Selecting Discount Rates in the Application of the Income Method
|
|
- Gary Palmer
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Selecting Discount Rates in the Application of the Income Method The U.S. Treasury Department on December 22, 2011, published in the Federal Register the final U.S. cost sharing regulations (Treas. Reg ). 1 The emphasis placed by the Internal Revenue Service on the use of the income method as the best method to analyze platform contribution transactions (PCTs) has resulted in tremendous pressure on taxpayers and practitioners to come up with practical methodologies to reliably estimate the cost of capital to be used to value the expected operating income stream in the cost sharing alternative and in the licensing alternative, respectively. 2 Although the final regulations recognize that those two costs of capital may be different, little practical guidance is provided. 3 The object of this article is to provide a succinct, nonmathematical discussion of the relationship that has to exist in a meaningful and internally consistent application of the income method (as specified in the final regulations) between the cost sharing alternative and licensing alternative discount rates. This discussion is based on extensive analyses recently published by the author in the following two articles: The 2012 IRS Cost Sharing Regulations Examined: An Argument For Focusing on the Intangible Development Costs Discount Rate, 21 BNA Transfer Pricing Report 11, 10/4/2012 and The Mathematics of Cost Sharing Under The Income Method, 21 BNA Transfer Pricing Report, 13, 11/1/2012. Analysis Why should the cost of capital used to discount the expected income stream in the cost sharing alternative be different (presumably higher) than that used to discount the expected income stream in the licensing alternative? The typical answer to that question generally invokes the development risks involved in the intangible development activities (IDA) as the primary reason to assign an additional risk premium to the cost sharing alternative discount rate. 4 Because the outcome of research and development (R&D) activities is risky, investors require and competitive markets provide a premium to compensate for the financial losses that are bound to occur when the R&D efforts fail to produce a marketable product. Or so the story goes. Despite sounding appealing and intuitively correct, this story is fundamentally flawed and violates well-accepted basic principles in the corporate finance literature. The reason the story is flawed is that the risk of success or failure in most R&D activities is uncorrelated with the level of economic activity. Consider, as an example, a pharmaceutical company that invests large amounts of money over a long period of time to develop a chemical compound into a marketable FDAapproved drug. The development risks the company faces include the very high risk that the drug will not meet the standards of safety and efficacy necessary to receive FDA approval. Failure to receive FDA approval translates into a loss of the entire R&D investment. Since the safety and efficacy of a chemical compound has absolutely nothing to do with the overall state of the economy, or with the movements in value of a well-diversified portfolio of market securities, the systematic risk of this investment is close to zero, and hence the appropriate discount rate for this development activity is arguably close to the risk-free rate (or the cost of debt in the case of default risk) regardless of how risky the development itself is. Once, or if, a marketable drug has been developed, that is when systematic risk (that is, co-movements with the market) will affect the cash flow of exploiting the drug; by that time the development risk has ceased to exist. The view that only the systematic risks (if any) introduced by the intangible development costs (IDC) will justify a difference in discount rates used in the cost sharing alternative and in the licensing alternative seems consistent with the positions taken by the Treasury in the final regulations. Consider, for example, Treas. Reg (g)(4)(i)(F): In circumstance where the market-correlated risks as between the cost sharing and licensing alternatives are not materially different, a reliable analysis may be possible by using the same discount rate with respect to both alternatives. Further consider Treas. Reg (g)(4)(vi)(F)(1): 1 REG , T.D. 9568, 76 Fed. Reg , December 22, For the remainder of this article, we will use the words cost of capital and discount rate interchangeably, depending on the context. 3 See for example Treas. Reg (g)(2)(v) and in particular Treas. Reg (g)(2)(v)(B)(1); Treas. Reg (g)(4)(vi)(F); and Treas. Reg (g)(4)(vi)(F)(1). 4 IDA can consist of a single project or investment under development, or of a portfolio of various projects or investments under development. Arm s Length Standard Page 1 of 6 Copyright 2012, Deloitte Global Services Limited.
