---
kind: "range"
citation: "26 C.F.R. §§ 1.482-1–1.482-6"
title: "26"
from: "1.482-1"
to: "1.482-6"
count: 7
url: "https://uscodex.org/cfr/26/1.482-1..1.482-6"
---

# §1.482-1. Allocation of income and deductions among taxpayers.

- (a) **In general—**
  - (1) **Purpose and scope.** The purpose of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) is to ensure that taxpayers clearly reflect income attributable to controlled transactions and to prevent the avoidance of taxes with respect to such transactions. [Section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) places a controlled taxpayer on a tax parity with an uncontrolled taxpayer by determining the true taxable income of the controlled taxpayer. This section sets forth general principles and guidelines to be followed under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). [Section 1.482-2](/cfr/26/1.482-2.md) provides rules for the determination of the true taxable income of controlled taxpayers in specific situations, including controlled transactions involving loans or advances or the use of tangible property. [Sections 1.482-3 through 1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-3..1.482-6.md) provide rules for the determination of the true taxable income of controlled taxpayers in cases involving the transfer of property. [Section 1.482-7T](/cfr/26/1.482-7T.md) sets forth the cost sharing provisions applicable to taxable years beginning on or after January 5, 2009. [Section 1.482-8](/cfr/26/1.482-8.md) provides examples illustrating the application of the best method rule. Finally, [§ 1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md) provides rules for the determination of the true taxable income of controlled taxpayers in cases involving the performance of services.
  - (2) **Authority to make allocations.** The district director may make allocations between or among the members of a controlled group if a controlled taxpayer has not reported its true taxable income. In such case, the district director may allocate income, deductions, credits, allowances, basis, or any other item or element affecting taxable income (referred to as allocations). The appropriate allocation may take the form of an increase or decrease in any relevant amount.
  - (3) **Taxpayer's use of section 482.** If necessary to reflect an arm's length result, a controlled taxpayer may report on a timely filed U.S. income tax return (including extensions) the results of its controlled transactions based upon prices different from those actually charged. Except as provided in this paragraph, [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) grants no other right to a controlled taxpayer to apply the provisions of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) at will or to compel the district director to apply such provisions. Therefore, no untimely or amended returns will be permitted to decrease taxable income based on allocations or other adjustments with respect to controlled transactions. See [§ 1.6662-6T(a)(2)](/cfr/26/1.6662-6T.md?p=a-2) or successor regulations.
- (b) **Arm's length standard—**
  - (1) **In general.** In determining the true taxable income of a controlled taxpayer, the standard to be applied in every case is that of a taxpayer dealing at arm's length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. A controlled transaction meets the arm's length standard 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). However, because identical transactions can rarely be located, whether a transaction produces an arm's length result generally will be determined by reference to the results of comparable transactions under comparable circumstances. See [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](#d-2) (Standard of comparability). Evaluation of whether a controlled transaction produces an arm's length result is made pursuant to a method selected under the best method rule described in [§ 1.482-1(c)](#c).
  - (2) **Arm's length methods—**
    - (i) **Methods.** Sections [1.482-2 through 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-2..1.482-7.md) and [1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md) provide specific methods to be used to evaluate whether transactions between or among members of the controlled group satisfy the arm's length standard, and if they do not, to determine the arm's length result. This section provides general principles applicable in determining arm's length results of such controlled transactions, but do not provide methods, for which reference must be made to those other sections in accordance with paragraphs [(b)(2)(ii)](#b-2-ii) and [(iii)](#b-2-iii) of this section. [Section 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md) provides the specific methods to be used to evaluate whether a cost sharing arrangement as defined in [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md) produces results consistent with an arm's length result.
    - (ii) **Selection of category of method applicable to transaction.** The methods listed in [§ 1.482-2](/cfr/26/1.482-2.md) apply to different types of transactions, such as transfers of property, services, loans or advances, and rentals. Accordingly, the method or methods most appropriate to the calculation of arm's length results for controlled transactions must be selected, and different methods may be applied to interrelated transactions if such transactions are most reliably evaluated on a separate basis. For example, if services are provided in connection with the transfer of property, it may be appropriate to separately apply the methods applicable to services and property in order to determine an arm's length result. But see [§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) (Aggregation of transactions). In addition, other applicable provisions of the Code may affect the characterization of a transaction, and therefore affect the methods applicable under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). See for example [section 467](/cfr/26/467.md).
    - (iii) **Coordination of methods applicable to certain intangible development arrangements.** [Section 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md) provides the specific methods to be used to determine arm's length results of controlled transactions in connection with a cost sharing arrangement as defined in [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md). Sections [1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md) and [1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md), as appropriate, provide the specific methods to be used to determine arm's length results of arrangements, including partnerships, for sharing the costs and risks of developing intangibles, other than a cost sharing arrangement covered by [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md). See also [§§ 1.482-4(g)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=g) (Coordination with rules governing cost sharing arrangements) and 1.482-9(m)(3) (Coordination with rules governing cost sharing arrangements).
- (c) **Best method rule—**
  - (1) **In general.** The arm's length result of a controlled transaction must be determined under the method that, under the facts and circumstances, provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result. Thus, there is no strict priority of methods, and no method will invariably be considered to be more reliable than others. An arm's length result may be determined under any method without establishing the inapplicability of another method, but if another method subsequently is shown to produce a more reliable measure of an arm's length result, such other method must be used. Similarly, if two or more applications of a single method provide inconsistent results, the arm's length result must be determined under the application that, under the facts and circumstances, provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result. See [§ 1.482-8](/cfr/26/1.482-8.md) for examples of the application of the best method rule. See [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md) for the applicable methods in the case of a cost sharing arrangement.
  - (2) **Determining the best method.** Data based on the results of transactions between unrelated parties provides the most objective basis for determining whether the results of a controlled transaction are arm's length. Thus, in determining which of two or more available methods (or applications of a single method) provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result, the two primary factors to take into account are the degree of comparability between the controlled transaction (or taxpayer) and any uncontrolled comparables, and the quality of the data and assumptions used in the analysis. In addition, in certain circumstances, it also may be relevant to consider whether the results of an analysis are consistent with the results of an analysis under another method. These factors are explained in paragraphs [(c)(2)(i)](#c-2-i), [(ii)](#c-2-ii), and [(iii)](#c-2-iii) of this section.
    - (i) **Comparability.** The relative reliability of a method based on the results of transactions between unrelated parties depends on the degree of comparability between the controlled transaction or taxpayers and the uncontrolled comparables, taking into account the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](#d-3) (Factors for determining comparability), and after making adjustments for differences, as described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](#d-2) (Standard of comparability). As the degree of comparability increases, the number and extent of potential differences that could render the analysis inaccurate is reduced. In addition, if adjustments are made to increase the degree of comparability, the number, magnitude, and reliability of those adjustments will affect the reliability of the results of the analysis. Thus, an analysis under the comparable uncontrolled price method will generally be more reliable than analyses obtained under other methods if the analysis is based on closely comparable uncontrolled transactions, because such an analysis can be expected to achieve a higher degree of comparability and be susceptible to fewer differences than analyses under other methods. See [§ 1.482-3(b)(2)(ii)(A)](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md?p=b-2-ii-A). An analysis will be relatively less reliable, however, as the uncontrolled transactions become less comparable to the controlled transaction.
    - (ii) **Data and assumptions.** Whether a method provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result also depends upon the completeness and accuracy of the underlying data, the reliability of the assumptions, and the sensitivity of the results to possible deficiencies in the data and assumptions. Such factors are particularly relevant in evaluating the degree of comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions. These factors are discussed in [paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)](#c-2-ii) (A), (B), and (C) of this section.
      - (A) **Completeness and accuracy of data.** The completeness and accuracy of the data affects the ability to identify and quantify those factors that would affect the result under any particular method. For example, the completeness and accuracy of data will determine the extent to which it is possible to identify differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, and the reliability of adjustments that are made to account for such differences. An analysis will be relatively more reliable as the completeness and accuracy of the data increases.
      - (B) **Reliability of assumptions.** All methods rely on certain assumptions. The reliability of the results derived from a method depends on the soundness of such assumptions. Some assumptions are relatively reliable. For example, adjustments for differences in payment terms between controlled and uncontrolled transactions may be based on the assumption that at arm's length such differences would lead to price differences that reflect the time value of money. Although selection of the appropriate interest rate to use in making such adjustments involves some judgement, the economic analysis on which the assumption is based is relatively sound. Other assumptions may be less reliable. For example, the residual profit split method may be based on the assumption that capitalized intangible development expenses reflect the relative value of the intangible property contributed by each party. Because the costs of developing an intangible may not be related to its market value, the soundness of this assumption will affect the reliability of the results derived from this method.
      - (C) **Sensitivity of results to deficiencies in data and assumptions.** Deficiencies in the data used or assumptions made may have a greater effect on some methods than others. In particular, the reliability of some methods is heavily dependent on the similarity of property or services involved in the controlled and uncontrolled transaction. For certain other methods, such as the resale price method, the analysis of the extent to which controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers undertake the same or similar functions, employ similar resources, and bear similar risks is particularly important. Finally, under other methods, such as the profit split method, defining the relevant business activity and appropriate allocation of costs, income, and assets may be of particular importance. Therefore, a difference between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions for which an accurate adjustment cannot be made may have a greater effect on the reliability of the results derived under one method than the results derived under another method. For example, differences in management efficiency may have a greater effect on a comparable profits method analysis than on a comparable uncontrolled price method analysis, while differences in product characteristics will ordinarily have a greater effect on a comparable uncontrolled price method analysis than on a comparable profits method analysis.
    - (iii) **Confirmation of results by another method.** If two or more methods produce inconsistent results, the best method rule will be applied to select the method that provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result. If the best method rule does not clearly indicate which method should be selected, an additional factor that may be taken into account in selecting a method is whether any of the competing methods produce results that are consistent with the results obtained from the appropriate application of another method. Further, in evaluating different applications of the same method, the fact that a second method (or another application of the first method) produces results that are consistent with one of the competing applications may be taken into account.
- (d) **Comparability—**
  - (1) **In general.** Whether a controlled transaction produces an arm's length result is generally evaluated by comparing the results of that transaction to results realized by uncontrolled taxpayers engaged in comparable transactions under comparable circumstances. For this purpose, the comparability of transactions and circumstances must be evaluated considering all factors that could affect prices or profits in arm's length dealings (comparability factors). While a specific comparability factor may be of particular importance in applying a method, each method requires analysis of all of the factors that affect comparability under that method. Such factors include the following—
    - (i) Functions;
    - (ii) Contractual terms;
    - (iii) Risks;
    - (iv) Economic conditions; and
    - (v) **Property or services.**
  - (2) **Standard of comparability.** In order to be considered comparable to a controlled transaction, an uncontrolled transaction need not be identical to the controlled transaction, but must be sufficiently similar that it provides a reliable measure of an arm's length result. If there are material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, adjustments must be made if the effect of such differences on prices or profits can be ascertained with sufficient accuracy to improve the reliability of the results. For purposes of this section, a material difference is one that would materially affect the measure of an arm's length result under the method being applied. If adjustments for material differences cannot be made, the uncontrolled transaction may be used as a measure of an arm's length result, but the reliability of the analysis will be reduced. Generally, such adjustments must be made to the results of the uncontrolled comparable and must be based on commercial practices, economic principles, or statistical analyses. The extent and reliability of any adjustments will affect the relative reliability of the analysis. See [§ 1.482-1(c)(1)](#c-1) (Best method rule). In any event, unadjusted industry average returns themselves cannot establish arm's length results.
  - (3) **Factors for determining comparability.** The comparability factors listed in [§ 1.482-1(d)(1)](#d-1) are discussed in this section. Each of these factors must be considered in determining the degree of comparability between transactions or taxpayers and the extent to which comparability adjustments may be necessary. In addition, in certain cases involving special circumstances, the rules under [paragraph (d)(4)](#d-4) of this section must be considered.
    - (i) **Functional analysis.** Determining the degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions requires a comparison of the functions performed, and associated resources employed, by the taxpayers in each transaction. This comparison is based on a functional analysis that identifies and compares the economically significant activities undertaken, or to be undertaken, by the taxpayers in both controlled and uncontrolled transactions. A functional analysis should also include consideration of the resources that are employed, or to be employed, in conjunction with the activities undertaken, including consideration of the type of assets used, such as plant and equipment, or the use of valuable intangibles. A functional analysis is not a pricing method and does not itself determine the arm's length result for the controlled transaction under review. Functions that may need to be accounted for in determining the comparability of two transactions include—
      - (A) Research and development;
      - (B) Product design and engineering;
      - (C) Manufacturing, production and process engineering;
      - (D) Product fabrication, extraction, and assembly;
      - (E) Purchasing and materials management;
      - (F) Marketing and distribution functions, including inventory management, warranty administration, and advertising activities;
      - (G) Transportation and warehousing; and
      - (H) Managerial, legal, accounting and finance, credit and collection, training, and personnel management services.
    - (ii) **Contractual terms—**
      - (A) **In general.** Determining the degree of comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions requires a comparison of the significant contractual terms that could affect the results of the two transactions. These terms include—

        (1) The form of consideration charged or paid;

        (2) Sales or purchase volume;

        (3) The scope and terms of warranties provided;

        (4) Rights to updates, revisions or modifications;

        (5) The duration of relevant license, contract or other agreements, and termination or renegotiation rights;

        (6) Collateral transactions or ongoing business relationships between the buyer and the seller, including arrangements for the provision of ancillary or subsidiary services; and

        (7) Extension of credit and payment terms. Thus, for example, if the time for payment of the amount charged in a controlled transaction differs from the time for payment of the amount charged in an uncontrolled transaction, an adjustment to reflect the difference in payment terms should be made if such difference would have a material effect on price. Such comparability adjustment is required even if no interest would be allocated or imputed under [§ 1.482-2(a)](/cfr/26/1.482-2.md?p=a) or other applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code or regulations.

      - (B) **Identifying contractual terms—** (1) Written agreement. The contractual terms, including the consequent allocation of risks, that are agreed to in writing before the transactions are entered into will be respected if such terms are consistent with the economic substance of the underlying transactions. In evaluating economic substance, greatest weight will be given to the actual conduct of the parties, and the respective legal rights of the parties (see, for example, [§ 1.482-4(f)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=f-3) (Ownership of intangible property)). If the contractual terms are inconsistent with the economic substance of the underlying transaction, the district director may disregard such terms and impute terms that are consistent with the economic substance of the transaction.

        (2) No written agreement. In the absence of a written agreement, the district director may impute a contractual agreement between the controlled taxpayers consistent with the economic substance of the transaction. In determining the economic substance of the transaction, greatest weight will be given to the actual conduct of the parties and their respective legal rights (see, for example, [§ 1.482-4(f)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=f-3) (Ownership of intangible property)). For example, if, without a written agreement, a controlled taxpayer operates at full capacity and regularly sells all of its output to another member of its controlled group, the district director may impute a purchasing contract from the course of conduct of the controlled taxpayers, and determine that the producer bears little risk that the buyer will fail to purchase its full output. Further, if an established industry convention or usage of trade assigns a risk or resolves an issue, that convention or usage will be followed if the conduct of the taxpayers is consistent with it. See UCC 1-205. For example, unless otherwise agreed, payment generally is due at the time and place at which the buyer is to receive goods. See UCC 2-310.

      - (C) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate this [paragraph (d)(3)(ii)](#d-3-ii).
    - (iii) **Risk—**
      - (A) **Comparability.** Determining the degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions requires a comparison of the significant risks that could affect the prices that would be charged or paid, or the profit that would be earned, in the two transactions. Relevant risks to consider include—

        (1) Market risks, including fluctuations in cost, demand, pricing, and inventory levels;

        (2) Risks associated with the success or failure of research and development activities;

        (3) Financial risks, including fluctuations in foreign currency rates of exchange and interest rates;

        (4) Credit and collection risks;

        (5) Product liability risks; and

        (6) General business risks related to the ownership of property, plant, and equipment.

