Transfer Pricing in Pharma / IT industry - Case Studies MUNJAL 10-08-2011.pdf · Transfer Pricing...
Transcript of Transfer Pricing in Pharma / IT industry - Case Studies MUNJAL 10-08-2011.pdf · Transfer Pricing...
Transfer Pricing in Pharma / IT industry -Case Studies
Presented by: Munjal AlmoulaPrasad Pardiwala Prasad Pardiwala August 2011
1
Snapshot of Case Studies
• Case Study 1 – Deputation of employees
• Case Study 2 – Operational losses
• Case Study 3 – Royalties by software entity
• Case Study 3 – Import of APIs
PwC
• Case Study 3 – Import of APIs
• Case Study 4 – Cross Charges
2
Case Study 1 – Deputation of employees
PwC 3
Business Model and Structure
Parent Company (X)
INDIA
Parent Company (X)
• Entrepreneur – Owns Intellectual
Property
• Assumes significant business risks
• Engaged in software development
services
100%
PwC 4
SUB 1 SUB 2 SUB 3
FranceUSAGermany
Subsidiaries
• Limited risk marketing service providers – Guaranteed return on such
services
• Also provides onsite software development services with support from (X)
Customers Customers Customers
Ownership
Deputation
Services
Other Critical Facts of the Case
• Human Resource Department of (X) recruits software engineers / programmers
- Direct recruits
- Assistance from third party recruitment agencies
• (X) provides 3 months training to all new joiners after which it decides to depute them either on offshore or onsite activities depending on project requirements
PwC
requirements
• Total employees – 3,000
• Allocation as under:
- 100 employees deputed to Germany;
- 500 employees deputed to USA;
- 400 employees deputed to France
- Balance continues to work with (X) in India
• On deputation, payroll would shift to respective associated enterprises
- After completion of onsite job, payroll shifts back to (X)5
Revenue’s contentions and approach
• Revenue alleged that deputation of employees abroad is akin to providing
recruitment services
• Accordingly:
- Form 3CEB should have recorded this transaction;
- Contemporaneous documentation should have been in place before filing tax return;
PwC
filing tax return;
- (X) should have received arm’s length compensation for providing recruitment services
• Revenue compared this alleged transaction with third party recruitment
service providers and proposed adjustment to income of (X)
• In addition, Revenue exposed (X) to penalties:
- Concealment penalty on the income adjusted;
- Documentation penalty for non-maintenance of contemporaneous documentation
6
Defence mechanism
• Conduct detailed functional interviews with key personnel in Finance,
Human Resource and also with few software engineers / programmers
• Study information provided on website, promotional materials and business
cards
• Peruse legal agreements in great detail
• Studied employee deputation letters and understand the impact of social
PwC
• Studied employee deputation letters and understand the impact of social
security benefits (pre and post deputation)
• Carry out a detailed industry research to understand the practice followed
by other software professionals
• Understand the compensation mechanism of third party recruitment service
providers
7
Defence mechanism
• Create a robust documentation substantiating the following business
rationale
- Increase in offshore revenues for (X); and
- Employees returning with upgraded skills, enormous experience and business domain enhanced the solution delivery skills and thereby helped in execution of offshore work with great efficiency
PwC
helped in execution of offshore work with great efficiency
• Explain the operating model to Revenue
• Support with third party data available in public domain
8
Case Study 2 – Operational Losses
PwC 9
Business Model and Structure
XYZ SingaporeLow Risk Manufacturer
ABC India(Manufacturer &
distributor)
Import of premium Formulations
Third party customers in
India
Sales
PwC 10
• ABC India is primarily a manufacturer of Pharma products and sells the products in
India to third party customers
• ABC India also imports some premium Pharma products from associated enterprises
and acts as an entrepreneur distributor for such products in Indian market
• ABC India retains the entrepreneurial profits on distribution and compensates XYZ
Singapore on cost plus 8% for imports
• XYZ Singapore acts as a low risk manufacturer for exports made to India
distributor)
Basic Facts of the Case
Other Critical Facts of the Case
• ABC India introduced new products to complement the already existing regular product portfolio in India
• Imports were currently made under test market stage
• Import pricing was consistent with Group’s transfer pricing policy
• Cost plus mark-up for exports made by low-risk manufacturer
PwC 11
• Cost plus mark-up for exports made by low-risk manufacturer
• Incurred huge advertising and other marketing costs
• Launch pricing was based on inputs received from market research company
• Huge operating expenses resulted in negative operating margin (OM) for the specific import transaction
• ABC India had no written transfer pricing policy document or legal agreements to support the nature of transaction and its pricing policy
Revenue’s contentions and approach
• Revenue compared the operating margin (loss) suffered by ABC India in relation to import of specific product with the arithmetic mean of the operating margin earned by third party Pharma distributors engaged in similar distribution activity
• Disregarded the aggregation approach adopted by ABC India to justify the arm’s length nature for its import transaction
PwC 12
• Concluded that the import prices were high which contributed to operating loss for ABC India
• Proposed transfer pricing adjustment
Defence mechanism
• Detailed functional analysis taking in inputs from the operational personnel
– explaining the necessity for new product, launch expenses, etc
• Support through market research study report
• Analyse budget prepared in relation to product launched
PwC 13
- To identify the year when ABC India would break-even
• Identification of contributors to operating loss
