交易利润分割法（TPSM）的历史方法

传统上，利润分割法一直是转让定价中“最后手段”的方法，通常是为高度一体化的企业保留的。对于大多数跨国集团而言，通常的做法是实施运营模式，其中集团实体被描述为通常拥有知识产权并承担重大风险的“企业型”实体，或更为“常规”的实体，如有限的风险分配实体，合同制造实体或服务提供商。这些所谓的“主要模式”不太可能符合应用TPSM的条件，因为只有一个实体在价值链中做出独特和有价值的贡献（即，创业实体）。

对常规实体和复杂实体进行划分，使某些跨国集团能够从转让定价规划中获益。常规实体的活动可与可比的分销商或服务提供商进行基准比较，剩余利润由企业家享有。从历史上看，一些跨国集团的业务结构是由在较低税收管辖区运营的企业实体和位于较高税收管辖区的常规实体组成。

在滥用一些大型跨国公司的滥用之后，在低税法司法管辖区的公司分配的利润，通常没有所需的经济物质，经合组织承担了其基本侵蚀和利润转移倡议（BEP）。经合组织指南的行动8 - 10集中在将转移定价结果与价值创作进行调整。2018年6月，经合组织发布了关于TPSM申请的经修订指导。

Regardless of a multinational group’s operating model, the revised guidance should prompt the reassessment of the current approach to transfer pricing in order to determine whether the application of TPSM is a more appropriate method for the arrangements.

Revised Guidance – When is the TPSM the most appropriate method?

尽管修订后的指南保持了经合组织的历史立场，即只有在根据相关事实和情况认为最合适的方法的情况下才应选择TPSM，但报告确实大大扩展和澄清了现有的TPSM指南。纳税人和税务机关可以将此解读为，相对于其他传统交易方式，TPSM具有更大的意义。

The revised guidance states that the TPSM may be the most appropriate method where one or more of the following indicators are prevalent:

• 各方都作出了独特而宝贵的贡献
• 业务运作高度整合，因此无法独立地可靠评估各方的贡献
• 双方共同承担经济上重大的风险，或者单独承担密切相关的风险

These indicators can often be seen in uncontrolled commercial arrangements such as in the case of joint ventures or consortium arrangements. For example, where one party to a consortium may have technical know-how and another party might have local knowledge and/or a customer base/distribution network, the two parties each make unique and valuable contributions to a highly integrated business structure. Another case may be seen within a franchise arrangement where the franchisor provides a framework for the franchisee to conduct its business, however, the franchisee has to provide the funding to build the business locally and bears the market risk of failure. Here the franchisor and franchisee are both bearing significant risks.

Where there is sharing of risks or valuable contributions between two parties, it is difficult to conclude that one party is the entrepreneur and that the other party is the routine entity. Under these circumstances, both parties contribute value/assume risk and therefore one sided transfer pricing methods may not be seen to be appropriate under the revised guidance and a profit split approach might otherwise be considered.

Revised Guidance – Application and use of the TPSM

TPSM方法的使用是有可能成为more prevalent in transfer pricing reflecting the economic reality that multinational business is becoming increasingly complex. The development of Intellectual Property and other complex value creation activities are often distributed around the globe with contributions made in multiple jurisdictions rather than in a single location. Due to the non-prescriptive process required to develop the TPSM, the difficulty for multinational groups has historically centred around how to actually conduct a profit split analysis in an objective manner. The revised guidance will be welcomed in this regard as the guidance specifically:

• 就TPSM的应用提供更广泛的指导，包括如何确定要分割的相关利润以及考虑利润分割因素；以及
• Includes 16 examples relating to the principles within the guidance.

修订后的指导说明了可能适用的利润分割因素的相关原则，包括使用资产和基于成本的分割因素。例如，在产品分销商的情况下，可以考虑到昂贵的广告活动所开发的营销无形资产以及产品知识产权所有者在开发和维护产品时的成本。

For many industries, particularly those in the service industry or those with a complex value chain, a cost split approach may not be appropriate. Under those circumstances, it has been common practice to build a bespoke profit split matrix based on the value drivers or significant risks assumed by different entities to the transaction. These profit split matrices can be complex and include different weightings for the value of the risk/contribution made and also may take into account the probability of any outcome occurring. This approach requires a thorough and often expensive functional analysis process to identify value drivers and areas of risk and to provide a robust rationale for the assumptions made under the matrix.

这种方法的困难在于识别和衡量不同价值驱动因素/风险及其重要性的主观性水平。不同的利润分割结果往往是由于假设的价值驱动因素/风险的数量及其权重的差异造成的。不幸的是，这通常被视为武断的，权重和驱动程序的数量可能会有偏差，从而产生一定的结果。

结论：

Multinational groups will need to reassess their existing transfer pricing structures in order to determine whether the approach taken in the past is compliant with the revised guidance.

修订后的指南引起的一些额外考虑可能包括：

• Whether the splitting factors and indicators identified under the revised guidance will be interpreted differently by different parties. Is internal or external comparable data available to support those factors?
• 是否会就谁、如何以及在何处创造价值达成共识——尤其是在分散经营模式下？应包括或排除哪些成本？如何处理某些成本（如外汇）？
• 税务部门是否会利用本地文件、主文件和CBC报告作为确定分割因素的潜在来源？
• Notwithstanding the OECD’s position to utilize the arm’s length principle, will the above lead to tax administrations utilizing simplistic formulary approaches to determine their position on profit allocations, particularly where it favours the local jurisdiction?

Co-authors

扎拉·里奇
合伙人，全球转让定价服务主管
墨尔本

乔尔菲利普斯
转让定价Partner
悉尼

尼克·德里森
转让定价委托人
珀斯