      - (B) **Identification of taxpayer that bears risk.** In general, the determination of which controlled taxpayer bears a particular risk will be made in accordance with the provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)](#d-3-ii-B) (Identifying contractual terms). Thus, the allocation of risks specified or implied by the taxpayer's contractual terms will generally be respected if it is consistent with the economic substance of the transaction. An allocation of risk between controlled taxpayers after the outcome of such risk is known or reasonably knowable lacks economic substance. In considering the economic substance of the transaction, the following facts are relevant—

        (1) Whether the pattern of the controlled taxpayer's conduct over time is consistent with the purported allocation of risk between the controlled taxpayers; or where the pattern is changed, whether the relevant contractual arrangements have been modified accordingly;

        (2) Whether a controlled taxpayer has the financial capacity to fund losses that might be expected to occur as the result of the assumption of a risk, or whether, at arm's length, another party to the controlled transaction would ultimately suffer the consequences of such losses; and

        (3) The extent to which each controlled taxpayer exercises managerial or operational control over the business activities that directly influence the amount of income or loss realized. In arm's length dealings, parties ordinarily bear a greater share of those risks over which they have relatively more control.

      - (C) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate this [paragraph (d)(3)(iii)](#d-3-iii).
    - (iv) **Economic conditions.** Determining the degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions requires a comparison of the significant economic conditions that could affect the prices that would be charged or paid, or the profit that would be earned in each of the transactions. These factors include—
      - (A) The similarity of geographic markets;
      - (B) The relative size of each market, and the extent of the overall economic development in each market;
      - (C) The level of the market (e.g., wholesale, retail, etc.);
      - (D) The relevant market shares for the products, properties, or services transferred or provided;
      - (E) The location-specific costs of the factors of production and distribution;
      - (F) The extent of competition in each market with regard to the property or services under review;
      - (G) The economic condition of the particular industry, including whether the market is in contraction or expansion; and
      - (H) **The alternatives realistically available to the buyer and seller.**
    - (v) **Property or services.** Evaluating the degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions requires a comparison of the property or services transferred in the transactions. This comparison may include any intangible property that is embedded in tangible property or services being transferred (embedded intangibles). The comparability of the embedded intangibles will be analyzed using the factors listed in [§ 1.482-4(c)(2)(iii)(B)(1)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=c-2-iii-B-1) (comparable intangible property). The relevance of product comparability in evaluating the relative reliability of the results will depend on the method applied. For guidance concerning the specific comparability considerations applicable to transfers of tangible and intangible property and performance of services, see [§§ 1.482-3 through 1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-3..1.482-6.md) and [§ 1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md); see also §§ [1.482-3(f)](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md?p=f), [1.482-4(f)(4)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=f-4), and [1.482-9(m)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=m), dealing with the coordination of intangible and tangible property and performance of services rules.
  - (4) **Special circumstances—**
    - (i) **Market share strategy.** In certain circumstances, taxpayers may adopt strategies to enter new markets or to increase a product's share of an existing market (market share strategy). Such a strategy would be reflected by temporarily increased market development expenses or resale prices that are temporarily lower than the prices charged for comparable products in the same market. Whether or not the strategy is reflected in the transfer price depends on which party to the controlled transaction bears the costs of the pricing strategy. In any case, the effect of a market share strategy on a controlled transaction will be taken into account only if it can be shown that an uncontrolled taxpayer engaged in a comparable strategy under comparable circumstances for a comparable period of time, and the taxpayer provides documentation that substantiates the following—
      - (A) The costs incurred to implement the market share strategy are borne by the controlled taxpayer that would obtain the future profits that result from the strategy, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the strategy will result in future profits that reflect an appropriate return in relation to the costs incurred to implement it;
      - (B) The market share strategy is pursued only for a period of time that is reasonable, taking into consideration the industry and product in question; and
      - (C) The market share strategy, the related costs and expected returns, and any agreement between the controlled taxpayers to share the related costs, were established before the strategy was implemented.
    - (ii) **Different geographic markets—**
      - (A) **In general.** Uncontrolled comparables ordinarily should be derived from the geographic market in which the controlled taxpayer operates, because there may be significant differences in economic conditions in different markets. If information from the same market is not available, an uncontrolled comparable derived from a different geographic market may be considered if adjustments are made to account for differences between the two markets. If information permitting adjustments for such differences is not available, then information derived from uncontrolled comparables in the most similar market for which reliable data is available may be used, but the extent of such differences may affect the reliability of the method for purposes of the best method rule. For this purpose, a geographic market is any geographic area in which the economic conditions for the relevant product or service are substantially the same, and may include multiple countries, depending on the economic conditions.
      - (B) **Example.** The following example illustrates this [paragraph (d)(4)(ii)](#d-4-ii).
      - (C) **Location savings.** If an uncontrolled taxpayer operates in a different geographic market than the controlled taxpayer, adjustments may be necessary to account for significant differences in costs attributable to the geographic markets. These adjustments must be based on the effect such differences would have on the consideration charged or paid in the controlled transaction given the relative competitive positions of buyers and sellers in each market. Thus, for example, the fact that the total costs of operating in a controlled manufacturer's geographic market are less than the total costs of operating in other markets ordinarily justifies higher profits to the manufacturer only if the cost differences would increase the profits of comparable uncontrolled manufacturers operating at arm's length, given the competitive positions of buyers and sellers in that market.
      - (D) **Example.** The following example illustrates the principles of this [paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(C)](#d-4-ii-C).
    - (iii) **Transactions ordinarily not accepted as comparables—**
      - (A) **In general.** Transactions ordinarily will not constitute reliable measures of an arm's length result for purposes of this section if—

        (1) They are not made in the ordinary course of business; or

        (2) One of the principal purposes of the uncontrolled transaction was to establish an arm's length result with respect to the controlled transaction.