2 The difference, if any, in market-correlated risks between the licensing and cost sharing alternatives is due solely to the different effects on risks of the PCT Payor making licensing payments under the licensing alternative, on the one hand, and the PCT Payor making cost contributions and PCT Payments under the cost sharing alternative, on the other hand. By emphasizing that it is the difference in market-correlated risk between the two alternatives that drives the difference in discount rates, and that absent any material difference in market-correlated risk between the two alternatives, the discount rate could be equal, the final regulations appear to embrace the traditional corporate finance view that only systematic risk receives a risk premium. So if development risk is not the reason why the cost of capital used to discount the expected operating income in the cost sharing alternative should be higher than that used to discount the expected cash flow in the licensing alternative, what can that reason possibly be? A useful clue is found in the final regulations; indeed Treas. Reg (g)(2)(v)(B)(1) states that: In some circumstances, a party may have less risk as a licensee of intangibles needed in its operations, and so require a lower discount rate, than it would have by entering into a CSA to develop such intangibles, which may involve the party s assumption of additional risk in funding its cost contributions to the IDA. Taken literally, this excerpt from the final regulations suggests that the discount rate used to value the cost sharing alternative could be equal to the discount rate used to value the licensing alternative, plus a risk premium that reflects the risk of funding the IDC. Notice that Treas. Reg (g)(2)(v)(B)(1) makes no mention of a risk premium related to the likelihood of success or failure of the IDA. As will be demonstrated below, the final regulations got it right; it is indeed the operating leverage created by the IDC that magnifies the systematic risk in the expected operating income of the cost sharing participant. The greater the operating leverage created by the IDC, the greater the spread between the cost of capital of the levered firm (cost sharing alternative participant) and of the unlevered firm (licensing alternative participant). This result is identical to the well-known and well accepted result in the corporate finance literature that, ceteris paribus, the systematic risk of a leveraged firm is higher than the systematic risk of an unleveraged firm. 5 The greater the financial leverage created by the interest payments, the greater the spread between the cost of capital of the leveraged firm (the firm with debt and equity) and the cost of capital of the unleveraged firm (the firm with no debt and all equity). The close analogy between financial leverage and operating leverage is good news for transfer pricing practitioners faced with the practical issue of determining reliable and supportable discount rates. Indeed, since the work of Modigliani and Miller (1958) on the one hand and Hamada (1972) on the other hand, a vast theoretical and empirical literature has developed around the construction of discount rates for leveraged firms, in reference to the discount rates applicable to unleveraged firms. Recognizing that operational fixed costs are very similar to interest payments to debt holders, a smaller, but more directly relevant literature subsequently developed around the relationship between a firm operational fixed costs and its asset beta. 6 The starting point of that literature is the segregation of a firm total costs into variable and fixed costs. Since, by definition, fixed costs have a zero beta, the appropriate discount rate for these fixed costs is the risk-free rate of return which is the rate of return assumed on debt in the traditional Hamada (1972) formula. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the result that a leveraged firm will have greater systematic risk than an unleveraged firm carries over to the analysis of operationally levered firms. Various corporate finance textbooks offer some version of a Hamada-type formula relating the beta of a levered firm to that of an unlevered firm. 7 Although instructive and useful, the operating leverage literature goes only so far to analyze the impact of the assumption of IDC funding on the systematic risk of the levered firm. This is because we do not want to assume that IDCs are perfectly fixed costs, and because they are the only costs that should be analyzed to support the existence of magnified systematic risk in the cost sharing alternative. 8 We will show that it is easy to generalize the textbooks formula (derived to analyze purely fixed costs) to a formula that allows IDCs to not be purely fixed costs, and that focuses exclusively on IDCs and not 5 We will use the terms leveraged firm and unleveraged firm to describe firms with and without financial leverage, respectively, and use the terms levered firm and unlevered firm to describe firms with and without operating leverage, respectively. This language will eliminate the need to specify each time which type of leverage (financial or operational) we are considering. 6 See, for example, Lev (1974). 7 See, for example, Pratt & Grabowski (2010) and Brealey, Myers, & Allen (2008). These textbook formulae deal with the effect of perfectly fixed costs, and thus assume a zero beta for those fixed costs. 8 See Treas. Reg (g)(4)(i)(C). Arm s Length Standard Page 2 of 6 Copyright 2012, Deloitte Global Services Limited.