- Most critical part of analysis in any operating loss situation
• Analyse the cost plus margins of the overseas supplier and benchmark these
with comparables to showcase the appropriateness of the pricing
arrangements vis-à-vis inports
Case Study 3 – Royalties by software entity
PwC 14
Business Model and Structure
FCOUS Parent
Sub
India
USARoyalty flow 100%
PwC 15
Sub
Basic Facts of the Case
• FCO, a US parent, is engaged in software services and operates globally through
subsidiaries including subsidiary in India
• Indian subsidiaries use the trade name of FCO for carrying out their businesses
• Indian subsidiaries are required to pay royalties to FCO for usage of trade name
• Present royalty arrangement: Royalties are charged @ 1% of sales, based on turnover
Revenue’s contentions and approach
• No substantive documentation provided to demonstrate benefits received by Sub 2 from exploiting the right to use FCO’s trade name
• Compliance with Indian Foreign Direct Investment policy would not be sufficient compliance with Transfer Pricing laws of India
• No pricing policy written document provided to substantiate the payments
PwC
• No pricing policy written document provided to substantiate the payments
• Disallowed the entire royalty charge – penalty implications
16
Defence mechanism
• Put in place robust documentation to showcase the benefits derived from us of tradename – based on interviews of operational personnel – key to substantiating the appropriateness of the royalty payouts
• Benchmark the royalty rate – using licensed databases
• Put in place legal agreement
PwC
• Put in place legal agreement
17
Case Study 4 – Import of APIs
PwC 18
Business Model and Structure (including Revenue’s approach)
ABC UK
ABC Indonesia
ABC USA
Import of API
XYZ China
Import of API, similar
Revenue’s approach on secret comparables
ABC’s business model and structure
PwC 19
Outside India
India
ABC, India
Third Party, India
Third Party, India
API (original
research)
Export of Formulations
Re-selling of Imported formulations
Manufacture –Domestic Sales
PQR India
Third Party India
Import of API, similar to Swiss API
Manufacturing -Domestic Sales
Import of Formulations
Facts of the Case
Why Imported from associated enterprise?
• Application
• Owner / Developer of the API
• R&D activity undertaken by Parent
• Risk assumed by Parent
Import of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) from an associated enterprise (AE)
International Transaction
PwC 20
Show Cause Notice to Company
External CUP Comparability
Information asked by Revenue on Product Imported
• Import price of competitors is lower
• Justify why company’s price is higher
Use of Customs Database
• Application
• Therapeutic Segment
• Formulations
• Competitors
Defence mechanism
• Rebuttal of CUP – strict product comparability
• Import of products of original research - supported by research data which brings greater conviction to medical professionals
• Highly sophisticated manufacturing operations of the foreign parent –processes are different impacting quality of finished products
PwC
processes are different impacting quality of finished products
• Comparison of prices at which same APIs sold by US parent to third party overseas
21
Case Study 5 – Cross Charges
PwC 22
Business Model and Structure
PARENT COMPANY (X)Entrepreneur performing Group
roles
ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE
ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED
INDIA
OUTSIDE INDIA
100%
PwC 23
• (X) acts as an entrepreneur and performs Group roles
• (X) provides following services to various associated enterprises:
– Group Human Resource
– Group Finance
– Group IT and Admin support
Basic Facts of theCase
ENTERPRISE (A)
ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE
(B)
ENTERPRISE (C)
Country CCountry BCountry ACustomers Customers Customers
Ownership
Group services
Revenue’s contentions and approach
• Revenue alleged that Group roles performed by (X) are in the nature of intra
group services
• Such services should be cross charged along with an arm’s length mark up
• Exposed (X) to concealment penalties
PwC 24
Defense mechanism
• The overseas subsidiaries act as limited risk distributors or limited risk service
providers
• In either case – subsidiaries earn either routine margin on sales or on cost
• Entrepreneur profits flown back to India
PwC 25
• In case a cost plus charge out is introduced, this would increase the cost base
of the overseas entities
• In any case, the Indian parent would need to support this through inter-
company pricing
• Finally the cost would come back to the Indian entity – hence the charge out
for the support services would not be warranted
Key Points discussed through case studies
• Case Study 1: Importance of business and commercial rationale
• Case Study 2: Identifying contributors to loss is critical
• Case Study 3: Importance of satisfying “Benefit Test”
• Case Study 4: Importance of Industry analysis and requirements for CUP
comparability
• Case Study 5: Operating model governs the transfer pricing
PwC 26
• Case Study 5: Operating model governs the transfer pricing
Remember: Facts are King and Transfer Pricing is an Art and not Science
Thank You
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does
not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this
publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty
(express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained
in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, [insert legal name of the PwC firm], its
members, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of
care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the
information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.
© 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Ltd. All rights reserved. “PwC”, a registered
trademark, refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (a limited company in India) or,
as the context requires, other member firms of PwC International Limited, each of which is a
separate and independent legal entity.