      - (B) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the principle of this [paragraph (d)(4)(iii)](#d-4-iii).
- (e) **Arm's length range—**
  - (1) **In general.** In some cases, application of a pricing method will produce a single result that is the most reliable measure of an arm's length result. In other cases, application of a method may produce a number of results from which a range of reliable results may be derived. A taxpayer will not be subject to adjustment if its results fall within such range (arm's length range).
  - (2) **Determination of arm's length range—**
    - (i) **Single method.** The arm's length range is ordinarily determined by applying a single pricing method selected under the best method rule to two or more uncontrolled transactions of similar comparability and reliability. Use of more than one method may be appropriate for the purposes described in [paragraph (c)(2)(iii)](#c-2-iii) of this section (Best method rule).
    - (ii) **Selection of comparables.** Uncontrolled comparables must be selected based upon the comparability criteria relevant to the method applied and must be sufficiently similar to the controlled transaction that they provide a reliable measure of an arm's length result. If material differences exist between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, adjustments must be made to the results of the uncontrolled transaction if the effect of such differences on price or profits can be ascertained with sufficient accuracy to improve the reliability of the results. See [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](#d-2) (Standard of comparability). The arm's length range will be derived only from those uncontrolled comparables that have, or through adjustments can be brought to, a similar level of comparability and reliability, and uncontrolled comparables that have a significantly lower level of comparability and reliability will not be used in establishing the arm's length range.
    - (iii) **Comparables included in arm's length range—**
      - (A) **In general.** The arm's length range will consist of the results of all of the uncontrolled comparables that meet the following conditions: the information on the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables is sufficiently complete that it is likely that all material differences have been identified, each such difference has a definite and reasonably ascertainable effect on price or profit, and an adjustment is made to eliminate the effect of each such difference.
      - (B) **Adjustment of range to increase reliability.** If there are no uncontrolled comparables described in [paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A)](#e-2-iii-A) of this section, the arm's length range is derived from the results of all the uncontrolled comparables, selected pursuant to [paragraph (e)(2)(ii)](#e-2-ii) of this section, that achieve a similar level of comparability and reliability. In such cases the reliability of the analysis must be increased, where it is possible to do so, by adjusting the range through application of a valid statistical method to the results of all of the uncontrolled comparables so selected. The reliability of the analysis is increased when statistical methods are used to establish a range of results in which the limits of the range will be determined such that there is a 75 percent probability of a result falling above the lower end of the range and a 75 percent probability of a result falling below the upper end of the range. The interquartile range ordinarily provides an acceptable measure of this range; however a different statistical method may be applied if it provides a more reliable measure.
      - (C) **Interquartile range.** For purposes of this section, the interquartile range is the range from the 25th to the 75th percentile of the results derived from the uncontrolled comparables. For this purpose, the 25th percentile is the lowest result derived from an uncontrolled comparable such that at least 25 percent of the results are at or below the value of that result. However, if exactly 25 percent of the results are at or below a result, then the 25th percentile is equal to the average of that result and the next higher result derived from the uncontrolled comparables. The 75th percentile is determined analogously.
  - (3) **Adjustment if taxpayer's results are outside arm's length range.** If the results of a controlled transaction fall outside the arm's length range, the district director may make allocations that adjust the controlled taxpayer's result to any point within the arm's length range. If the interquartile range is used to determine the arm's length range, such adjustment will ordinarily be to the median of all the results. The median is the 50th percentile of the results, which is determined in a manner analogous to that described in [paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C)](#e-2-iii-C) of this section (Interquartile range). In other cases, an adjustment normally will be made to the arithmetic mean of all the results. See [§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(iii)(D)](#f-2-iii-D) for determination of an adjustment when a controlled taxpayer's result for a multiple year period falls outside an arm's length range consisting of the average results of uncontrolled comparables over the same period.
  - (4) **Arm's length range not prerequisite to allocation.** The rules of this [paragraph (e)](#e) do not require that the district director establish an arm's length range prior to making an allocation under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). Thus, for example, the district director may properly propose an allocation on the basis of a single comparable uncontrolled price if the comparable uncontrolled price method, as described in [§ 1.482-3(b)](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md?p=b), has been properly applied. However, if the taxpayer subsequently demonstrates that the results claimed on its income tax return are within the range established by additional equally reliable comparable uncontrolled prices in a manner consistent with the requirements set forth in [§ 1.482-1(e)(2)(iii)](#e-2-iii), then no allocation will be made.
  - (5) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the principles of this [paragraph (e)](#e).
- (f) **Scope of review—**
  - (1) **In general.** The authority to determine true taxable income extends to any case in which either by inadvertence or design the taxable income, in whole or in part, of a controlled taxpayer is other than it would have been had the taxpayer, in the conduct of its affairs, been dealing at arm's length with an uncontrolled taxpayer.
    - (i) **Intent to evade or avoid tax not a prerequisite.** In making allocations under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md), the district director is not restricted to the case of improper accounting, to the case of a fraudulent, colorable, or sham transaction, or to the case of a device designed to reduce or avoid tax by shifting or distorting income, deductions, credits, or allowances.
    - (ii) **Realization of income not a prerequisite—**
      - (A) **In general.** The district director may make an allocation under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) even if the income ultimately anticipated from a series of transactions has not been or is never realized. For example, if a controlled taxpayer sells a product at less than an arm's length price to a related taxpayer in one taxable year and the second controlled taxpayer resells the product to an unrelated party in the next taxable year, the district director may make an appropriate allocation to reflect an arm's length price for the sale of the product in the first taxable year, even though the second controlled taxpayer had not realized any gross income from the resale of the product in the first year. Similarly, if a controlled taxpayer lends money to a related taxpayer in a taxable year, the district director may make an appropriate allocation to reflect an arm's length charge for interest during such taxable year even if the second controlled taxpayer does not realize income during such year. Finally, even if two controlled taxpayers realize an overall loss that is attributable to a particular controlled transaction, an allocation under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) is not precluded.
      - (B) **Example.** The following example illustrates this [paragraph (f)(1)(ii)](#f-1-ii).
    - (iii) **Nonrecognition provisions may not bar allocation—**
      - (A) **In general.** If necessary to prevent the avoidance of taxes or to clearly reflect income, the district director may make an allocation under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) with respect to transactions that otherwise qualify for nonrecognition of gain or loss under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (such as section [351](/cfr/26/351.md) or [1031](/cfr/26/1031.md)).
      - (B) **Example.** The following example illustrates this [paragraph (f)(1)(iii)](#f-1-iii).
    - (iv) **Consolidated returns.** [Section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and the regulations thereunder apply to all controlled taxpayers, whether the controlled taxpayer files a separate or consolidated U.S. income tax return. If a controlled taxpayer files a separate return, its true separate taxable income will be determined. If a controlled taxpayer is a party to a consolidated return, the true consolidated taxable income of the affiliated group and the true separate taxable income of the controlled taxpayer must be determined consistently with the principles of a consolidated return.
  - (2) **Rules relating to determination of true taxable income.** The following rules must be taken into account in determining the true taxable income of a controlled taxpayer.
    - (i)
      - (A) through (E) [Reserved]. For further guidance see [§ 1.482-1T(f)(2)(i)(A) through (E)](/cfr/26/1.482-1T.md?p=f-2-i-A..f-2-i-E).
    - (ii) **Allocation based on taxpayer's actual transactions—**
      - (A) **In general.** The Commissioner will evaluate the results of a transaction as actually structured by the taxpayer unless its structure lacks economic substance. However, the Commissioner may consider the alternatives available to the taxpayer in determining whether the terms of the controlled transaction would be acceptable to an uncontrolled taxpayer faced with the same alternatives and operating under comparable circumstances. In such cases the Commissioner may adjust the consideration charged in the controlled transaction based on the cost or profit of an alternative as adjusted to account for material differences between the alternative and the controlled transaction, but will not restructure the transaction as if the alternative had been adopted by the taxpayer. See [paragraph (d)(3)](#d-3) of this section (factors for determining comparability; contractual terms and risk); §§ [1.482-3(e)](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md?p=e), [1.482-4(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=d), and [1.482-9(h)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=h) (unspecified methods).
      - (B) [Reserved]. For further guidance see [§ 1.482-1T(f)(2)(ii)(B)](/cfr/26/1.482-1T.md?p=f-2-ii-B).
    - (iii) **Multiple year data—**
      - (A) **In general.** The results of a controlled transaction ordinarily will be compared with the results of uncontrolled comparables occurring in the taxable year under review. It may be appropriate, however, to consider data relating to the uncontrolled comparables or the controlled taxpayer for one or more years before or after the year under review. If data relating to uncontrolled comparables from multiple years is used, data relating to the controlled taxpayer for the same years ordinarily must be considered. However, if such data is not available, reliable data from other years, as adjusted under [paragraph (d)(2)](#d-2) (Standard of comparability) of this section may be used.
      - (B) **Circumstances warranting consideration of multiple year data.** The extent to which it is appropriate to consider multiple year data depends on the method being applied and the issue being addressed. Circumstances that may warrant consideration of data from multiple years include the extent to which complete and accurate data are available for the taxable year under review, the effect of business cycles in the controlled taxpayer's industry, or the effects of life cycles of the product or intangible property being examined. Data from one or more years before or after the taxable year under review must ordinarily be considered for purposes of applying the provisions of [paragraph (d)(3)(iii)](#d-3-iii) of this section (risk), [paragraph (d)(4)(i)](#d-4-i) of this section (market share strategy), [§ 1.482-4(f)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md?p=f-2) (periodic adjustments), [§ 1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md) (comparable profits method), [§ 1.482-9(f)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=f) (comparable profits method for services), and [§ 1.482-9(i)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=i) (contingent-payment contractual terms for services). On the other hand, multiple year data ordinarily will not be considered for purposes of applying the comparable uncontrolled price method of [§ 1.482-3(b)](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md?p=b) or the comparable uncontrolled services price method of [§ 1.482-9(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=c) (except to the extent that risk or market share strategy issues are present).
      - (C) **Comparable effect over comparable period.** Data from multiple years may be considered to determine whether the same economic conditions that caused the controlled taxpayer's results had a comparable effect over a comparable period of time on the uncontrolled comparables that establish the arm's length range. For example, given that uncontrolled taxpayers enter into transactions with the ultimate expectation of earning a profit, persistent losses among controlled taxpayers may be an indication of non-arm's length dealings. Thus, if a controlled taxpayer that realizes a loss with respect to a controlled transaction seeks to demonstrate that the loss is within the arm's length range, the district director may take into account data from taxable years other than the taxable year of the transaction to determine whether the loss was attributable to arm's length dealings. The rule of this [paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C)](#f-2-iii-C) is illustrated by Example 3 of [paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(E)](#f-2-iii-E) of this section.
      - (D) **Applications of methods using multiple year averages.** If a comparison of a controlled taxpayer's average result over a multiple year period with the average results of uncontrolled comparables over the same period would reduce the effect of short-term variations that may be unrelated to transfer pricing, it may be appropriate to establish a range derived from the average results of uncontrolled comparables over a multiple year period to determine if an adjustment should be made. In such a case the district director may make an adjustment if the controlled taxpayer's average result for the multiple year period is not within such range. Such a range must be determined in accordance with [§ 1.482-1(e)](#e) (Arm's length range). An adjustment in such a case ordinarily will be equal to the difference, if any, between the controlled taxpayer's result for the taxable year and the mid-point of the uncontrolled comparables' results for that year. If the interquartile range is used to determine the range of average results for the multiple year period, such adjustment will ordinarily be made to the median of all the results of the uncontrolled comparables for the taxable year. See Example 2 of [§ 1.482-5(e)](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md?p=e). In other cases, the adjustment normally will be made to the arithmetic mean of all the results of the uncontrolled comparables for the taxable year. However, an adjustment will be made only to the extent that it would move the controlled taxpayer's multiple year average closer to the arm's length range for the multiple year period or to any point within such range. In determining a controlled taxpayer's average result for a multiple year period, adjustments made under this section for prior years will be taken into account only if such adjustments have been finally determined, as described in [§ 1.482-1(g)(2)(iii)](#g-2-iii). See Example 3 of [§ 1.482-5(e)](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md?p=e).
      - (E) **Examples.** The following examples, in which S and P are controlled taxpayers, illustrate this [paragraph (f)(2)(iii)](#f-2-iii). Examples 1 and 4 also illustrate the principle of the arm's length range of [paragraph (e)](#e) of this section.
    - (iv) **Product lines and statistical techniques.** The methods described in [§§ 1.482-2 through 1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-2..1.482-6.md) are generally stated in terms of individual transactions. However, because a taxpayer may have controlled transactions involving many different products, or many separate transactions involving the same product, it may be impractical to analyze every individual transaction to determine its arm's length price. In such cases, it is permissible to evaluate the arm's length results by applying the appropriate methods to the overall results for product lines or other groupings. In addition, the arm's length results of all related party transactions entered into by a controlled taxpayer may be evaluated by employing sampling and other valid statistical techniques.
    - (v) **Allocations apply to results, not methods—**
      - (A) **In general.** In evaluating whether the result of a controlled transaction is arm's length, it is not necessary for the district director to determine whether the method or procedure that a controlled taxpayer employs to set the terms for its controlled transactions corresponds to the method or procedure that might have been used by a taxpayer dealing at arm's length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. Rather, the district director will evaluate the result achieved rather than the method the taxpayer used to determine its prices.
      - (B) **Example.** The following example illustrates this [paragraph (f)(2)(v)](#f-2-v).
- (g) **Collateral adjustments with respect to allocations under section 482—**
  - (1) **In general.** The district director will take into account appropriate collateral adjustments with respect to allocations under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). Appropriate collateral adjustments may include correlative allocations, conforming adjustments, and setoffs, as described in this [paragraph (g)](#g).
  - (2) **Correlative allocations—**
    - (i) **In general.** When the district director makes an allocation under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) (referred to in this [paragraph (g)(2)](#g-2) as the primary allocation), appropriate correlative allocations will also be made with respect to any other member of the group affected by the allocation. Thus, if the district director makes an allocation of income, the district director will not only increase the income of one member of the group, but correspondingly decrease the income of the other member. In addition, where appropriate, the district director may make such further correlative allocations as may be required by the initial correlative allocation.
    - (ii) **Manner of carrying out correlative allocation.** The district director will furnish to the taxpayer with respect to which the primary allocation is made a written statement of the amount and nature of the correlative allocation. The correlative allocation must be reflected in the documentation of the other member of the group that is maintained for U.S. tax purposes, without regard to whether it affects the U.S. income tax liability of the other member for any open year. In some circumstances the allocation will have an immediate U.S. tax effect, by changing the taxable income computation of the other member (or the taxable income computation of a shareholder of the other member, for example, under the provisions of [subpart F](/cfr/26/subpartF.md) of the Internal Revenue Code). Alternatively, the correlative allocation may not be reflected on any U.S. tax return until a later year, for example when a dividend is paid.
    - (iii) **Events triggering correlative allocation.** For purposes of this [paragraph (g)(2)](#g-2), a primary allocation will not be considered to have been made (and therefore, correlative allocations are not required to be made) until the date of a final determination with respect to the allocation under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). For this purpose, a final determination includes—
      - (A) Assessment of tax following execution by the taxpayer of a Form 870 (Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment and Collection of Deficiency in Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment) with respect to such allocation;
      - (B) Acceptance of a Form 870-AD (Offer of Waiver of Restriction on Assessment and Collection of Deficiency in Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment);
      - (C) Payment of the deficiency;
      - (D) Stipulation in the Tax Court of the United States; or
      - (E) Final determination of tax liability by offer-in-compromise, closing agreement, or final resolution (determined under the principles of [section 7481](/cfr/26/7481.md)) of a judicial proceeding.
    - (iv) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate this [paragraph (g)(2)](#g-2). In each example, X and Y are members of the same group of controlled taxpayers and each regularly computes its income on a calendar year basis.
  - (3) **Adjustments to conform accounts to reflect section 482 allocations—**
    - (i) **In general.** Appropriate adjustments must be made to conform a taxpayer's accounts to reflect allocations made under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). Such adjustments may include the treatment of an allocated amount as a dividend or a capital contribution (as appropriate), or, in appropriate cases, pursuant to such applicable revenue procedures as may be provided by the Commissioner (see [§ 601.601(d)(2)](/cfr/26/601.601.md?p=d-2) of this chapter), repayment of the allocated amount without further income tax consequences.
    - (ii) **Example.** The following example illustrates the principles of this [paragraph (g)(3)](#g-3).
  - (4) **Setoffs—**
    - (i) **In general.** If an allocation is made under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) with respect to a transaction between controlled taxpayers, the Commissioner will take into account the effect of any other non-arm's length transaction between the same controlled taxpayers in the same taxable year which will result in a setoff against the original [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) allocation. Such setoff, however, will be taken into account only if the requirements of [paragraph (g)(4)(ii)](#g-4-ii) of this section are satisfied. If the effect of the setoff is to change the characterization or source of the income or deductions, or otherwise distort taxable income, in such a manner as to affect the U.S. tax liability of any member, adjustments will be made to reflect the correct amount of each category of income or deductions. For purposes of this setoff provision, the term arm's length refers to the amount defined in [paragraph (b)](#b) of this section (arm's length standard), without regard to the rules in [§ 1.482-2(a)](/cfr/26/1.482-2.md?p=a) that treat certain interest rates as arm's length rates of interest.
    - (ii) **Requirements.** The district director will take a setoff into account only if the taxpayer—
      - (A) Establishes that the transaction that is the basis of the setoff was not at arm's length and the amount of the appropriate arm's length charge;
      - (B) Documents, pursuant to [paragraph (g)(2)](#g-2) of this section, all correlative adjustments resulting from the proposed setoff; and
      - (C) Notifies the district director of the basis of any claimed setoff within 30 days after the earlier of the date of a letter by which the district director transmits an examination report notifying the taxpayer of proposed adjustments or the date of the issuance of the notice of deficiency.
    - (iii) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate this [paragraph (g)(4)](#g-4).
- (h) **Special rules—**
  - (1) **Small taxpayer safe harbor.** [Reserved]
  - (2) **Effect of foreign legal restrictions—**
    - (i) **In general.** The district director will take into account the effect of a foreign legal restriction to the extent that such restriction affects the results of transactions at arm's length. Thus, a foreign legal restriction will be taken into account only to the extent that it is shown that the restriction affected an uncontrolled taxpayer under comparable circumstances for a comparable period of time. In the absence of evidence indicating the effect of the foreign legal restriction on uncontrolled taxpayers, the restriction will be taken into account only to the extent provided in [paragraphs (h)(2)](#h-2) (iii) and (iv) of this section (Deferred income method of accounting).
    - (ii) **Applicable legal restrictions.** Foreign legal restrictions (whether temporary or permanent) will be taken into account for purposes of this [paragraph (h)(2)](#h-2) only if, and so long as, the conditions set forth in [paragraphs (h)(2)(ii)](#h-2-ii) (A) through (D) of this section are met.
      - (A) The restrictions are publicly promulgated, generally applicable to all similarly situated persons (both controlled and uncontrolled), and not imposed as part of a commercial transaction between the taxpayer and the foreign sovereign;
      - (B) The taxpayer (or other member of the controlled group with respect to which the restrictions apply) has exhausted all remedies prescribed by foreign law or practice for obtaining a waiver of such restrictions (other than remedies that would have a negligible prospect of success if pursued);
      - (C) The restrictions expressly prevented the payment or receipt, in any form, of part or all of the arm's length amount that would otherwise be required under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) (for example, a restriction that applies only to the deductibility of an expense for tax purposes is not a restriction on payment or receipt for this purpose); and
      - (D) The related parties subject to the restriction did not engage in any arrangement with controlled or uncontrolled parties that had the effect of circumventing the restriction, and have not otherwise violated the restriction in any material respect.
    - (iii) **Requirement for electing the deferred income method of accounting.** If a foreign legal restriction prevents the payment or receipt of part or all of the arm's length amount that is due with respect to a controlled transaction, the restricted amount may be treated as deferrable if the following requirements are met—
      - (A) The controlled taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the district director that the payment or receipt of the arm's length amount was prevented because of a foreign legal restriction and circumstances described in [paragraph (h)(2)(ii)](#h-2-ii) of this section; and
      - (B) The controlled taxpayer whose U.S. tax liability may be affected by the foreign legal restriction elects the deferred income method of accounting, as described in [paragraph (h)(2)(iv)](#h-2-iv) of this section, on a written statement attached to a timely U.S. income tax return (or an amended return) filed before the IRS first contacts any member of the controlled group concerning an examination of the return for the taxable year to which the foreign legal restriction applies. A written statement furnished by a taxpayer subject to the Coordinated Examination Program will be considered an amended return for purposes of this [paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(B)](#h-2-iii-B) if it satisfies the requirements of a qualified amended return for purposes of [§ 1.6664-2(c)(3)](/cfr/26/1.6664-2.md?p=c-3) as set forth in those regulations or as the Commissioner may prescribe by applicable revenue procedures. The election statement must identify the affected transactions, the parties to the transactions, and the applicable foreign legal restrictions.
    - (iv) **Deferred income method of accounting.** If the requirements of [paragraph (h)(2)(ii)](#h-2-ii) of this section are satisfied, any portion of the arm's length amount, the payment or receipt of which is prevented because of applicable foreign legal restrictions, will be treated as deferrable until payment or receipt of the relevant item ceases to be prevented by the foreign legal restriction. For purposes of the deferred income method of accounting under this [paragraph (h)(2)(iv)](#h-2-iv), deductions (including the cost or other basis of inventory and other assets sold or exchanged) and credits properly chargeable against any amount so deferred, are subject to deferral under the provisions of [§ 1.461](/cfr/26/1.461-.md)- 1(a)(4). In addition, income is deferrable under this deferred income method of accounting only to the extent that it exceeds the related deductions already claimed in open taxable years to which the foreign legal restriction applied.
    - (v) **Examples.** The following examples, in which Sub is a Country FC subsidiary of U.S. corporation, Parent, illustrate this [paragraph (h)(2)](#h-2).
  - (3) **Coordination with section 936—**
    - (i) **Cost sharing under section 936.** If a possessions corporation makes an election under [section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I)](/cfr/26/936.md?p=h-5-C-i-I), the corporation must make a [section 936](/cfr/26/936.md) cost sharing payment that is at least equal to the payment that would be required under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) if the electing corporation were a foreign corporation. In determining the payment that would be required under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) for this purpose, the provisions of §§ 1.482-1 and [1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md) will be applied, and to the extent relevant to the valuation of intangibles, §§ [1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md) and [1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-6.md) will be applied. The provisions of [section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(II)](/cfr/26/936.md?p=h-5-C-i-II) (Effect of Election—electing corporation treated as owner of intangible property) do not apply until the payment that would be required under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) has been determined.
    - (ii) **Use of terms.** A cost sharing payment, for the purposes of [section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I)](/cfr/26/936.md?p=h-5-C-i-I), is calculated using the provisions of [section 936](/cfr/26/936.md) and the regulations thereunder and the provisions of this [paragraph (h)(3)](#h-3). The provisions relating to cost sharing under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) do not apply to payments made pursuant to an election under [section 936(h)(5)(C)(i)(I)](/cfr/26/936.md?p=h-5-C-i-I). Similarly, a profit split payment, for the purposes of [section 936(h)(5)(C)(ii)(I)](/cfr/26/936.md?p=h-5-C-ii-I), is calculated using the provisions of [section 936](/cfr/26/936.md) and the regulations thereunder, not [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and the regulations thereunder.
    - (i) **Definitions.** The definitions set forth in [paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(10)](#h-i-1..h-i-10) of this section apply to this section and [§§ 1.482-2 through 1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-2..1.482-9.md).
  - (1) **Organization—** includes an organization of any kind, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a trust, an estate, an association, or a corporation (as each is defined or understood in the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations thereunder), irrespective of the place of organization, operation, or conduct of the trade or business, and regardless of whether it is a domestic or foreign organization, whether it is an exempt organization, or whether it is a member of an affiliated group that files a consolidated U.S. income tax return, or a member of an affiliated group that does not file a consolidated U.S. income tax return.
  - (2) **Trade—** or business includes a trade or business activity of any kind, regardless of whether or where organized, whether owned individually or otherwise, and regardless of the place of operation. Employment for compensation will constitute a separate trade or business from the employing trade or business.
  - (3) Taxpayer means any person, organization, trade or business, whether or not subject to any internal revenue tax.
  - (4) **Controlled—** includes any kind of control, direct or indirect, whether legally enforceable or not, and however exercisable or exercised, including control resulting from the actions of two or more taxpayers acting in concert or with a common goal or purpose. It is the reality of the control that is decisive, not its form or the mode of its exercise. A presumption of control arises if income or deductions have been arbitrarily shifted.
  - (5) Controlled taxpayer means any one of two or more taxpayers owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, and includes the taxpayer that owns or controls the other taxpayers. Uncontrolled taxpayer means any one of two or more taxpayers not owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests.
  - (6) **Group, controlled group,—** and group of controlled taxpayers mean the taxpayers owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests.
  - (7) Transaction means any sale, assignment, lease, license, loan, advance, contribution, or any other transfer of any interest in or a right to use any property (whether tangible or intangible, real or personal) or money, however such transaction is effected, and whether or not the terms of such transaction are formally documented. A transaction also includes the performance of any services for the benefit of, or on behalf of, another taxpayer.
  - (8) **Controlled transaction—** or controlled transfer means any transaction or transfer between two or more members of the same group of controlled taxpayers. The term uncontrolled transaction means any transaction between two or more taxpayers that are not members of the same group of controlled taxpayers.
  - (9) **True taxable income—** means, in the case of a controlled taxpayer, the taxable income that would have resulted had it dealt with the other member or members of the group at arm's length. It does not mean the taxable income resulting to the controlled taxpayer by reason of the particular contract, transaction, or arrangement the controlled taxpayer chose to make (even though such contract, transaction, or arrangement is legally binding upon the parties thereto).
  - (10) Uncontrolled comparable means the uncontrolled transaction or uncontrolled taxpayer that is compared with a controlled transaction or taxpayer under any applicable pricing methodology. Thus, for example, under the comparable profits method, an uncontrolled comparable is any uncontrolled taxpayer from which data is used to establish a comparable operating profit.
- (j) **Effective dates—**
  - (1) **The regulations in this are generally effective for taxable years beginning after October 6, 1994.**
  - (2) Taxpayers may elect to apply retroactively all of the provisions of these regulations for any open taxable year. Such election will be effective for the year of the election and all subsequent taxable years.
  - (3) Although these regulations are generally effective for taxable years as stated, the final sentence of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) (requiring that the income with respect to transfers or licenses of intangible property be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible) is generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986. For the period prior to the effective date of these regulations, the final sentence of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) must be applied using any reasonable method not inconsistent with the statute. The IRS considers a method that applies these regulations or their general principles to be a reasonable method.
  - (4) These regulations will not apply with respect to transfers made or licenses granted to foreign persons before November 17, 1985, or before August 17, 1986, for transfers or licenses to others. Nevertheless, they will apply with respect to transfers or licenses before such dates if, with respect to property transferred pursuant to an earlier and continuing transfer agreement, such property was not in existence or owned by the taxpayer on such date.
  - (5) The last sentences of paragraphs [(b)(2)(i)](#b-2-i) and (c)(1) of this section and of [paragraph (c)(2)(iv)](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md?p=c-2-iv) of § 1.482-5 apply for taxable years beginning on or after August 26, 2003.
  - (6)
    - (i) The provisions of paragraphs [(a)(1)](#a-1), [(d)(3)(ii)(C)](#d-3-ii-C) Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, and Example 6, (d)(3)(v), (f)(2)(ii)(A), (f)(2)(iii)(B), (g)(4)(i), (g)(4)(iii), and (i) of this section are generally applicable for taxable years beginning after July 31, 2009. The provision of [paragraph (b)(2)(iii)](#b-2-iii) of this section is generally applicable on January 5, 2009.
    - (ii) A person may elect to apply the provisions of paragraphs [(a)(1)](#a-1), [(b)(2)(i)](#b-2-i), [(d)(3)(ii)(C)](#d-3-ii-C) Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, and Example 6, (d)(3)(v), (f)(2)(ii)(A), (f)(2)(iii)(B), (g)(4)(i), (g)(4)(iii), and (i) of this section to earlier taxable years in accordance with the rules set forth in [§ 1.482-9(n)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=n-2).
  - (7) [Reserved]. For further guidance see [§ 1.482-1T(j)(7)](/cfr/26/1.482-1T.md?p=j-7).

