According to IRC Section 482, transfer pricing refers to the pricing of transactions between
controlled entities. IRC 482 invokes an "arm's length standard" and companies are required to
charge the same price to their related entities as they do to unrelated parties. Additionally, in
the absence of arm's length pricing, IRC 482 authorizes the IRS to adjust reallocate revenues
and expenses accordingly.
Although transfer pricing could relate to transactions within the United States, it is often used
as a tool for shifting tax liability to more favourable tax homes. In the Facebook issue, the
question is the value of the intellectual property? Should Facebook charge the same to its
Europe based entities as it does to the North America based companies? On the surface,
transfer pricing effectively distributes earnings throughout an organization. However, it is
also effective in reducing tax liabilities for multinational companies.
Transfer pricing enables the determination of prices for the exchange of goods and services
between subsidiaries, affiliates, or businesses under the same corporate management.
Multinational corporations can manipulate transfer prices to move earnings to low-tax
jurisdictions. Regulations impose an arm's length transaction norm that calls for pricing to be
based on comparable transactions carried out between unaffiliated parties to correct this.
Transfer prices within a controlled group must comply with an arm's length standard,
according to Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC") and the following
regulations. The arm's length criteria are deemed to have been met if the outcomes of a
controlled transaction mirror those that would have been obtained if uncontrolled taxpayers
had participated in the same transaction under identical conditions.
Transfer pricing for corporations. This strategy allows a corporation to save money on taxes
to redistribute in the company, it allows businesses to make money across all their divisions
and departments. It also allows a company to assess the effectiveness of each department
separately.
Transfer pricing is an accounting practice when one division of a company charges another
division for goods and service provided (Seth, 2023). It allows for the establishment of prices
for the goods and services exchanged between a parent company and its subsidiaries.
Companies can save on taxes by selling a product to a lower taxed subsidiary at a lower price.
The company in a higher tax area will see less profits and the subsidiary in a lower tax area
with see a reduction in COGS (Seth, 2023). It has no overall financial impact on the
corporation before taxes because one company's sales are lower while the related company
has lowered COGS. The difference comes when the company in the higher taxed area sees a
lower tax bill due to sell the items at a discount. I think transfer pricing is a practice that can
easily abused. When companies sell IPs to lower taxed countries the U.S. does not see the
benefits of income taxes from the IP. I think it can cause a higher tax burden for individual
taxpayers when companies are moving high profit IPs out of the U.S.
Transfer pricing allows for the establishment of prices for the goods and services exchanged
between subsidiaries, affiliates, or commonly controlled companies that are part of the same
larger enterprise. Transfer pricing can lead to tax savings for corporations, though tax
authorities may contest their claims. Companies use transfer pricing to reduce the overall tax
burden of the parent company (Seth, Anderson & Peres, 2023). Therefore, transfer pricing is
a tool multinational groups use to reduce their tax burden along with the cushion provided by
IRC § 482 on how corporation transfer pricing, which states that 'in any case of two or more
organizations, trades, or businesses owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same
interests, the Secretary may distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions,
credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses if he
determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary to prevent evasion
of taxes. The IRS acknowledges the valuations and, therefore, it would not be considered
illegal.
Facebook conducted transfer pricing in 2010 to reduce taxable income within the United
States. The IRS opposed a transfer pricing calculation by Facebook in 2016 when the social
media giant claimed it transferred $6.5 billion of intangible assets to Ireland. With the trial
expected, Facebook would be required to pay up to $5 billion in taxes (without penalties and
interest) if IRS wins the case.
The report states that Facebook sold the intellectual property in a foreign country, which led
the IRS to investigate how it moved assets to an Irish subsidiary to avoid higher taxes. Our
basic legal and economic insistence is that tax is due where the value is created. This is the
same as trying to tax in the jurisdiction where the economic activity occurs. If the assets fall
under the same company, there should not be any taxation on transferring said assets. In some
cases, the company is double-taxed. On the other hand, some companies abuse flexibility and
transfer assets within the company to different locations in countries with lower tax brackets.
