Advisory Services
Chicago
+1 312 697 4647