# §1.482-1T. Allocation of income and deductions among taxpayers (temporary).

- (a) through (f)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance see [§ 1.482-1(a) through (f)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=a..f-2).
  - (i) **Compensation independent of the form or character of controlled transaction—**
    - (A) **In general.** All value provided between controlled taxpayers in a controlled transaction requires an arm's length amount of compensation determined under the best method rule of [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). Such amount must be consistent with, and must account for all of, the value provided between the parties in the transaction, without regard to the form or character of the transaction. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider the entire arrangement between the parties, as determined by the contractual terms, whether written or imputed in accordance with the economic substance of the arrangement, in light of the actual conduct of the parties. See, e.g., [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3-ii-B) (identifying contractual terms) and (f)(2)(ii)(A) (regarding reference to realistic alternatives).
    - (B) **Aggregation.** The combined effect of two or more separate transactions (whether before, during, or after the year under review), including for purposes of an analysis under multiple provisions of the Code or regulations, may be considered if the transactions, taken as a whole, are so interrelated that an aggregate analysis of the transactions provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result determined under the best method rule of [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). Whether two or more transactions are evaluated separately or in the aggregate depends on the extent to which the transactions are economically interrelated and on the relative reliability of the measure of an arm's length result provided by an aggregate analysis of the transactions as compared to a separate analysis of each transaction. For example, consideration of the combined effect of two or more transactions may be appropriate to determine whether the overall compensation in the transactions is consistent with the value provided, including any synergies among items and services provided.
    - (C) **Coordinated best method analysis and evaluation.** Consistent with the principles of paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, a coordinated best method analysis and evaluation of two or more controlled transactions to which one or more provisions of the Code or regulations apply may be necessary to ensure that the overall value provided, including any synergies, is properly taken into account. A coordinated best method analysis would include a consistent consideration of the facts and circumstances of the functions performed, resources employed, and risks assumed in the relevant transactions, and a consistent measure of the arm's length results, for purposes of all relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.
    - (D) **Allocations of value.** In some cases, it may be necessary to allocate one or more portions of the arm's length result that was properly determined under a coordinated best method analysis described in paragraph (f)(2)(i)(C) of this section. Any such allocation of the arm's length result determined under the coordinated best method analysis must be made using the method that, under the facts and circumstances, provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result for each allocated amount. For example, if the full value of compensation due in controlled transactions whose tax treatment is governed by multiple provisions of the Code or regulations has been most reliably determined on an aggregate basis, then that full value must be allocated in a manner that provides the most reliable measure of each allocated amount.
    - (E) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (f)(2)(i). For purposes of the examples in this paragraph (E), P is a domestic corporation, and S1, S2, and S3 are foreign corporations that are wholly owned by P.
  - (ii)
    - (A) [Reserved]. For further guidance see [§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(ii)(A)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=f-2-ii-A).
    - (B) **Example.** The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(2)(ii):
  - (iii) through (j)(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance see [§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(iii) through (j)(6)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=f-2-iii..f-j-6).
  - (7) **Certain effective/applicability dates—**
    - (i) Paragraphs [(f)(2)(i)(A) through (E)](#f-2-i-A..f-2-i-E) and (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section apply to taxable years ending on or after September 14, 2015.
    - (ii) **Expiration date.** The applicability of paragraphs [(f)(2)(i)(A) through (E)](#f-2-i-A..f-2-i-E) and (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section expires on or before September 14, 2018.

# §1.482-2. Determination of taxable income in specific situations.

- (a) **Loans or advances—**
  - (1) **Interest on bona fide indebtedness—**
    - (i) **In general.** Where one member of a group of controlled entities makes a loan or advance directly or indirectly to, or otherwise becomes a creditor of, another member of such group and either charges no interest, or charges interest at a rate which is not equal to an arm's length rate of interest (as defined in [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2) of this section) with respect to such loan or advance, the district director may make appropriate allocations to reflect an arm's length rate of interest for the use of such loan or advance.
    - (ii) **Application of paragraph (a) of this section—**
      - (A) **Interest on bona fide indebtedness.** [Paragraph (a)](#a) of this section applies only to determine the appropriateness of the rate of interest charged on the principal amount of a bona fide indebtedness between members of a group of controlled entities, including—

        (1) Loans or advances of money or other consideration (whether or not evidenced by a written instrument); and

        (2) Indebtedness arising in the ordinary course of business from sales, leases, or the rendition of services by or between members of the group, or any other similar extension of credit.

      - (B) **Alleged indebtedness.** This [paragraph (a)](#a) does not apply to so much of an alleged indebtedness which is not in fact a bona fide indebtedness, even if the stated rate of interest thereon would be within the safe haven rates prescribed in [paragraph (a)(2)(iii)](#a-2-iii) of this section. For example, [paragraph (a)](#a) of this section does not apply to payments with respect to all or a portion of such alleged indebtedness where in fact all or a portion of an alleged indebtedness is a contribution to the capital of a corporation or a distribution by a corporation with respect to its shares. Similarly, this [paragraph (a)](#a) does not apply to payments with respect to an alleged purchase-money debt instrument given in consideration for an alleged sale of property between two controlled entities where in fact the transaction constitutes a lease of the property. Payments made with respect to alleged indebtedness (including alleged stated interest thereon) shall be treated according to their substance. See [§ 1.482-2(a)(3)(i)](#a-3-i).
    - (iii) **Period for which interest shall be charged—**
      - (A) **General rule.** This [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)](#a-1-iii) is effective for indebtedness arising after June 30, 1988. See [§ 1.482-2(a)(3)](#a-3) ([26 CFR Part 1](/cfr/26/part1.md) edition revised as of April 1, 1988) for indebtedness arising before July 1, 1988. Except as otherwise provided in [paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(B) through (E)](#a-1-iii-B..a-1-iii-E) of this section, the period for which interest shall be charged with respect to a bona fide indebtedness between controlled entities begins on the day after the day the indebtedness arises and ends on the day the indebtedness is satisfied (whether by payment, offset, cancellation, or otherwise). [Paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(B) through (E)](#a-1-iii-B..a-1-iii-E) of this section provide certain alternative periods during which interest is not required to be charged on certain indebtedness. These exceptions apply only to indebtedness described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this section (relating to indebtedness incurred in the ordinary course of business from sales, services, etc., between members of the group) and not evidenced by a written instrument requiring the payment of interest. Such amounts are hereinafter referred to as intercompany trade receivables. The period for which interest is not required to be charged on intercompany trade receivables under this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)](#a-1-iii) is called the interest-free period. In general, an intercompany trade receivable arises at the time economic performance occurs (within the meaning of [section 461(h)](/cfr/26/461.md?p=h) and the regulations thereunder) with respect to the underlying transaction between controlled entities. For purposes of this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)](#a-1-iii), the term United States includes any possession of the United States, and the term foreign country excludes any possession of the United States.
      - (B) **Exception for certain intercompany transactions in the ordinary course of business.** Interest is not required to be charged on an intercompany trade receivable until the first day of the third calendar month following the month in which the intercompany trade receivable arises.
      - (C) **Exception for trade or business of debtor member located outside the United States.** In the case of an intercompany trade receivable arising from a transaction in the ordinary course of a trade or business which is actively conducted outside the United States by the debtor member, interest is not required to be charged until the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which such intercompany trade receivable arises.
      - (D) **Exception for regular trade practice of creditor member or others in creditor's industry.** If the creditor member or unrelated persons in the creditor member's industry, as a regular trade practice, allow unrelated parties a longer period without charging interest than that described in paragraph [(a)(1)(iii)(B)](#a-1-iii-B) or [(C)](#a-1-iii-C) of this section (whichever is applicable) with respect to transactions which are similar to transactions that give rise to intercompany trade receivables, such longer interest-free period shall be allowed with respect to a comparable amount of intercompany trade receivables.
      - (E) **Exception for property purchased for resale in a foreign country—(1) General rule.** If in the ordinary course of business one member of the group (related purchaser) purchases property from another member of the group (related seller) for resale to unrelated persons located in a particular foreign country, the related purchaser and the related seller may use as the interest-free period for the intercompany trade receivables arising during the related seller's taxable year from the purchase of such property within the same product group an interest-free period equal the sum of—

        (i) The number of days in the related purchaser's average collection period (as determined under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2) of this section) for sales of property within the same product group sold in the ordinary course of business to unrelated persons located in the same foreign country; plus

        (ii) Ten (10) calendar days.

        (2) Interest-free period. The interest-free period under this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E), however, shall in no event exceed 183 days. The related purchaser does not have to conduct business outside the United States in order to be eligible to use the interest-free period of this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E). The interest-free period under this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E) shall not apply to intercompany trade receivables attributable to property which is manufactured, produced, or constructed (within the meaning of [§ 1.954-3(a)(4)](/cfr/26/1.954-3.md?p=a-4)) by the related purchaser. For purposes of this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E) a product group includes all products within the same three-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code (as prepared by the Statistical Policy Division of the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.)

        (3) Average collection period. An average collection period for purposes of this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E) is determined as follows—

        (i) Step 1. Determine total sales (less returns and allowances) by the related purchaser in the product group to unrelated persons located in the same foreign country during the related purchaser's last taxable year ending on or before the first day of the related seller's taxable year in which the intercompany trade receivable arises.

        (ii) Step 2. Determine the related purchaser's average month-end accounts receivable balance with respect to sales described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(i) of this section for the related purchaser's last taxable year ending on or before the first day of the related seller's taxable year in which the intercompany trade receivable arises.

        (iii) Step 3. Compute a receivables turnover rate by dividing the total sales amount described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(i) of this section by the average receivables balance described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(ii) of this section.

        (iv) Step 4. Divide the receivables turnover rate determined under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(iii) of this section into 365, and round the result to the nearest whole number to determine the number of days in the average collection period.

        (v) Other considerations. If the related purchaser makes sales in more than one foreign country, or sells property in more than one product group in any foreign country, separate computations of an average collection period, by product group within each country, are required. If the related purchaser resells fungible property in more than one foreign country and the intercompany trade receivables arising from the related party purchase of such fungible property cannot reasonably be identified with resales in particular foreign countries, then solely for the purpose of assigning an interest-free period to such intercompany trade receivables under this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E), an amount of each such intercompany trade receivable shall be treated as allocable to a particular foreign country in the same proportion that the related purchaser's sales of such fungible property in such foreign country during the period described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(i) of this section bears to the related purchaser's sales of all such fungible property in all such foreign countries during such period. An interest-free period under this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E) shall not apply to any intercompany trade receivables arising in a taxable year of the related seller if the related purchaser made no sales described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)(2)(i) of this section from which the appropriate interest-free period may be determined.

        (4) Illustration. The interest-free period provided under [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E) of this section may be illustrated by the following example:

    - (iii) **Interest-free period.** Accordingly, for intercompany trade receivables incurred by X during Y's 1988 calendar taxable year attributable to the purchase of property from Y for resale to unrelated persons located in country Z and included in the product group, X may use an interest-free period of 175 days (165 days in the average collection period plus 10 days, but not in excess of a maximum of 183 days). All other intercompany trade receivables incurred by X are subject to the interest-free periods described in [paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)](#a-1-iii) (B), (C), or (D), whichever are applicable. If X makes sales in other foreign countries in addition to country Z or makes sales of property in more than one product group in any foreign country, separate computations of X's average collection period, by product group within each country, are required in order for X and Y to determine an interest-free period for such product groups in such foreign countries under this [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)](#a-1-iii-E).
    - (iv) **Payment; book entries—**
      - (A) Except as otherwise provided in this [paragraph (a)(1)(iv)](#a-1-iv), in determining the period of time for which an amount owed by one member of the group to another member is outstanding, payments or other credits to an account are considered to be applied against the earliest amount outstanding, that is, payments or credits are applied against amounts in a first-in, first-out (FIFO) order. Thus, tracing payments to individual intercompany trade receivables is generally not required in order to determine whether a particular intercompany trade receivable has been paid within the applicable interest-free period determined under [paragraph (a)(1)(iii)](#a-1-iii) of this section. The application of this [paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A)](#a-1-iv-A) may be illustrated by the following example:
      - (B) Notwithstanding the first-in, first-out payment application rule described in [paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A)](#a-1-iv-A) of this section, the taxpayer may apply payments or credits against amounts owed in some other order on its books in accordance with an agreement or understanding of the related parties if the taxpayer can demonstrate that either it or others in its industry, as a regular trade practice, enter into such agreements or understandings in the case of similar balances with unrelated parties.
  - (2) **Arm's length interest rate—**
    - (i) **In general.** For purposes of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and [paragraph (a)](#a) of this section, an arm's length rate of interest shall be a rate of interest which was charged, or would have been charged, at the time the indebtedness arose, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances. All relevant factors shall be considered, including the principal amount and duration of the loan, the security involved, the credit standing of the borrower, and the interest rate prevailing at the situs of the lender or creditor for comparable loans between unrelated parties.
    - (ii) **Funds obtained at situs of borrower.** Notwithstanding the other provisions of [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2) of this section, if the loan or advance represents the proceeds of a loan obtained by the lender at the situs of the borrower, the arm's length rate for any taxable year shall be equal to the rate actually paid by the lender increased by an amount which reflects the costs or deductions incurred by the lender in borrowing such amounts and making such loans, unless the taxpayer establishes a more appropriate rate under the standards set forth in [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i) of this section.
    - (iii) **Safe haven interest rates for certain loans and advances made after May 8, 1986—**
      - (A) **Applicability—** (1) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2) of this section, [paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B)](#a-2-iii-B) applies with respect to the rate of interest charged and to the amount of interest paid or accrued in any taxable year—

        (i) Under a term loan or advance between members of a group of controlled entities where (except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A)(2)(ii) of this section) the loan or advance is entered into after May 8, 1986; and

        (ii) After May 8, 1986 under a demand loan or advance between such controlled entities.

        (2) Grandfather rule for existing loans. The safe haven rates prescribed in [paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B)](#a-2-iii-B) of this section shall not apply, and the safe haven rates prescribed in [§ 1.482-2(a)(2)(iii)](#a-2-iii) ([26 CFR part 1](/cfr/26/part1.md) edition revised as of April 1, 1985), shall apply to—

        (i) Term loans or advances made before May 9, 1986; and

        (ii) Term loans or advances made before August 7, 1986, pursuant to a binding written contract entered into before May 9, 1986.

      - (B) **Safe haven interest rate based on applicable Federal rate.** Except as otherwise provided in this [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2), in the case of a loan or advance between members of a group of controlled entities, an arm's length rate of interest referred to in [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i) of this section shall be for purposes of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code—

        (1) The rate of interest actually charged if that rate is—

        (i) Not less than 100 percent of the applicable Federal rate (lower limit); and

        (ii) Not greater than 130 percent of the applicable Federal rate (upper limit); or

        (2) If either no interest is charged or if the rate of interest charged is less than the lower limit, then an arm's length rate of interest shall be equal to the lower limit, compounded semiannually; or

        (3) If the rate of interest charged is greater than the upper limit, then an arm's length rate of interest shall be equal to the upper limit, compounded semiannually, unless the taxpayer establishes a more appropriate compound rate of interest under [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i) of this section. However, if the compound rate of interest actually charged is greater than the upper limit and less than the rate determined under [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i) of this section, or if the compound rate actually charged is less than the lower limit and greater than the rate determined under [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i) of this section, then the compound rate actually charged shall be deemed to be an arm's length rate under [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i). In the case of any sale-leaseback described in [section 1274(e)](/cfr/26/1274.md?p=e), the lower limit shall be 110 percent of the applicable Federal rate, compounded semiannually.