Transfer pricing is the practice in which companies and subsidiaries which are under shared
or common control can ascertain the price of goods or services at an internal level. According
to Schwartz et al. (2021), the transfer pricing practice may be exploited by business entities
for the purpose of avoiding tax since it leads to the corrosion of tax bases. Corporate tax
becomes due when economic value is created (Forbes, 2016). It is essential to identify where
value is created so that the appropriate parties can be taxed for the same. According to the
U.S. Tax Code, tax is applicable in the region where value is created. For companies such as
Facebook and Apple, such a question is complex as the value that is created by them is
associated with their intellectual property rights.
Companies may decide to engage in transfer pricing to leverage the flexible tax arrangements
and laws that exist in foreign regions. For example, Ireland is a tax haven where companies,
especially the ones that are involved in research and development activities, do not have to
pay taxes. Due to this, they can amplify their profits by saving taxes. Apple has transferred its
business profits to Ireland, which enables the company to save taxes that it would have
otherwise paid to the government of the United States of America. The practice that Apple
Inc. has engaged in is fair, and it does not violate the tax rules in Ireland. Neither does it
violate the tax rules of the US since the tax arrangement that has been made in the nation is
applicable for companies that decide to bring back their profits to the country. In case their
profits remain in foreign lands, the US cannot claim taxes.
The practice of transfer pricing can be justified since it creates an opportunity for business
entities to reduce the tax burden of the parent organization by making internal transfers to
minimize the tax base. Although transfer pricing is a fair practice that is legally allowed, it has
the potential to give rise to complexities in terms of tax computations (Martin et al., 2020).
Moreover, the taxation arrangement can be exploited and abused by unethical companies for
the purpose of evading the tax amount that they need to pay in their normal course of
business. It is instrumental to have comprehensive knowledge on transfer pricing and
accordingly integrate the practice into the business.
Transfer pricing allows large companies/organizations to transfer profits out of one company
and into a tax haven country. The IRS is allowed to contest the claims of these organizations.
IRC 482 allows the IRS to adjust income, credits, and deductions. Transfer pricing is used by
companies to value their assets as low as possible to avoid high taxes but IRC 482 states that
the prices charged by one affiliate to another affiliate for the exchange of goods should be the
same if charged to a non-affiliate.
In Facebooks case, the company moved their assets to a subsidiary in Ireland to avoid paying
higher taxes in the U.S. I do not agree with this as a company or individual should have to pay
taxes on assets where they are gained. If all or some of the assets were gained in the U.S.,
those should be taxed in the U.S. In Apples case, I agree that the company should pay taxes
where its economic activity takes place, which in their case is in Ireland. The company is not
simply moving assets to avoid higher taxes but it does have economic activity occurring in
Ireland.
Transfer pricing can benefit corporations in both an internal and external setting. It takes
place when the same company transfers goods or services between divisions. The parent
company can also charge lower prices to their subsidiaries for parts or products than they
would sell the items for on the market. For example, imagine that our parent company sells
car parts and the two subsidiaries operate as small mechanics. The parent company sells one
part that is often needed in repairs for $100 on the open market, but only charges their
subsidiaries $75. Over the course of a month, the parent company sells 10 of these parts to the
market, and 10 to the subsidiary. If the products were all charged at the same price, the parent
company would have revenue of $2,000 for the month, however, they only have $1,750,
indicating a lower amount of income, and therefore, a lower taxable base and tax owed. At the
same time, if the subsidiary paid $100 for each of the 10 products purchased, their COGS
would be $1,000, but since they had a lower cost for the product, COGS are $750. While it
seems that the transfer pricing method offers the ability to transfer taxable income and
expenses between a parent and its subsidiaries to create a wash, these transfers do not show
on financial reports presented to investors, offering them with a skewed representation on
how the company they are supporting is performing.
Transfer pricing within multinational corporations allows for the allocating earnings made by
a parent company to their subsidiaries in order to reduce the taxable income of the parent
organization (Seth, 2023). For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $1 million
with no tax estimates made throughout the year, they would have a tax rate of 21% and taxes
due of $210,000. Now, imagine a second company with the same taxable income, but two
subsidiaries. The second company uses transfer pricing to move $200,000 of their taxable
income to each of the two subsidiaries. Now, the company has taxable income of $600,000
and owes taxes of $126,000. Each subsidiary owes taxes of $42,000. The total taxes owed
between the parent and the subsidiaries add up to the same $210,000, however, now the
parent organization is only responsible for $84,000 less than they were originally.