3 on any other type of costs, whether variable, fixed, or in between, since those are present in both the licensing and the cost sharing alternatives. The cost sharing alternative participant can be thought of as an unlevered firm, namely, the licensing alternative participant, accepting the operating leverage of IDC, thus becoming a levered firm. The relationship between the cost sharing alternative discount rate and the licensing alternative discount rate therefore boils down to establishing the relationship between the systematic risk of a levered firm and the systematic risk of an unlevered firm. As discussed above, a vast literature exists to guide us in deriving that relationship; we thus proceed to demonstrate that it takes the form of a simple formula referred to as Penelle (2012), closely analogous to the Harris & Pringle (1985) formula for de-leveraging and releveraging equity beta in the case of financial leverage under the assumptions of risky debt and the value of the tax shield of interests discounted at the cost of equity of the firm. 9 The formula is: Penelle (2012) 10,,, In the previous expression, denotes the cost sharing alternative discount rate, denotes the licensing alternative discount rate, denotes the IDC discount rate (cost of debt), denotes the operating income of the cost sharing participant (pre-idc), and denotes the present value operator. This critically important formula states that the cost sharing alternative discount rate is equal to the licensing alternative discount rate plus a non-negative risk premium equal to the product of the systematic risk premium of the business multiplied (magnified) by the operating leverage created by funding the IDC. Since the IDC and the operating income pre-idc are provided in the financial projections, developing meaningful projections is critical, because the implied operating leverage drives the delta between the two relevant discount rates (the cost sharing alternative discount rate and the licensing alternative discount rate). It should be clear from Penelle (2012) that the presence of operating leverage does not create risk the controlled foreign participant would not face as a licensee; the presence of operating leverage merely magnifies risk the controlled foreign participant would face as a licensee and for which it would receive a return from the market. Notice that this formula is derived by imposing present value accounting equalities and present value weighted average cost of capital equalities. This means that any violation of the previous formula means that either accounting equalities or weighted average cost of capital equalities are violated breaking the required internal consistency of the application of the income method. An exactly analogous formula exists linking the rate at which to discount the expected operating income of the licensor in the licensing alternative called the differential income stream in the proposed and temporary regulations of December 2011, to the licensing alternative discount rate. Penelle (2012) 11,,, In the previous expression, denotes the differential income stream discount rate, denotes the licensing alternative discount rate, denotes the IDC discount rate (cost of debt), denotes the gross income of the licensor in the licensing alternative (pre-idc), and denotes the present value operator. Since the gross income of the licensor in the licensing alternative is always lower than the operating income (pre-idc) of the controlled foreign participant in the cost sharing alternative, the operating leverage of the licensor in the licensing alternative will always be greater than the operating 9 Mathematically, those assumptions combine to eliminate the value of the tax shield of debt in their beta de-leveraging and re-leveraging formula, which ends up not having the tax rate as an argument (most other such formulas do). 10 The proof of the formula can be found in Philippe G. Penelle, The Mathematics of Cost Sharing under the Income Method, 21 BNA Transfer Pricing Report, 13, 11/1/ The proof of the formula can be found in Philippe G. Penelle, The Mathematics of Cost Sharing under the Income Method, 21 BNA Transfer Pricing Report, 13, 11/1/2012. Arm s Length Standard Page 3 of 6 Copyright 2012, Deloitte Global Services Limited.