      - (C) **Applicable Federal rate.** For purposes of [paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B)](#a-2-iii-B) of this section, the term applicable Federal rate means, in the case of a loan or advance to which this section applies and having a term of—

        (1) Not over 3 years, the Federal short-term rate;

        (2) Over 3 years but not over 9 years, the Federal mid-term rate; or

        (3) Over 9 years, the Federal long-term rate, as determined under [section 1274(d)](/cfr/26/1274.md?p=d) in effect on the date such loan or advance is made. In the case of any sale or exchange between controlled entities, the lower limit shall be the lowest of the applicable Federal rates in effect for any month in the 3-calendar- month period ending with the first calendar month in which there is a binding written contract in effect for such sale or exchange (lowest 3-month rate, as defined in [section 1274(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1274.md?p=d-2)). In the case of a demand loan or advance to which this section applies, the applicable Federal rate means the Federal short-term rate determined under [section 1274(d)](/cfr/26/1274.md?p=d) (determined without regard to the lowest 3-month short term rate determined under [section 1274(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1274.md?p=d-2)) in effect for each day on which any amount of such loan or advance (including unpaid accrued interest determined under [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2) of this section) is outstanding.

      - (D) **Lender in business of making loans.** If the lender in a loan or advance transaction to which [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2) of this section applies is regularly engaged in the trade or business of making loans or advances to unrelated parties, the safe haven rates prescribed in [paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B)](#a-2-iii-B) of this section shall not apply, and the arm's length interest rate to be used shall be determined under the standards described in [paragraph (a)(2)(i)](#a-2-i) of this section, including reference to the interest rates charged in such trade or business by the lender on loans or advances of a similar type made to unrelated parties at and about the time the loan or advance to which [paragraph (a)(2)](#a-2) of this section applies was made.
      - (E) **Foreign currency loans.** The safe haven interest rates prescribed in [paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B)](#a-2-iii-B) of this section do not apply to any loan or advance the principal or interest of which is expressed in a currency other than U.S. dollars.
  - (3) **Coordination with interest adjustments required under certain other Code sections.** If the stated rate of interest on the stated principal amount of a loan or advance between controlled entities is subject to adjustment under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and is also subject to adjustment under any other section of the Internal Revenue Code (for example, section [467](/cfr/26/467.md), [483](/cfr/26/483.md), [1274](/cfr/26/1274.md) or [7872](/cfr/26/7872.md)), [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and [paragraph (a)](#a) of this section may be applied to such loan or advance in addition to such other Internal Revenue Code section. After the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1964, Pub. L. 98-369, and the enactment of Pub. L. 99-121, such other Internal Revenue Code sections include sections [467](/cfr/26/467.md), [483](/cfr/26/483.md), [1274](/cfr/26/1274.md) and [7872](/cfr/26/7872.md). The order in which the different provisions shall be applied is as follows—
    - (i) First, the substance of the transaction shall be determined; for this purpose, all the relevant facts and circumstances shall be considered and any law or rule of law (assignment of income, step transaction, etc.) may apply. Only the rate of interest with respect to the stated principal amount of the bona fide indebtedness (within the meaning of [paragraph (a)(1)](#a-1) of this section), if any, shall be subject to adjustment under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md), [paragraph (a)](#a) of this section, and any other Internal Revenue Code section.
    - (ii) Second, the other Internal Revenue Code section shall be applied to the loan or advance to determine whether any amount other than stated interest is to be treated as interest, and if so, to determine such amount according to the provisions of such other Internal Revenue Code section.
    - (iii) Third, whether or not the other Internal Revenue Code section applies to adjust the amounts treated as interest under such loan or advance, [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and [paragraph (a)](#a) of this section may then be applied by the district director to determine whether the rate of interest charged on the loan or advance, as adjusted by any other Code section, is greater or less than an arm's length rate of interest, and if so, to make appropriate allocations to reflect an arm's length rate of interest.
    - (iv) Fourth, [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) and [paragraphs (b) through (d)](#b..d) of this section and [§§ 1.482-3 through 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-3..1.482-7.md), if applicable, may be applied by the district director to make any appropriate allocations, other than an interest rate adjustment, to reflect an arm's length transaction based upon the principal amount of the loan or advance and the interest rate as adjusted under [paragraph (a)(3)](#a-3) (i), (ii) or (iii) of this section. For example, assume that two commonly controlled taxpayers enter into a deferred payment sale of tangible property and no interest is provided, and assume also that [section 483](/cfr/26/483.md) is applied to treat a portion of the stated sales price as interest, thereby reducing the stated sales price. If after this recharacterization of a portion of the stated sales price as interest, the recomputed sales price does not reflect an arm's length sales price under the principles of [§ 1.482-3](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md), the district director may make other appropriate allocations (other than an interest rate adjustment) to reflect an arm's length sales price.
  - (4) **Examples.** The principles of [paragraph (a)(3)](#a-3) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
- (b) **Rendering of services.** For rules governing allocations under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) to reflect an arm's length charge for controlled transactions involving the rendering of services, see [§ 1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md).
- (c) **Use of tangible property—**
  - (1) **General rule.** Where possession, use, or occupancy of tangible property owned or leased by one member of a group of controlled entities (referred to in this paragraph as the owner) is transferred by lease or other arrangement to another member of such group (referred to in this paragraph as the user) without charge or at a charge which is not equal to an arm's length rental charge (as defined in [paragraph (c)(2)(i)](#c-2-i) of this section) the district director may make appropriate allocations to properly reflect such arm's length charge. Where possession, use, or occupancy of only a portion of such property is transferred, the determination of the arm's length charge and the allocation shall be made with reference to the portion transferred.
  - (2) **Arm's length charge—**
    - (i) **In general.** For purposes of [paragraph (c)](#c) of this section, an arm's length rental charge shall be the amount of rent which was charged, or would have been charged for the use of the same or similar property, during the time it was in use, in independent transactions with or between unrelated parties under similar circumstances considering the period and location of the use, the owner's investment in the property or rent paid for the property, expenses of maintaining the property, the type of property involved, its condition, and all other relevant facts.
    - (ii) **Safe haven rental charge.** See [§ 1.482-2(c)(2)(ii)](#c-2-ii) ([26 CFR Part 1](/cfr/26/part1.md) revised as of April 1, 1985), for the determination of safe haven rental charges in the case of certain leases entered into before May 9, 1986, and for leases entered into before August 7, 1986, pursuant to a binding written contract entered into before May 9, 1986.
    - (iii) **Subleases—**
      - (A) Except as provided in [paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B)](#c-2-iii-B) of this section, where possession, use, or occupancy of tangible property, which is leased by the owner (lessee) from an unrelated party is transferred by sublease or other arrangement to the user, an arm's length rental charge shall be considered to be equal to all the deductions claimed by the owner (lessee) which are attributable to the property for the period such property is used by the user. Where only a portion of such property was transferred, any allocations shall be made with reference to the portion transferred. The deductions to be considered include the rent paid or accrued by the owner (lessee) during the period of use and all other deductions directly and indirectly connected with the property paid or accrued by the owner (lessee) during such period. Such deductions include deductions for maintenance and repair, utilities, management and other similar deductions.
      - (B) The provisions of [paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A)](#c-2-iii-A) of this section shall not apply if either—

        (1) The taxpayer establishes a more appropriate rental charge under the general rule set forth in [paragraph (c)(2)(i)](#c-2-i) of this section; or

        (2) During the taxable year, the owner (lessee) or the user was regularly engaged in the trade or business of renting property of the same general type as the property in question to unrelated persons.

- (d) **Transfer of property.** For rules governing allocations under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) to reflect an arm's length consideration for controlled transactions involving the transfer of property, see [§§ 1.482-3 through 1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-3..1.482-6.md).
- (e) **Cost sharing arrangement.** For rules governing allocations under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) to reflect an arm's length consideration for controlled transactions involving a cost sharing arrangement, see [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md).
- (f) **Effective/applicability date—**
  - (1) **In general.** The provision of [paragraph (b)](#b) of this section is generally applicable for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006. The provision of [paragraph (e)](#e) of this section is generally applicable on January 5, 2009.
  - (2) **Election to apply paragraph (b) to earlier taxable years.** A person may elect to apply the provisions of [paragraph (b)](#b) of this section to earlier taxable years in accordance with the rules set forth in [§ 1.482-9(n)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=n-2).

# §1.482-3. Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a transfer of tangible property.

- (a) **In general.** The arm's length amount charged in a controlled transfer of tangible property must be determined under one of the six methods listed in this [paragraph (a)](#a). Each of the methods must be applied in accordance with all of the provisions of [§ 1.482-1](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md), including the best method rule of [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c), the comparability analysis of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d), and the arm's length range of [§ 1.482-1(e)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e). The methods are—
  - (1) The comparable uncontrolled price method, described in [paragraph (b)](#b) of this section;
  - (2) The resale price method, described in [paragraph (c)](#c) of this section;
  - (3) The cost plus method, described in [paragraph (d)](#d) of this section;
  - (4) The comparable profits method, described in [§ 1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md);
  - (5) The profit split method, described in [§ 1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-6.md); and
  - (6) **Unspecified methods, described in paragraph (e) of this section.**
- (b) **Comparable uncontrolled price method—**
  - (1) **In general.** The comparable uncontrolled price method evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm's length by reference to the amount charged in a comparable uncontrolled transaction.
  - (2) **Comparability and reliability considerations—**
    - (i) **In general.** Whether results derived from applications of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm's length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). The application of these factors under the comparable uncontrolled price method is discussed in paragraph [(b)(2)(ii)](#b-2-ii) and [(iii)](#b-2-iii) of this section.
    - (ii) **Comparability—**
      - (A) **In general.** The degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions is determined by applying the provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d). Although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, similarity of products generally will have the greatest effect on comparability under this method. In addition, because even minor differences in contractual terms or economic conditions could materially affect the amount charged in an uncontrolled transaction, comparability under this method depends on close similarity with respect to these factors, or adjustments to account for any differences. The results derived from applying the comparable uncontrolled price method generally will be the most direct and reliable measure of an arm's length price for the controlled transaction if an uncontrolled transaction has no differences with the controlled transaction that would affect the price, or if there are only minor differences that have a definite and reasonably ascertainable effect on price and for which appropriate adjustments are made. If such adjustments cannot be made, or if there are more than minor differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, the comparable uncontrolled price method may be used, but the reliability of the results as a measure of the arm's length price will be reduced. Further, if there are material product differences for which reliable adjustments cannot be made, this method ordinarily will not provide a reliable measure of an arm's length result.
      - (B) **Adjustments for differences between controlled and uncontrolled transactions.** If there are differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions that would affect price, adjustments should be made to the price of the uncontrolled transaction according to the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-2). Specific examples of the factors that may be particularly relevant to this method include—

        (1) Quality of the product;

        (2) Contractual terms (e.g., scope and terms of warranties provided, sales or purchase volume, credit terms, transport terms);

        (3) Level of the market (i.e., wholesale, retail, etc.);

        (4) Geographic market in which the transaction takes place;

        (5) Date of the transaction;

        (6) Intangible property associated with the sale;

        (7) Foreign currency risks; and

        (8) Alternatives realistically available to the buyer and seller.

    - (iii) **Data and assumptions.** The reliability of the results derived from the comparable uncontrolled price method is affected by the completeness and accuracy of the data used and the reliability of the assumptions made to apply the method. See [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c) (Best method rule).
  - (3) **Arm's length range.** See [§ 1.482-1(e)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e-2) for the determination of an arm's length range.
  - (4) **Examples.** The principles of this [paragraph (b)](#b) are illustrated by the following examples.
  - (5) **Indirect evidence of comparable uncontrolled transactions—**
    - (i) **In general.** A comparable uncontrolled price may be derived from data from public exchanges or quotation media, but only if the following requirements are met—
      - (A) The data is widely and routinely used in the ordinary course of business in the industry to negotiate prices for uncontrolled sales;
      - (B) The data derived from public exchanges or quotation media is used to set prices in the controlled transaction in the same way it is used by uncontrolled taxpayers in the industry; and
      - (C) The amount charged in the controlled transaction is adjusted to reflect differences in product quality and quantity, contractual terms, transportation costs, market conditions, risks borne, and other factors that affect the price that would be agreed to by uncontrolled taxpayers.
    - (ii) **Limitation.** Use of data from public exchanges or quotation media may not be appropriate under extraordinary market conditions.
    - (iii) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate this [paragraph (b)(5)](#b-5).
- (c) **Resale price method—**
  - (1) **In general.** The resale price method evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm's length by reference to the gross profit margin realized in comparable uncontrolled transactions. The resale price method measures the value of functions performed, and is ordinarily used in cases involving the purchase and resale of tangible property in which the reseller has not added substantial value to the tangible goods by physically altering the goods before resale. For this purpose, packaging, repackaging, labelling, or minor assembly do not ordinarily constitute physical alteration. Further the resale price method is not ordinarily used in cases where the controlled taxpayer uses its intangible property to add substantial value to the tangible goods.
  - (2) **Determination of arm's length price—**
    - (i) **In general.** The resale price method measures an arm's length price by subtracting the appropriate gross profit from the applicable resale price for the property involved in the controlled transaction under review.
    - (ii) **Applicable resale price.** The applicable resale price is equal to either the resale price of the particular item of property involved or the price at which contemporaneous resales of the same property are made. If the property purchased in the controlled sale is resold to one or more related parties in a series of controlled sales before being resold in an uncontrolled sale, the applicable resale price is the price at which the property is resold to an uncontrolled party, or the price at which contemporaneous resales of the same property are made. In such case, the determination of the appropriate gross profit will take into account the functions of all members of the group participating in the series of controlled sales and final uncontrolled resales, as well as any other relevant factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3).
    - (iii) **Appropriate gross profit.** The appropriate gross profit is computed by multiplying the applicable resale price by the gross profit margin (expressed as a percentage of total revenue derived from sales) earned in comparable uncontrolled transactions.
    - (iv) **Arm's length range.** See [§ 1.482-1(e)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e-2) for determination of the arm's length range.
  - (3) **Comparability and reliability considerations—**
    - (i) **In general.** Whether results derived from applications of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm's length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). The application of these factors under the resale price method is discussed in [paragraphs (c)(3)](#c-3) (ii) and (iii) of this section.
    - (ii) **Comparability—**
      - (A) **Functional comparability.** The degree of comparability between an uncontrolled transaction and a controlled transaction is determined by applying the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d). A reseller's gross profit provides compensation for the performance of resale functions related to the product or products under review, including an operating profit in return for the reseller's investment of capital and the assumption of risks. Therefore, although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, comparability under this method is particularly dependent on similarity of functions performed, risks borne, and contractual terms, or adjustments to account for the effects of any such differences. If possible, appropriate gross profit margins should be derived from comparable uncontrolled purchases and resales of the reseller involved in the controlled sale, because similar characteristics are more likely to be found among different resales of property made by the same reseller than among sales made by other resellers. In the absence of comparable uncontrolled transactions involving the same reseller, an appropriate gross profit margin may be derived from comparable uncontrolled transactions of other resellers.
      - (B) **Other comparability factors.** Comparability under this method is less dependent on close physical similarity between the products transferred than under the comparable uncontrolled price method. For example, distributors of a wide variety of consumer durables might perform comparable distribution functions without regard to the specific durable goods distributed. Substantial differences in the products may, however, indicate significant functional differences between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. Thus, it ordinarily would be expected that the controlled and uncontrolled transactions would involve the distribution of products of the same general type (e.g., consumer electronics). Furthermore, significant differences in the value of the distributed goods due, for example, to the value of a trademark, may also affect the reliability of the comparison. Finally, the reliability of profit measures based on gross profit may be adversely affected by factors that have less effect on prices. For example, gross profit may be affected by a variety of other factors, including cost structures (as reflected, for example, in the age of plant and equipment), business experience (such as whether the business is in a start-up phase or is mature), or management efficiency (as indicated, for example, by expanding or contracting sales or executive compensation over time). Accordingly, if material differences in these factors are identified based on objective evidence, the reliability of the analysis may be affected.
      - (C) **Adjustments for differences between controlled and uncontrolled transactions.** If there are material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions that would affect the gross profit margin, adjustments should be made to the gross profit margin earned with respect to the uncontrolled transaction according to the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-2). For this purpose, consideration of operating expenses associated with functions performed and risks assumed may be necessary, because differences in functions performed are often reflected in operating expenses. If there are differences in functions performed, however, the effect on gross profit of such differences is not necessarily equal to the differences in the amount of related operating expenses. Specific examples of the factors that may be particularly relevant to this method include—

        (1) Inventory levels and turnover rates, and corresponding risks, including any price protection programs offered by the manufacturer;

        (2) Contractual terms (e.g., scope and terms of warranties provided, sales or purchase volume, credit terms, transport terms);

        (3) Sales, marketing, advertising programs and services, (including promotional programs, rebates, and co-op advertising);

        (4) The level of the market (e.g., wholesale, retail, etc.); and

        (5) Foreign currency risks.