In both cases, transfer pricing between subsidiaries creates a wash between taxes. The only
problem I can see is that the parent and subsidiaries of public companies would have to make
sure this was accurately presented in their financial reports.
Transfer pricing as stated in Section 482 of the code gives the IRS authorization to adjust
income, credits, deductions, or allowances of commonly controlled taxpayers. This allows the
IRS to prevent evasion of taxes, as well as, it will allow them to clearly reflect their income.
When it comes to transfer pricing, large corporations push towards valuing their assets as low
as possible in order to avoid higher taxes. Section 482 ensures that all persons pay the same
amount in taxes if they are under the same circumstances as one another.
In the case of Facebook, it chose to move assets to an Irish subsidiary to avoid higher taxes.
This allows for Facebook to avoid higher tax liabilities as a company. I do not agree with
Facebook doing this because your assets should be taxed wherever they are gained, and in this
case if they were gained in the United States, they must be taxed in the United States in
regards to the whole amount of their value. When it comes to the situation for Apple, I agree
that whatever state you are doing business in is the one where you should be taxed. Therefore,
if all of Apple's economic activity takes place in Ireland then it should indeed be taxed in
Ireland rather than the United States.
Transfer pricing is where a company sells its goods and services internally within businesses
and between subsidiaries operating under the same control/ownership. b This amount is usually
in accordance with the market price for the goods or services. When they do not charge the
market price and choose to charge less than the market price, they can shift the income from
one company to the subsidiary, which may be in a lower tax country, thus reducing the
amount of taxes they would have to pay. Section 482 states that these types of transactions
should yield the same results as it would have realized if the transaction under the same
circumstances with an uncontrolled party would have been. If these transfers are not valued
correctly, financial statements may need to be restated and penalties or fees could be applied
for the misstatement. Corporate profits are to be taxed in the jurisdiction that the economic
value is created. b
If this is done appropriately and the values are in accordance with the market value, I do not
see a problem with a company doing this. b It is when a company finds a loophole and exploits
it to evade taxes that there is a problem. In the article we read “What Facebook and Apple
can teach you about transfer pricing”, the issue Facebook is facing is that the IRS is
questioning the price Facebook valued their non-U.S. and Canada IP use as. This can be
tricky to determine and where Facebook must prove they appropriately valued the price.
Facebook might not have done anything wrong, their transfer pricing just raised suspicion
from the IRS to investigate it and come up with a different conclusion. b Facebook is within its
rights to disagree and appeal the IRS decision and go before the tax courts; especially if they
have appropriately documented their figures and have not maliciously tried to evade taxes.
Transfer pricing is the pricing that exists between corporate related party international
transactions. This happens when a corporation transfers the value of an asset to a lower tax
jurisdiction. According to Worstall (2016), "when those foreign rights are sold, they must be
sold at full value...you must sell them at the full value to your foreign subsidiary, the income
you get from that sale becomes a taxable profit inside the U.S." (Worstall, 2016).
ADP as a Franchise Implementation Specialist, where I teach small business owners how to
run their own payroll with ADP's RUN software. also trying to establish my own practice
providing bookkeeping, tax preparation, and mobile notary services as a source of side
income. I know that this course will be a valuable resource for expanding my tax knowledge
and becoming a better service provider to my clients.
After reading the article, I strongly agree with Stiglitz. I am aware that I have personal bias
and ideology that make my position on this quite rigid. I personally feel that corporations
should not have the ability to avoid paying tax using loopholes and moving money around. In
my eyes I see this as little more than money laundering. Worstall mentions that the purpose of
the tax system is to tax corporations and profits where the economic activity takes place.
Between these lines I can almost hear him say in the same breath that the purpose of a
corporation is to maximize the wealth of its shareholders. I fundamentally disagree; I believe
the purpose of the tax system is to fund the government, which is responsible for supporting,
maintaining, and improving the quality of life for its citizens. I believe the purpose of a
corporation should be to maximize the wealth of ALL the individuals who participate in its
existence rather than exploiting the labour of the lowest paid employees, and to serve a social
purpose beyond shareholder wealth.
All of this is to say that I do not believe transfer pricing is ethical. (I hardly think tax
avoidance is ethical, either). Yes, there are certainly international corporations that have
global operations and there needs to be a way for them to organize their income and avoid
double taxation. But it is too easy to be used unethically by corporations that are just avoiding
taxes, not purposefully producing goods and services in other countries.