      - (D) **Sales agent.** If the controlled taxpayer is comparable to a sales agent that does not take title to goods or otherwise assume risks with respect to ownership of such goods, the commission earned by such sales agent, expressed as a percentage of the uncontrolled sales price of the goods involved, may be used as the comparable gross profit margin.
    - (iii) **Data and assumptions—**
      - (A) **In general.** The reliability of the results derived from the resale price method is affected by the completeness and accuracy of the data used and the reliability of the assumptions made to apply this method. See [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c) (Best method rule).
      - (B) **Consistency in accounting.** The degree of consistency in accounting practices between the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables that materially affect the gross profit margin affects the reliability of the result. Thus, for example, if differences in inventory and other cost accounting practices would materially affect the gross profit margin, the ability to make reliable adjustments for such differences would affect the reliability of the results. Further, the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparable should be consistent in the reporting of items (such as discounts, returns and allowances, rebates, transportation costs, insurance, and packaging) between cost of goods sold and operating expenses.
  - (4) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the principles of this [paragraph (c)](#c).
- (d) **Cost plus method—**
  - (1) **In general.** The cost plus method evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm's length by reference to the gross profit markup realized in comparable uncontrolled transactions. The cost plus method is ordinarily used in cases involving the manufacture, assembly, or other production of goods that are sold to related parties.
  - (2) **Determination of arm's length price—**
    - (i) **In general.** The cost plus method measures an arm's length price by adding the appropriate gross profit to the controlled taxpayer's costs of producing the property involved in the controlled transaction.
    - (ii) **Appropriate gross profit.** The appropriate gross profit is computed by multiplying the controlled taxpayer's cost of producing the transferred property by the gross profit markup, expressed as a percentage of cost, earned in comparable uncontrolled transactions.
    - (iii) **Arm's length range.** See [§ 1.482-1(e)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e-2) for determination of an arm's length range.
  - (3) **Comparability and reliability considerations—**
    - (i) **In general.** Whether results derived from the application of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm's length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c).
    - (ii) **Comparability—**
      - (A) **Functional comparability.** The degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions is determined by applying the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d). A producer's gross profit provides compensation for the performance of the production functions related to the product or products under review, including an operating profit for the producer's investment of capital and assumption of risks. Therefore, although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, comparability under this method is particularly dependent on similarity of functions performed, risks borne, and contractual terms, or adjustments to account for the effects of any such differences. If possible, the appropriate gross profit markup should be derived from comparable uncontrolled transactions of the taxpayer involved in the controlled sale, because similar characteristics are more likely to be found among sales of property by the same producer than among sales by other producers. In the absence of such sales, an appropriate gross profit markup may be derived from comparable uncontrolled sales of other producers whether or not such producers are members of the same controlled group.
      - (B) **Other comparability factors.** Comparability under this method is less dependent on close physical similarity between the products transferred than under the comparable uncontrolled price method. Substantial differences in the products may, however, indicate significant functional differences between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. Thus, it ordinarily would be expected that the controlled and uncontrolled transactions involve the production of goods within the same product categories. Furthermore, significant differences in the value of the products due, for example, to the value of a trademark, may also affect the reliability of the comparison. Finally, the reliability of profit measures based on gross profit may be adversely affected by factors that have less effect on prices. For example, gross profit may be affected by a variety of other factors, including cost structures (as reflected, for example, in the age of plant and equipment), business experience (such as whether the business is in a start-up phase or is mature), or management efficiency (as indicated, for example, by expanding or contracting sales or executive compensation over time). Accordingly, if material differences in these factors are identified based on objective evidence, the reliability of the analysis may be affected.
      - (C) **Adjustments for differences between controlled and uncontrolled transactions.** If there are material differences between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions that would affect the gross profit markup, adjustments should be made to the gross profit markup earned in the comparable uncontrolled transaction according to the provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-2). For this purpose, consideration of the operating expenses associated with the functions performed and risks assumed may be necessary, because differences in functions performed are often reflected in operating expenses. If there are differences in functions performed, however, the effect on gross profit of such differences is not necessarily equal to the differences in the amount of related operating expenses. Specific examples of the factors that may be particularly relevant to this method include—

        (1) The complexity of manufacturing or assembly;

        (2) Manufacturing, production, and process engineering;

        (3) Procurement, purchasing, and inventory control activities;

        (4) Testing functions;

        (5) Selling, general, and administrative expenses;

        (6) Foreign currency risks; and

        (7) Contractual terms (e.g., scope and terms of warranties provided, sales or purchase volume, credit terms, transport terms).

      - (D) **Purchasing agent.** If a controlled taxpayer is comparable to a purchasing agent that does not take title to property or otherwise assume risks with respect to ownership of such goods, the commission earned by such purchasing agent, expressed as a percentage of the purchase price of the goods, may be used as the appropriate gross profit markup.
    - (iii) **Data and assumptions—**
      - (A) **In general.** The reliability of the results derived from the cost plus method is affected by the completeness and accuracy of the data used and the reliability of the assumptions made to apply this method. See [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c) (Best method rule).
      - (B) **Consistency in accounting.** The degree of consistency in accounting practices between the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables that materially affect the gross profit markup affects the reliability of the result. Thus, for example, if differences in inventory and other cost accounting practices would materially affect the gross profit markup, the ability to make reliable adjustments for such differences would affect the reliability of the results. Further, the controlled transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction should be consistent in the reporting of costs between cost of goods sold and operating expenses. The term cost of producing includes the cost of acquiring property that is held for resale.
  - (4) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the principles of this [paragraph (d)](#d).
- (e) **Unspecified methods—**
  - (1) **In general.** Methods not specified in paragraphs [(a)(1)](#a-1), [(2)](#a-2), [(3)](#a-3), [(4)](#a-4), and [(5)](#a-5) of this section may be used to evaluate whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm's length. Any method used under this [paragraph (e)](#e) must be applied in accordance with the provisions of [§ 1.482-1](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md). Consistent with the specified methods, an unspecified method should take into account the general principle that uncontrolled taxpayers evaluate the terms of a transaction by considering the realistic alternatives to that transaction, and only enter into a particular transaction if none of the alternatives is preferable to it. For example, the comparable uncontrolled price method compares a controlled transaction to similar uncontrolled transactions to provide a direct estimate of the price to which the parties would have agreed had they resorted directly to a market alternative to the controlled transaction. Therefore, in establishing whether a controlled transaction achieved an arm's length result, an unspecified method should provide information on the prices or profits that the controlled taxpayer could have realized by choosing a realistic alternative to the controlled transaction. As with any method, an unspecified method will not be applied unless it provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result under the principles of the best method rule. See [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). Therefore, in accordance with [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d) (Comparability), to the extent that a method relies on internal data rather than uncontrolled comparables, its reliability will be reduced. Similarly, the reliability of a method will be affected by the reliability of the data and assumptions used to apply the method, including any projections used.
  - (2) **Example.** The following example illustrates an application of the principle of this [paragraph (e)](#e).
- (f) **Coordination with intangible property rules.** The value of an item of tangible property may be affected by the value of intangible property, such as a trademark affixed to the tangible property (embedded intangible). Ordinarily, the transfer of tangible property with an embedded intangible will not be considered a transfer of such intangible if the controlled purchaser does not acquire any rights to exploit the intangible property other than rights relating to the resale of the tangible property under normal commercial practices. Pursuant to [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)(v)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3-v), however, the embedded intangible must be accounted for in evaluating the comparability of the controlled transaction and uncontrolled comparables. For example, because product comparability has the greatest effect on an application of the comparable uncontrolled price method, trademarked tangible property may be insufficiently comparable to unbranded tangible property to permit a reliable application of the comparable uncontrolled price method. The effect of embedded intangibles on comparability will be determined under the principles of [§ 1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md). If the transfer of tangible property conveys to the recipient a right to exploit an embedded intangible (other than in connection with the resale of that item of tangible property), it may be necessary to determine the arm's length consideration for such intangible separately from the tangible property, applying methods appropriate to determining the arm's length result for a transfer of intangible property under [§ 1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md). For example, if the transfer of a machine conveys the right to exploit a manufacturing process incorporated in the machine, then the arm's length consideration for the transfer of that right must be determined separately under [§ 1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md).

# §1.482-4. Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a transfer of intangible property.

- (a) **In general.** The arm's length amount charged in a controlled transfer of intangible property must be determined under one of the four methods listed in this [paragraph (a)](#a). Each of the methods must be applied in accordance with all of the provisions of [§ 1.482-1](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md), including the best method rule of [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c), the comparability analysis of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d), and the arm's length range of [§ 1.482-1(e)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e). The arm's length consideration for the transfer of an intangible determined under this section must be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible. See [§ 1.482-4(f)(2)](#f-2) (Periodic adjustments). The available methods are—
  - (1) The comparable uncontrolled transaction method, described in [paragraph (c)](#c) of this section;
  - (2) The comparable profits method, described in [§ 1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md);
  - (3) The profit split method, described in [§ 1.482-6](/cfr/26/1.482-6.md); and
  - (4) **Unspecified methods described in paragraph (d) of this section.**
- (b) **Definition of intangible.** For purposes of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md), an intangible is an asset that comprises any of the following items and has substantial value independent of the services of any individual—
  - (1) Patents, inventions, formulae, processes, designs, patterns, or know-how;
  - (2) Copyrights and literary, musical, or artistic compositions;
  - (3) Trademarks, trade names, or brand names;
  - (4) Franchises, licenses, or contracts;
  - (5) Methods, programs, systems, procedures, campaigns, surveys, studies, forecasts, estimates, customer lists, or technical data; and
  - (6) **Other similar items.** For purposes of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md), an item is considered similar to those listed in [paragraph (b)(1) through (5)](#b-1..b-5) of this section if it derives its value not from its physical attributes but from its intellectual content or other intangible properties.
- (c) **Comparable uncontrolled transaction method—**
  - (1) **In general.** The comparable uncontrolled transaction method evaluates whether the amount charged for a controlled transfer of intangible property was arm's length by reference to the amount charged in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. The amount determined under this method may be adjusted as required by [paragraph (f)(2)](#f-2) of this section (Periodic adjustments).
  - (2) **Comparability and reliability considerations—**
    - (i) **In general.** Whether results derived from applications of this method are the most reliable measure of an arm's length result is determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). The application of these factors under the comparable uncontrolled transaction method is discussed in paragraphs [(c)(2)(ii)](#c-2-ii), [(iii)](#c-2-iii), and [(iv)](#c-2-iv) of this section.
    - (ii) **Reliability.** If an uncontrolled transaction involves the transfer of the same intangible under the same, or substantially the same, circumstances as the controlled transaction, the results derived from applying the comparable uncontrolled transaction method will generally be the most direct and reliable measure of the arm's length result for the controlled transfer of an intangible. Circumstances between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions will be considered substantially the same if there are at most only minor differences that have a definite and reasonably ascertainable effect on the amount charged and for which appropriate adjustments are made. If such uncontrolled transactions cannot be identified, uncontrolled transactions that involve the transfer of comparable intangibles under comparable circumstances may be used to apply this method, but the reliability of the analysis will be reduced.
    - (iii) **Comparability—**
      - (A) **In general.** The degree of comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions is determined by applying the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d). Although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, specific factors may be particularly relevant to this method. In particular, the application of this method requires that the controlled and uncontrolled transactions involve either the same intangible property or comparable intangible property, as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) of this section. In addition, because differences in contractual terms, or the economic conditions in which transactions take place, could materially affect the amount charged, comparability under this method also depends on similarity with respect to these factors, or adjustments to account for material differences in such circumstances.
      - (B) **Factors to be considered in determining comparability—** (1) Comparable intangible property. In order for the intangible property involved in an uncontrolled transaction to be considered comparable to the intangible property involved in the controlled transaction, both intangibles must—

        (i) Be used in connection with similar products or processes within the same general industry or market; and

        (ii) Have similar profit potential. The profit potential of an intangible is most reliably measured by directly calculating the net present value of the benefits to be realized (based on prospective profits to be realized or costs to be saved) through the use or subsequent transfer of the intangible, considering the capital investment and start-up expenses required, the risks to be assumed, and other relevant considerations. The need to reliably measure profit potential increases in relation to both the total amount of potential profits and the potential rate of return on investment necessary to exploit the intangible. If the information necessary to directly calculate net present value of the benefits to be realized is unavailable, and the need to reliably measure profit potential is reduced because the potential profits are relatively small in terms of total amount and rate of return, comparison of profit potential may be based upon the factors referred to in paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B)(2) of this section. See Example 3 of [§ 1.482-4(c)(4)](#c-4). Finally, the reliability of a measure of profit potential is affected by the extent to which the profit attributable to the intangible can be isolated from the profit attributable to other factors, such as functions performed and other resources employed.

        (2) Comparable circumstances. In evaluating the comparability of the circumstances of the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, specific factors that may be particularly relevant to this method include the following—

        (i) The terms of the transfer, including the exploitation rights granted in the intangible, the exclusive or nonexclusive character of any rights granted, any restrictions on use, or any limitations on the geographic area in which the rights may be exploited;

        (ii) The stage of development of the intangible (including, where appropriate, necessary governmental approvals, authorizations, or licenses) in the market in which the intangible is to be used;

        (iii) Rights to receive updates, revisions, or modifications of the intangible;

        (iv) The uniqueness of the property and the period for which it remains unique, including the degree and duration of protection afforded to the property under the laws of the relevant countries;

        (v) The duration of the license, contract, or other agreement, and any termination or renegotiation rights;

        (vi) Any economic and product liability risks to be assumed by the transferee;

        (vii) The existence and extent of any collateral transactions or ongoing business relationships between the transferee and transferor; and

        (viii) The functions to be performed by the transferor and transferee, including any ancillary or subsidiary services.

    - (iv) **Data and assumptions.** The reliability of the results derived from the comparable uncontrolled transaction method is affected by the completeness and accuracy of the data used and the reliability of the assumptions made to apply this method. See [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c) (Best method rule).
  - (3) **Arm's length range.** See [§ 1.482-1(e)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e-2) for the determination of an arm's length range.
  - (4) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the principles of this [paragraph (c)](#c).
- (d) **Unspecified methods—**
  - (1) **In general.** Methods not specified in paragraphs [(a)(1)](#a-1), [(2)](#a-2), and [(3)](#a-3) of this section may be used to evaluate whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm's length. Any method used under this [paragraph (d)](#d) must be applied in accordance with the provisions of [§ 1.482-1](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md). Consistent with the specified methods, an unspecified method should take into account the general principle that uncontrolled taxpayers evaluate the terms of a transaction by considering the realistic alternatives to that transaction, and only enter into a particular transaction if none of the alternatives is preferable to it. For example, the comparable uncontrolled transaction method compares a controlled transaction to similar uncontrolled transactions to provide a direct estimate of the price the parties would have agreed to had they resorted directly to a market alternative to the controlled transaction. Therefore, in establishing whether a controlled transaction achieved an arm's length result, an unspecified method should provide information on the prices or profits that the controlled taxpayer could have realized by choosing a realistic alternative to the controlled transaction. As with any method, an unspecified method will not be applied unless it provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result under the principles of the best method rule. See [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). Therefore, in accordance with [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d) (Comparability), to the extent that a method relies on internal data rather than uncontrolled comparables, its reliability will be reduced. Similarly, the reliability of a method will be affected by the reliability of the data and assumptions used to apply the method, including any projections used.
  - (2) **Example.** The following example illustrates an application of the principle of this [paragraph (d)](#d).
- (e) **Coordination with tangible property rules.** See [§ 1.482-3(f)](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md?p=f) for the provisions regarding the coordination between the tangible property and intangible property rules.
- (f) **Special rules for transfers of intangible property—**
  - (1) **Form of consideration.** If a transferee of an intangible pays nominal or no consideration and the transferor has retained a substantial interest in the property, the arm's length consideration shall be in the form of a royalty, unless a different form is demonstrably more appropriate.
  - (2) **Periodic adjustments—**
    - (i) **General rule.** If an intangible is transferred under an arrangement that covers more than one year, the consideration charged in each taxable year may be adjusted to ensure that it is commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible. Adjustments made pursuant to this [paragraph (f)(2)](#f-2) shall be consistent with the arm's length standard and the provisions of [§ 1.482-1](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md). In determining whether to make such adjustments in the taxable year under examination, the district director may consider all relevant facts and circumstances throughout the period the intangible is used. The determination in an earlier year that the amount charged for an intangible was an arm's length amount will not preclude the district director in a subsequent taxable year from making an adjustment to the amount charged for the intangible in the subsequent year. A periodic adjustment under the commensurate with income requirement of [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) may be made in a subsequent taxable year without regard to whether the taxable year of the original transfer remains open for statute of limitation purposes. For exceptions to this rule see [paragraph (f)(2)(ii)](#f-2-ii) of this section.
    - (ii) **Exceptions—**
      - (A) **Transactions involving the same intangible.** If the same intangible was transferred to an uncontrolled taxpayer under substantially the same circumstances as those of the controlled transaction; this transaction serves as the basis for the application of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method in the first taxable year in which substantial periodic consideration was required to be paid; and the amount paid in that year was an arm's length amount, then no allocation in a subsequent year will be made under [paragraph (f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) of this paragraph for a controlled transfer of intangible property.
      - (B) **Transactions involving comparable intangible.** If the arm's length result is derived from the application of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method based on the transfer of a comparable intangible under comparable circumstances to those of the controlled transaction, no allocation will be made under [paragraph (f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) of this section if each of the following facts is established—

        (1) The controlled taxpayers entered into a written agreement (controlled agreement) that provided for an amount of consideration with respect to each taxable year subject to such agreement, such consideration was an arm's length amount for the first taxable year in which substantial periodic consideration was required to be paid under the agreement, and such agreement remained in effect for the taxable year under review;

        (2) There is a written agreement setting forth the terms of the comparable uncontrolled transaction relied upon to establish the arm's length consideration (uncontrolled agreement), which contains no provisions that would permit any change to the amount of consideration, a renegotiation, or a termination of the agreement, in circumstances comparable to those of the controlled transaction in the taxable year under review (or that contains provisions permitting only specified, non-contingent, periodic changes to the amount of consideration);

        (3) The controlled agreement is substantially similar to the uncontrolled agreement, with respect to the time period for which it is effective and the provisions described in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B)(2) of this section;

        (4) The controlled agreement limits use of the intangible to a specified field or purpose in a manner that is consistent with industry practice and any such limitation in the uncontrolled agreement;

        (5) There were no substantial changes in the functions performed by the controlled transferee after the controlled agreement was executed, except changes required by events that were not foreseeable; and

        (6) The aggregate profits actually earned or the aggregate cost savings actually realized by the controlled taxpayer from the exploitation of the intangible in the year under examination, and all past years, are not less than 80% nor more than 120% of the prospective profits or cost savings that were foreseeable when the comparability of the uncontrolled agreement was established under [paragraph (c)(2)](#c-2) of this section.

      - (C) **Methods other than comparable uncontrolled transaction.** If the arm's length amount was determined under any method other than the comparable uncontrolled transaction method, no allocation will be made under [paragraph (f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) of this section if each of the following facts is established—

        (1) The controlled taxpayers entered into a written agreement (controlled agreement) that provided for an amount of consideration with respect to each taxable year subject to such agreement, and such agreement remained in effect for the taxable year under review;

        (2) The consideration called for in the controlled agreement was an arm's length amount for the first taxable year in which substantial periodic consideration was required to be paid, and relevant supporting documentation was prepared contemporaneously with the execution of the controlled agreement;

        (3) There have been no substantial changes in the functions performed by the transferee since the controlled agreement was executed, except changes required by events that were not foreseeable; and

        (4) The total profits actually earned or the total cost savings realized by the controlled transferee from the exploitation of the intangible in the year under examination, and all past years, are not less than 80% nor more than 120% of the prospective profits or cost savings that were foreseeable when the controlled agreement was entered into.

      - (D) **Extraordinary events.** No allocation will be made under [paragraph (f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) of this section if the following requirements are met—

        (1) Due to extraordinary events that were beyond the control of the controlled taxpayers and that could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time the controlled agreement was entered into, the aggregate actual profits or aggregate cost savings realized by the taxpayer are less than 80% or more than 120% of the prospective profits or cost savings; and

        (2) All of the requirements of [paragraph (f)(2)(ii)](#f-2-ii) (B) or (C) of this section are otherwise satisfied.

      - (E) **Five-year period.** If the requirements of § [1.482-4 (f)(2)(ii)(B)](#f-2-ii-B) or [(f)(2)(ii)(C)](#f-2-ii-C) are met for each year of the five-year period beginning with the first year in which substantial periodic consideration was required to be paid, then no periodic adjustment will be made under [paragraph (f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) of this section in any subsequent year.
    - (iii) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate this [paragraph (f)(2)](#f-2).
  - (3) **Ownership of intangible property—**
    - (i) **Identification of owner—**
      - (A) **In general.** The legal owner of intangible property pursuant to the intellectual property law of the relevant jurisdiction, or the holder of rights constituting an intangible property pursuant to contractual terms (such as the terms of a license) or other legal provision, will be considered the sole owner of the respective intangible property for purposes of this section unless such ownership is inconsistent with the economic substance of the underlying transactions. See [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3-ii-B) (identifying contractual terms). If no owner of the respective intangible property is identified under the intellectual property law of the relevant jurisdiction, or pursuant to contractual terms (including terms imputed pursuant to [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3-ii-B)) or other legal provision, then the controlled taxpayer who has control of the intangible property, based on all the facts and circumstances, will be considered the sole owner of the intangible property for purposes of this section.
      - (B) **Cost sharing arrangements.** The rules in this [paragraph (f)(3)](#f-3) regarding ownership with respect to cost shared intangibles and cost sharing arrangements will apply only as provided in [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md).
    - (ii) **Examples.** The principles of this [paragraph (f)(3)](#f-3) are illustrated by the following examples:
  - (4) **Contribution to the value of intangible property owned by another—**
    - (i) **In general.** The arm's length consideration for a contribution by one controlled taxpayer that develops or enhances the value, or may be reasonably anticipated to develop or enhance the value, of intangible property owned by another controlled taxpayer will be determined in accordance with the applicable rules under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md). If the consideration for such a contribution is embedded within the contractual terms for a controlled transaction that involves such intangible property, then ordinarily no separate allocation will be made with respect to such contribution. In such cases, pursuant to [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3), the contribution must be accounted for in evaluating the comparability of the controlled transaction to uncontrolled comparables, and accordingly in determining the arm's length consideration in the controlled transaction.
    - (ii) **Examples.** The principles of this [paragraph (f)(4)](#f-4) are illustrated by the following examples:
  - (5) **Consideration not artificially limited.** The arm's length consideration for the controlled transfer of an intangible is not limited by the consideration paid in any uncontrolled transactions that do not meet the requirements of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method described in [paragraph (c)](#c) of this section. Similarly, the arm's length consideration for an intangible is not limited by the prevailing rates of consideration paid for the use or transfer of intangibles within the same or similar industry.
  - (6) **Lump sum payments—**
    - (i) **In general.** If an intangible is transferred in a controlled transaction for a lump sum, that amount must be commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible. A lump sum is commensurate with income in a taxable year if the equivalent royalty amount for that taxable year is equal to an arm's length royalty. The equivalent royalty amount for a taxable year is the amount determined by treating the lump sum as an advance payment of a stream of royalties over the useful life of the intangible (or the period covered by an agreement, if shorter), taking into account the projected sales of the licensee as of the date of the transfer. Thus, determining the equivalent royalty amount requires a present value calculation based on the lump sum, an appropriate discount rate, and the projected sales over the relevant period. The equivalent royalty amount is subject to periodic adjustments under [§ 1.482-4(f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) to the same extent as an actual royalty payment pursuant to a license agreement.
    - (ii) **Exceptions.** No periodic adjustment will be made under [paragraph (f)(2)(i)](#f-2-i) of this section if any of the exceptions to periodic adjustments provided in [paragraph (f)(2)(ii)](#f-2-ii) of this section apply.
    - (iii) **Example.** The following example illustrates the principle of this [paragraph (f)(5)](#f-5).
- (g) **Coordination with rules governing cost sharing arrangements.** [Section 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md) provides the specific methods to be used to determine arm's length results of controlled transactions in connection with a cost sharing arrangement. This section provides the specific methods to be used to determine arm's length results of a transfer of intangible property, including in an arrangement for sharing the costs and risks of developing intangibles other than a cost sharing arrangement covered by [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md). In the case of such an arrangement, consideration of the principles, methods, comparability, and reliability considerations set forth in [§ 1.482-7](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md) is relevant in determining the best method, including an unspecified method, under this section, as appropriately adjusted in light of the differences in the facts and circumstances between such arrangement and a cost sharing arrangement.
- (h) **Effective/applicability date—**
  - (1) **In general.** Except as provided in the succeeding sentence, the provisions of paragraphs [(f)(3)](#f-3) and [(4)](#f-4) of this section are generally applicable for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006. The provisions of paragraphs [(f)(3)(i)(B)](#f-3-i-B) and (g) of this section are generally applicable on January 5, 2009.
  - (2) **Election to apply regulation to earlier taxable years.** A person may elect to apply the provisions of paragraphs [(f)(3)](#f-3) and [(4)](#f-4) of this section to earlier taxable years in accordance with the rules set forth in [§ 1.482-9(n)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=n-2).

# §1.482-5. Comparable profits method.

- (a) **In general.** The comparable profits method evaluates whether the amount charged in a controlled transaction is arm's length based on objective measures of profitability (profit level indicators) derived from uncontrolled taxpayers that engage in similar business activities under similar circumstances.
- (b) **Determination of arm's length result—**
  - (1) **In general.** Under the comparable profits method, the determination of an arm's length result is based on the amount of operating profit that the tested party would have earned on related party transactions if its profit level indicator were equal to that of an uncontrolled comparable (comparable operating profit). Comparable operating profit is calculated by determining a profit level indicator for an uncontrolled comparable, and applying the profit level indicator to the financial data related to the tested party's most narrowly identifiable business activity for which data incorporating the controlled transaction is available (relevant business activity). To the extent possible, profit level indicators should be applied solely to the tested party's financial data that is related to controlled transactions. The tested party's reported operating profit is compared to the comparable operating profits derived from the profit level indicators of uncontrolled comparables to determine whether the reported operating profit represents an arm's length result.
  - (2) **Tested party—**
    - (i) **In general.** For purposes of this section, the tested party will be the participant in the controlled transaction whose operating profit attributable to the controlled transactions can be verified using the most reliable data and requiring the fewest and most reliable adjustments, and for which reliable data regarding uncontrolled comparables can be located. Consequently, in most cases the tested party will be the least complex of the controlled taxpayers and will not own valuable intangible property or unique assets that distinguish it from potential uncontrolled comparables.
    - (ii) **Adjustments for tested party.** The tested party's operating profit must first be adjusted to reflect all other allocations under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md), other than adjustments pursuant to this section.
  - (3) **Arm's length range.** See [§ 1.482-1(e)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=e-2) for the determination of the arm's length range. For purposes of the comparable profits method, the arm's length range will be established using comparable operating profits derived from a single profit level indicator.
  - (4) **Profit level indicators.** Profit level indicators are ratios that measure relationships between profits and costs incurred or resources employed. A variety of profit level indicators can be calculated in any given case. Whether use of a particular profit level indicator is appropriate depends upon a number of factors, including the nature of the activities of the tested party, the reliability of the available data with respect to uncontrolled comparables, and the extent to which the profit level indicator is likely to produce a reliable measure of the income that the tested party would have earned had it dealt with controlled taxpayers at arm's length, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances. The profit level indicators should be derived from a sufficient number of years of data to reasonably measure returns that accrue to uncontrolled comparables. Generally, such a period should encompass at least the taxable year under review and the preceding two taxable years. This analysis must be applied in accordance with [§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(iii)(D)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=f-2-iii-D). Profit level indicators that may provide a reliable basis for comparing operating profits of the tested party and uncontrolled comparables include the following—
    - (i) **Rate of return on capital employed.** The rate of return on capital employed is the ratio of operating profit to operating assets. The reliability of this profit level indicator increases as operating assets play a greater role in generating operating profits for both the tested party and the uncontrolled comparable. In addition, reliability under this profit level indicator depends on the extent to which the composition of the tested party's assets is similar to that of the uncontrolled comparable. Finally, difficulties in properly valuing operating assets will diminish the reliability of this profit level indicator.
    - (ii) **Financial ratios.** Financial ratios measure relationships between profit and costs or sales revenue. Since functional differences generally have a greater effect on the relationship between profit and costs or sales revenue than the relationship between profit and operating assets, financial ratios are more sensitive to functional differences than the rate of return on capital employed. Therefore, closer functional comparability normally is required under a financial ratio than under the rate of return on capital employed to achieve a similarly reliable measure of an arm's length result. Financial ratios that may be appropriate include the following—
      - (A) Ratio of operating profit to sales; and
      - (B) **Ratio of gross profit to operating expenses.** Reliability under this profit level indicator also depends on the extent to which the composition of the tested party's operating expenses is similar to that of the uncontrolled comparables.
    - (iii) **Other profit level indicators.** Other profit level indicators not described in this [paragraph (b)(4)](#b-4) may be used if they provide reliable measures of the income that the tested party would have earned had it dealt with controlled taxpayers at arm's length. However, profit level indicators based solely on internal data may not be used under this [paragraph (b)(4)](#b-4) because they are not objective measures of profitability derived from operations of uncontrolled taxpayers engaged in similar business activities under similar circumstances.
- (c) **Comparability and reliability considerations—**
  - (1) **In general.** Whether results derived from application of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm's length result must be determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c).
  - (2) **Comparability—**
    - (i) **In general.** The degree of comparability between an uncontrolled taxpayer and the tested party is determined by applying the provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-2). The comparable profits method compares the profitability of the tested party, measured by a profit level indicator (generally based on operating profit), to the profitability of uncontrolled taxpayers in similar circumstances. As with all methods that rely on external market benchmarks, the greater the degree of comparability between the tested party and the uncontrolled taxpayer, the more reliable will be the results derived from the application of this method. The determination of the degree of comparability between the tested party and the uncontrolled taxpayer depends upon all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the relevant lines of business, the product or service markets involved, the asset composition employed (including the nature and quantity of tangible assets, intangible assets and working capital), the size and scope of operations, and the stage in a business or product cycle.
    - (ii) **Functional, risk and resource comparability.** An operating profit represents a return for the investment of resources and assumption of risks. Therefore, although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, comparability under this method is particularly dependent on resources employed and risks assumed. Moreover, because resources and risks usually are directly related to functions performed, it is also important to consider functions performed in determining the degree of comparability between the tested party and an uncontrolled taxpayer. The degree of functional comparability required to obtain a reliable result under the comparable profits method, however, is generally less than that required under the resale price or cost plus methods. For example, because differences in functions performed often are reflected in operating expenses, taxpayers performing different functions may have very different gross profit margins but earn similar levels of operating profit.
    - (iii) **Other comparability factors.** Other factors listed in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) also may be particularly relevant under the comparable profits method. Because operating profit usually is less sensitive than gross profit to product differences, reliability under the comparable profits method is not as dependent on product similarity as the resale price or cost plus method. However, the reliability of profitability measures based on operating profit may be adversely affected by factors that have less effect on results under the comparable uncontrolled price, resale price, and cost plus methods. For example, operating profit may be affected by varying cost structures (as reflected, for example, in the age of plant and equipment), differences in business experience (such as whether the business is in a start-up phase or is mature), or differences in management efficiency (as indicated, for example, by objective evidence such as expanding or contracting sales or executive compensation over time). Accordingly, if material differences in these factors are identified based on objective evidence, the reliability of the analysis may be affected.
    - (iv) **Adjustments for the differences between the tested party and the uncontrolled taxpayers.** If there are differences between the tested party and an uncontrolled comparable that would materially affect the profits determined under the relevant profit level indicator, adjustments should be made according to the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-2). In some cases, the assets of an uncontrolled comparable may need to be adjusted to achieve greater comparability between the tested party and the uncontrolled comparable. In such cases, the uncontrolled comparable's operating income attributable to those assets must also be adjusted before computing a profit level indicator in order to reflect the income and expense attributable to the adjusted assets. In certain cases it may also be appropriate to adjust the operating profit of the tested party and comparable parties. For example, where there are material differences in accounts payable among the comparable parties and the tested party, it will generally be appropriate to adjust the operating profit of each party by increasing it to reflect an imputed interest charge on each party's accounts payable. As another example, it may be appropriate to adjust the operating profit of a party to account for material differences in the utilization of or accounting for stock-based compensation (as defined by [§ 1.482-7(d)(3)(i)](/cfr/26/1.482-7.md?p=d-3-i)) among the tested party and comparable parties.
  - (3) **Data and assumptions—**
    - (i) **In general.** The reliability of the results derived from the comparable profits method is affected by the quality of the data and assumptions used to apply this method.
    - (ii) **Consistency in accounting.** The degree of consistency in accounting practices between the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables that materially affect operating profit affects the reliability of the result. Thus, for example, if differences in inventory and other cost accounting practices would materially affect operating profit, the ability to make reliable adjustments for such differences would affect the reliability of the results.
    - (iii) **Allocations between the relevant business activity and other activities.** The reliability of the allocation of costs, income, and assets between the relevant business activity and other activities of the tested party or an uncontrolled comparable will affect the reliability of the determination of operating profit and profit level indicators. If it is not possible to allocate costs, income, and assets directly based on factual relationships, a reasonable allocation formula may be used. To the extent direct allocations are not made, the reliability of the results derived from the application of this method is reduced relative to the results of a method that requires fewer allocations of costs, income, and assets. Similarly, the reliability of the results derived from the application of this method is affected by the extent to which it is possible to apply the profit level indicator to the tested party's financial data that is related solely to the controlled transactions. For example, if the relevant business activity is the assembly of components purchased from both controlled and uncontrolled suppliers, it may not be possible to apply the profit level indicator solely to financial data related to the controlled transactions. In such a case, the reliability of the results derived from the application of this method will be reduced.
- (d) **Definitions.** The definitions set forth in [paragraphs (d)(1) through (6)](#d-1..d-6) of this section apply for purposes of this section.
  - (1) Sales revenue means the amount of the total receipts from sale of goods and provision of services, less returns and allowances. Accounting principles and conventions that are generally accepted in the trade or industry of the controlled taxpayer under review must be used.
  - (2) Gross profit means sales revenue less cost of goods sold.
  - (3) **Operating expenses—** includes all expenses not included in cost of goods sold except for interest expense, foreign income taxes (as defined in [§ 1.901-2(a)](/cfr/26/1.901-2.md?p=a)), domestic income taxes, and any other expenses not related to the operation of the relevant business activity. Operating expenses ordinarily include expenses associated with advertising, promotion, sales, marketing, warehousing and distribution, administration, and a reasonable allowance for depreciation and amortization.
  - (4) Operating profit means gross profit less operating expenses. Operating profit includes all income derived from the business activity being evaluated by the comparable profits method, but does not include interest and dividends, income derived from activities not being tested by this method, or extraordinary gains and losses that do not relate to the continuing operations of the tested party.
  - (5) Reported operating profit means the operating profit of the tested party reflected on a timely filed U.S. income tax return. If the tested party files a U.S. income tax return, its operating profit is considered reflected on a U.S. income tax return if the calculation of taxable income on its return for the taxable year takes into account the income attributable to the controlled transaction under review. If the tested party does not file a U.S. income tax return, its operating profit is considered reflected on a U.S. income tax return in any taxable year for which income attributable to the controlled transaction under review affects the calculation of the U.S. taxable income of any other member of the same controlled group. If the comparable operating profit of the tested party is determined from profit level indicators derived from financial statements or other accounting records and reports of comparable parties, adjustments may be made to the reported operating profit of the tested party in order to account for material differences between the tested party's operating profit reported for U.S income tax purposes and the tested party's operating profit for financial statement purposes. In addition, in accordance with [§ 1.482-1(f)(2)(iii)(D)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=f-2-iii-D), adjustments under [section 482](/cfr/26/482.md) that are finally determined may be taken into account in determining reported operating profit.
  - (6) **Operating assets.** The term operating assets means the value of all assets used in the relevant business activity of the tested party, including fixed assets and current assets (such as cash, cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and inventories).