Transfer pricing, the first thing that comes to mind is a large multi-national organization, such
as Apple or Google, that can shift profits to lower taxed jurisdictions. They can do this
because the parent entity has control over its subsidiaries in multiple countries and can dictate
the price of transferring goods, services, or intellectual property (IP), and thus limit their tax
liability by ensuring that the profits earned from the transfers are taxed at the lowest rates
(Seth, 2023). I believe that it is important for governments such as the US to continue to
maintain rules on the fair valuation of goods, services and IP being transferred between
subsidiaries of an organization, because of the economic and social impact of unfair transfer
pricing practices. At the same time, I feel that this practice should provide countries with an
incentive to make their tax policies competitive in order to attract multi-national
organizations to do business in their jurisdictions.
I currently live in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania with my husband, four children and two
dogs. I also work full-time for a major bank and have been with the company for over 22
years.
This week’s discussion gives us the opportunity to review transfer pricing. Transfer pricing,
put in simplest terms, is a common practice used by companies to transfer goods and services
between subsidiaries, affiliates, or related entities for a set price. This price can be above or
below the market price. Higher prices are used in high-tax jurisdictions to reduce profit, while
lower prices are used in low-tax jurisdictions to increase profit. In other words, companies use
transfer pricing to reduce tax liability.
Section 482 states that the prices charged by one affiliate to another for the exchange of goods
and services should be consistent with what would have been charged if the exchange was
made with a non-affiliate. In the article we read this week, What Facebook and Apple Can
Teach You About Transfer Pricing, we are given an example of what happens when a
company is investigated by the IRS for potentially not pricing a good or service transferred to
its affiliate at a fair price. In the article, Facebook could potentially owe billions for an
investigation brought on by the IRS for the way it moved assets to its Irish subsidiary to
reduce the company’s tax liability (Worstall, 2016).
I do not agree with transfer pricing although I understand why companies engage in this
practice. Although transfer pricing creates tax reduction for the companies that engage in it, it
creates a negative economic impact on the countries and societies where these businesses do
business.
A transfer price is the price charged between related parties (e.g., a parent company and its
controlled foreign corporation) in an intercompany transaction (McKinley and Owsley, 2013).
While it’s absolutely legal to use the transfer pricing method if it meets the requirements of
Regs. Sec. § 1.482-1(b), it often leads to litigation since multinational companies have
different judgement and interpretation of facts when they determine a range of arm’s-length
prices (or profits). A great example would be a tax court case 3M Co. v. Commissioner, in
which 3M Company and its Brazilian subsidiary tried to enter into a license agreement with
similar conditions to the other related-party manufacturing arrangements. However, the
Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, disallowed it by saying that the royalty rate 3M had
offered was too high and not in line with local regulations. As a result, a much lower royalty
was accepted by the parties. In 2006, 3M Brazil paid $5.1 million in royalties to 3M, in
addition to $64.5 million in dividends. There were two primary issues litigated in the case.
The first was whether the IRS could use Section 482 to allocate additional royalty income to
3M. The second was whether Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.482-1(h)(2), which specifies when and how
foreign legal restrictions will be considered for purposes of a Section 482 adjustment, was
invalid. The Tax Court ruled in Favor of the IRS in a narrow 9-8 decision. The IRS claimed
that the arm’s length standard applies in every case, citing Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.482-
1(b). The IRS also claimed that Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.482-1(h)(2) is a reasonable construction of
Section 482, within the authority Congress delegated to Treasury.
While I see the benefits of the transfer pricing policy, such as cost savings between different
departments of the company, protection from uncertain supply from the vendors, reduction in
income taxes, reductions in custom fees, I also think that transfer pricing opens doors for tax
evasion.
Based on what I remember from my past classes, transfer pricing is a practice that companies
use to reduce their tax liabilities by transferring their products and services from the United
States to other countries. Despite having read this week's article before, I find the concept to
be just as perplexing as it was a year or two ago. In my opinion, it is unfair for businesses to
relocate everything to another country solely to avoid paying taxes.