    The term does not include investments in subsidiaries, excess cash, and portfolio investments. Operating assets may be measured by their net book value or by their fair market value, provided that the same method is consistently applied to the tested party and the comparable parties, and consistently applied from year to year. In addition, it may be necessary to take into account recent acquisitions, leased assets, intangibles, currency fluctuations, and other items that may not be explicitly recorded in the financial statements of the tested party or uncontrolled comparable. Finally, operating assets must be measured by the average of the values for the beginning of the year and the end of the year, unless substantial fluctuations in the value of operating assets during the year make this an inaccurate measure of the average value over the year. In such a case, a more accurate measure of the average value of operating assets must be applied.

- (e) **Examples.** The following examples illustrate the application of this section.

# §1.482-6. Profit split method.

- (a) **In general.** The profit split method evaluates whether the allocation of the combined operating profit or loss attributable to one or more controlled transactions is arm's length by reference to the relative value of each controlled taxpayer's contribution to that combined operating profit or loss. The combined operating profit or loss must be derived from the most narrowly identifiable business activity of the controlled taxpayers for which data is available that includes the controlled transactions (relevant business activity).
- (b) **Appropriate share of profits and losses.** The relative value of each controlled taxpayer's contribution to the success of the relevant business activity must be determined in a manner that reflects the functions performed, risks assumed, and resources employed by each participant in the relevant business activity, consistent with the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3). Such an allocation is intended to correspond to the division of profit or loss that would result from an arrangement between uncontrolled taxpayers, each performing functions similar to those of the various controlled taxpayers engaged in the relevant business activity. The profit allocated to any particular member of a controlled group is not necessarily limited to the total operating profit of the group from the relevant business activity. For example, in a given year, one member of the group may earn a profit while another member incurs a loss. In addition, it may not be assumed that the combined operating profit or loss from the relevant business activity should be shared equally, or in any other arbitrary proportion. The specific method of allocation must be determined under [paragraph (c)](#c) of this section.
- (c) **Application—**
  - (1) **In general.** The allocation of profit or loss under the profit split method must be made in accordance with one of the following allocation methods—(i) The comparable profit split, described in [paragraph (c)(2)](#c-2) of this section; or
    - (ii) **The residual profit split, described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.**
  - (2) **Comparable profit split—**
    - (i) **In general.** A comparable profit split is derived from the combined operating profit of uncontrolled taxpayers whose transactions and activities are similar to those of the controlled taxpayers in the relevant business activity. Under this method, each uncontrolled taxpayer's percentage of the combined operating profit or loss is used to allocate the combined operating profit or loss of the relevant business activity.
    - (ii) **Comparability and reliability considerations—(A) In general.** Whether results derived from application of this method are the most reliable measure of the arm's length result is determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c).
      - (B) **Comparability—** (1) In general. The degree of comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers is determined by applying the comparability provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d). The comparable profit split compares the division of operating profits among the controlled taxpayers to the division of operating profits among uncontrolled taxpayers engaged in similar activities under similar circumstances. Although all of the factors described in [§ 1.482-1(d)(3)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-3) must be considered, comparability under this method is particularly dependent on the considerations described under the comparable profits method in [§ 1.482-5(c)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md?p=c-2) or [§ 1.482-9(f)(2)(iii)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=f-2-iii) because this method is based on a comparison of the operating profit of the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. In addition, because the contractual terms of the relationship among the participants in the relevant business activity will be a principal determinant of the allocation of functions and risks among them, comparability under this method also depends particularly on the degree of similarity of the contractual terms of the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. Finally, the comparable profit split may not be used if the combined operating profit (as a percentage of the combined assets) of the uncontrolled comparables varies significantly from that earned by the controlled taxpayers.

        (2) Adjustments for differences between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. If there are differences between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers that would materially affect the division of operating profit, adjustments must be made according to the provisions of [§ 1.482-1(d)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=d-2).

      - (C) **Data and assumptions.** The reliability of the results derived from the comparable profit split is affected by the quality of the data and assumptions used to apply this method. In particular, the following factors must be considered—

        (1) The reliability of the allocation of costs, income, and assets between the relevant business activity and the participants' other activities will affect the accuracy of the determination of combined operating profit and its allocation among the participants. If it is not possible to allocate costs, income, and assets directly based on factual relationships, a reasonable allocation formula may be used. To the extent direct allocations are not made, the reliability of the results derived from the application of this method is reduced relative to the results of a method that requires fewer allocations of costs, income, and assets. Similarly, the reliability of the results derived from the application of this method is affected by the extent to which it is possible to apply the method to the parties' financial data that is related solely to the controlled transactions. For example, if the relevant business activity is the assembly of components purchased from both controlled and uncontrolled suppliers, it may not be possible to apply the method solely to financial data related to the controlled transactions. In such a case, the reliability of the results derived from the application of this method will be reduced.

        (2) The degree of consistency between the controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers in accounting practices that materially affect the items that determine the amount and allocation of operating profit affects the reliability of the result. Thus, for example, if differences in inventory and other cost accounting practices would materially affect operating profit, the ability to make reliable adjustments for such differences would affect the reliability of the results. Further, accounting consistency among the participants in the controlled transaction is required to ensure that the items determining the amount and allocation of operating profit are measured on a consistent basis.

      - (D) **Other factors affecting reliability.** Like the methods described in §§ [1.482-3](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md), [1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md), [1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md), and [1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md), the comparable profit split relies exclusively on external market benchmarks. As indicated in [§ 1.482-1(c)(2)(i)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c-2-i), as the degree of comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions increases, the relative weight accorded the analysis under this method will increase. In addition, the reliability of the analysis under this method may be enhanced by the fact that all parties to the controlled transaction are evaluated under the comparable profit split. However, the reliability of the results of an analysis based on information from all parties to a transaction is affected by the reliability of the data and the assumptions pertaining to each party to the controlled transaction. Thus, if the data and assumptions are significantly more reliable with respect to one of the parties than with respect to the others, a different method, focusing solely on the results of that party, may yield more reliable results.
  - (3) **Residual profit split—**
    - (i) **In general.** Under this method, the combined operating profit or loss from the relevant business activity is allocated between the controlled taxpayers following the two-step process set forth in paragraphs [(c)(3)(i)(A)](#c-3-i-A) and [(B)](#c-3-i-B) of this section.
      - (A) **Allocate income to routine contributions.** The first step allocates operating income to each party to the controlled transactions to provide a market return for its routine contributions to the relevant business activity. Routine contributions are contributions of the same or a similar kind to those made by uncontrolled taxpayers involved in similar business activities for which it is possible to identify market returns. Routine contributions ordinarily include contributions of tangible property, services and intangible property that are generally owned by uncontrolled taxpayers engaged in similar activities. A functional analysis is required to identify these contributions according to the functions performed, risks assumed, and resources employed by each of the controlled taxpayers. Market returns for the routine contributions should be determined by reference to the returns achieved by uncontrolled taxpayers engaged in similar activities, consistent with the methods described in §§ [1.482-3](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md), [1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md), [1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md) and [1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md).
      - (B) **Allocate residual profit—** (1) Nonroutine contributions generally. The allocation of income to the controlled taxpayer's routine contributions will not reflect profits attributable to each controlled taxpayer's contributions to the relevant business activity that are not routine (nonroutine contributions). A nonroutine contribution is a contribution that is not accounted for as a routine contribution. Thus, in cases where such nonroutine contributions are present, there normally will be an unallocated residual profit after the allocation of income described in [paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)](#c-3-i-A) of this section. Under this second step, the residual profit generally should be divided among the controlled taxpayers based upon the relative value of their nonroutine contributions to the relevant business activity. The relative value of the nonroutine contributions of each taxpayer should be measured in a manner that most reliably reflects each nonroutine contribution made to the controlled transaction and each controlled taxpayer's role in the nonroutine contributions. If the nonroutine contribution by one of the controlled taxpayers is also used in other business activities (such as transactions with other controlled taxpayers), an appropriate allocation of the value of the nonroutine contribution must be made among all the business activities in which it is used.

        (2) Nonroutine contributions of intangible property. In many cases, nonroutine contributions of a taxpayer to the relevant business activity may be contributions of intangible property. For purposes of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section, the relative value of nonroutine intangible property contributed by taxpayers may be measured by external market benchmarks that reflect the fair market value of such intangible property. Alternatively, the relative value of nonroutine intangible property contributions may be estimated by the capitalized cost of developing the intangible property and all related improvements and updates, less an appropriate amount of amortization based on the useful life of each intangible property. Finally, if the intangible property development expenditures of the parties are relatively constant over time and the useful life of the intangible property contributed by all parties is approximately the same, the amount of actual expenditures in recent years may be used to estimate the relative value of nonroutine intangible property contributions.

    - (ii) **Comparability and reliability considerations—**
      - (A) **In general.** Whether results derived from this method are the most reliable measure of the arm's length result is determined using the factors described under the best method rule in [§ 1.482-1(c)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c). Thus, comparability and the quality of data and assumptions must be considered in determining whether this method provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result. The application of these factors to the residual profit split is discussed in paragraph [(c)(3)(ii)(B)](#c-3-ii-B), [(C)](#c-3-ii-C), and [(D)](#c-3-ii-D) of this section.
      - (B) **Comparability.** The first step of the residual profit split relies on market benchmarks of profitability. Thus, the comparability considerations that are relevant for the first step of the residual profit split are those that are relevant for the methods that are used to determine market returns for the routine contributions. The second step of the residual profit split, however, may not rely so directly on market benchmarks. Thus, the reliability of the results under this method is reduced to the extent that the allocation of profits in the second step does not rely on market benchmarks.
      - (C) **Data and assumptions.** The reliability of the results derived from the residual profit split is affected by the quality of the data and assumptions used to apply this method. In particular, the following factors must be considered—

        (1) The reliability of the allocation of costs, income, and assets as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) of this section;

        (2) Accounting consistency as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C)(2) of this section;

        (3) The reliability of the data used and the assumptions made in valuing the intangible property contributed by the participants. In particular, if capitalized costs of development are used to estimate the value of intangible property, the reliability of the results is reduced relative to the reliability of other methods that do not require such an estimate, for the following reasons. First, in any given case, the costs of developing the intangible may not be related to its market value. Second, the calculation of the capitalized costs of development may require the allocation of indirect costs between the relevant business activity and the controlled taxpayer's other activities, which may affect the reliability of the analysis. Finally, the calculation of costs may require assumptions regarding the useful life of the intangible property.

      - (D) **Other factors affecting reliability.** Like the methods described in §§ [1.482-3](/cfr/26/1.482-3.md), [1.482-4](/cfr/26/1.482-4.md), [1.482-5](/cfr/26/1.482-5.md), and [1.482-9](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md), the first step of the residual profit split relies exclusively on external market benchmarks. As indicated in [§ 1.482-1(c)(2)(i)](/cfr/26/1.482-1.md?p=c-2-i), as the degree of comparability between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions increases, the relative weight accorded the analysis under this method will increase. In addition, to the extent the allocation of profits in the second step is not based on external market benchmarks, the reliability of the analysis will be decreased in relation to an analysis under a method that relies on market benchmarks. Finally, the reliability of the analysis under this method may be enhanced by the fact that all parties to the controlled transaction are evaluated under the residual profit split. However, the reliability of the results of an analysis based on information from all parties to a transaction is affected by the reliability of the data and the assumptions pertaining to each party to the controlled transaction. Thus, if the data and assumptions are significantly more reliable with respect to one of the parties than with respect to the others, a different method, focusing solely on the results of that party, may yield more reliable results.
    - (iii) **Example.** The provisions of this [paragraph (c)(3)](#c-3) are illustrated by the following example.
- (d) **Effective/applicability date—**
  - (1) **In general.** The provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(B)(1) and (D), (c)(3)(i)(A) and (B), and (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this section are generally applicable for taxable years beginning after July 31, 2009.
  - (2) **Election to apply regulation to earlier taxable years.** A person may elect to apply the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(B)(1) and (D), (c)(3)(i)(A) and (B), and (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this section to earlier taxable years in accordance with the rules set forth in [§ 1.482-9(n)(2)](/cfr/26/1.482-9.md?p=n-2).