To ensure accurate reporting and prevent tax evasion, the IRS has the authority to adjust the
income, deductions, credits, or allowances of frequently managed taxpayers under Section
482 of the Code. This section requires that any prices charged between affiliates in an
intercompany transaction involving the transfer of goods, services, or intangibles should be
comparable to those that would have been achieved if uncontrolled taxpayers had entered the
same transaction under the same circumstances (Transfer pricing, n.d.).
Reference
Transfer pricing. Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.).
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/transfer-pricing
3M Co. v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. 3
IRC § 482
McKinley, J., Owsley, J. (2013). Transfer pricing and its effect on financial reporting. Journal
of Accountancy. Retrieved from
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2013/oct/20137721.html
Regs. Sec. 1.482-1(b)
Seth, S. (2023). Transfer Pricing: What It Is and How It Works, With Examples. Transfer
Pricing: What It Is and How It Works, With Examples (investopedia.com)
Worstall, T. (2016). What Facebook and Apple Can Teach You About Transfer Pricing. What
Facebook And Apple Can Teach You About Transfer Pricing (forbes.com)
Seth, S. (2023, May 28). Transfer pricing: what is it, how it works, with examples. Retrieved
from Investopedia.com: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/transfer-pricing.asp
Worstall, T. (2016, July 29). What Facebook and Apple can teach you about transfer pricing.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/29/facebooks-fun-with-transfer-
pricing-and-joe-stiglitz-doesnt-understand-apples-tax-at-all/?sh=4bc817763838
Worstall, Tim (July 29, 2016). What Facebook and Apple can teach you about transfer
pricing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/29/facebooks-fun-with-transfer-
pricing-and-joe-stiglitz-doesnt-understand-apples-tax-at-all/?sh=586602783838
Transfer Pricing | Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.). Www.irs.gov.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/transfer-pricing
Management Study Guide. (n.d.) How are Losses Treated in Corporate Tax?
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/how-are-losses-treated-in-corporate-tax.htm
Seth, S. (2023, May 28). Investopedia. Transfer Pricing: What it is and How it Works, With
Examples. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/transfer-pricing.asp
Cornell Law. (n.d.). 26 U.S. Code § 482 - Allocation of income and deductions among
taxpayers [Review of 26 U.S. Code § 482 - Allocation of income and deductions among
taxpayers]. Cornell Law. Retrieved July 5, 2023, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/482
Worstall, T. (2016). What Facebook and Apple Can Teach You About Transfer Pricing.
Forbes. Retrieved July 6, 2023, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/29/facebooks-fun-with-transfer-pricing-
and-joe-stiglitz-doesnt-understand-apples-tax-at-all/?sh=563b3d7e3838
Martin, M, KPMG, U., and Bettge, T., 2020. Transfer pricing remains crucial as IRS CAP
program opens for 2021. International Tax Review.
Schwartz, S. C., Mashiri, E., & Sebele-Mpofu, F. (2021). An exposition of transfer pricing
motives, strategies, and their implementation in tax avoidance by MNEs in developing
countries. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1944007.
What Facebook and apple can teach you about transfer pricing. (2016). Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/29/facebooks-fun-with-transfer-pricing-
and-joe-stiglitz-doesnt-understand-apples-tax-at-all/?sh=b9430483838b
Seth. S., Anderson. S. & Perez. Y. (2023). Transfer Pricing. Retrieved from
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/transfer-pricing.asp
26 U.S. Code § 482
Seth, S. (2023, May 28). Transfer pricing: What it is and how it works, with examples.
Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/transfer-pricing.asp
Worstall, T. (2016, July 29). What Facebook and apple can teach you about transfer pricing.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/29/facebooks-fun-with-transfer-
pricing-and-joe-stiglitz-doesnt-understand-apples-tax-at-all/?sh=44c440bc3838
Internal Revenue Service. (20150720). Overview of IRC Section 482. Publication
ISO9411_07_01. https://www.irs.gov/pub/int_practice_units/ISO9411_07_01.pdf
Seth, S. (20230528). Transfer Pricing: What it Is and How it Works, with examples.
Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/transfer-pricing.asp
Worstall, Tim. (20160729). What Facebook and Apple Can Teach You About Transfer
Pricing. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/29/facebooks-fun-with-
transfer-pricing-and-joe-stiglitz-doesnt-understand-apples-tax-at-all/?sh=531c1e7b3838