4 leverage of the controlled foreign participant in the cost sharing alternative. It thus follows that the four relevant discount rates always satisfy the following inequality: Under which circumstances are different discount rates required to value the expected operating incomes in the cost sharing alternative and in the licensing alternative? Penelle (2012) illustrates that Treas. Reg (g)(2)(v)(B)(1) should probably have read in almost all circumstances, as any beta strictly less than one for the IDC will result in magnified systematic risk for the levered firm (cost sharing alternative participant) compared to the unlevered firm (licensing alternative participant) this simply means that IDCs are not perfectly variable costs. The IRS s withdrawal of the 2007 Coordinated Issue Paper thus appears to be the right move, because Example 1 incorrectly assumed the cost sharing alternative discount rate and the licensing alternative discount rate to be the same, violating the fact that legitimate IDCs cannot possibly be perfectly variable costs. Penelle (2012) also illustrates why early-stage development firms tend to face higher and less stable over time costs of capital than more mature firms, ceteris paribus. These early-stage development firms will initially face greater operating leverage than more mature ones, because they will have relatively lower levels of expected revenue per dollar of IDC. As time goes by and revenue is expected to increase (per dollar of IDC), the level of operating leverage decreases and so does the cost of capital. Similarly, the formula illustrates why we do not find too many firms that develop intellectual property and rely exclusively on licensing to generate their revenue. Indeed, by exploiting the intellectual property themselves and capturing the routine return associated with the manufacturing and distribution functions, firms can decrease the level of operating leverage they face, and thus decrease their cost of capital. 12 This point was illustrated analytically in the two versions of Penelle (2012), one for and one for, by noting that the gross income of the licensor in the licensing alternative is always lower than the operating income (pre-idc) of the controlled foreign participant in the cost sharing alternative. Since the resulting operating leverage faced by the controlled foreign participant in the cost sharing alternative is therefore always lower than the operating leverage faced by the licensor in the licensing alternative, its cost of capital is therefore always lower. The last comment is a great segue into describing, from an economics standpoint, what a cost sharing arrangement is really all about. There are those who believe that a cost sharing arrangement is about shifting the development risk (risk of project failure) from a U.S. parent company to a controlled foreign corporation, and compensating the controlled foreign corporation for the risk of development failure it agrees to take on. This view is economically flawed. Cost sharing arrangements are about de-levering the financial statements of the U.S. parent company as a licensor (by removing the IDC obligation), and levering the financial statements of the controlled foreign participant (by introducing the IDC obligation). This swap of an obligation to pay a purely variable cost as a licensee (the royalty) to an obligation to pay a fixed cost as a cost sharing participant (the IDC) has a market price, namely, the difference between the cost sharing alternative discount rate and the licensing alternative discount rate. As demonstrated in Penelle (2012), this market price is exactly equal to the magnification of the systematic risk borne by the controlled foreign participant (as a licensee), resulting from the obligation to fund the IDC (as a cost sharing participant). The risk of failure of the development activity associated with the IDC is irrelevant. Our analysis also underscores the fact that developing an intangible asset, within the meaning of Treas. Reg (b), is not an economic requirement to justify a return in excess of a perfectly competitive return (e.g., a CPM return). What is economically required to justify a return in excess of a perfectly competitive return is the existence of fixed costs whether 12 This is the reason why the proposed and temporary regulations of December 2011 addressing the differential income stream discount rate which is really the discount rate at which to discount the operating income of the licensor in the licensing alternative has very little practical use. Indeed, applying that methodology would require observing in the market place the cost of capital of companies that do not exploit any of the intellectual property they develop, and rely entirely on licensing income. The suggested methodology is thus limited to the extent that such companies exist and can be found. Arm s Length Standard Page 4 of 6 Copyright 2012, Deloitte Global Services Limited.
5 or not those fixed costs fund the creation of an intangible asset is irrelevant. Fixed costs magnify the systematic risk of the routine business. Therefore, any market participant funding those fixed costs will receive a return in excess of a perfectly competitive return (an economic rent), since a perfectly competitive return provides an appropriate return on variable costs but not enough return to cover the fixed costs. 13 Conclusions Although the law draws a clear distinction between cost sharing arrangements and licensing arrangements, the underlying economics of both types of arrangements are exactly the same; thus, the governing valuation principles that apply to both should be the same. The theory outlined herein applies not only in the context of the income method pursuant to Treas. Reg , but also in the context of the income method as an unspecified method pursuant to Treas. Reg Developing and exploiting intellectual property requires funding fixed costs that in a cost sharing arrangement are distributed between the two parties in different proportions than in a licensing arrangement. 14 However, in both cases, some of those fixed costs will presumably be borne by the foreign party, whether as a licensee or as a transferee. The only economically relevant question is what proportion of those fixed costs will create operating leverage, and thus magnify existing systematic risk, in the financial statements of the foreign party. Once that question has been answered, the valuation technique discussed in this article can be implemented by plugging the appropriate numbers in Penelle (2012). It is the delta between the resulting cost of capital applying to the operating income of the foreign party pre-fixed costs versus post-fixed costs that will dictate the proportion of intangible income the foreign party is entitled to as a reward for agreeing to take on the funding of those fixed costs and facing the resulting magnified systematic risk. The takeaway from this article for taxpayers and transfer pricing professionals should be that a thorough analysis of the nature of the costs associated with developing and exploiting intangibles is required to perform a meaningful valuation of a cost sharing or licensing transaction. Focusing on an analysis of the riskiness of the intangible development activity itself is unproductive, because that analysis will have no bearing on the valuation. What will have a definite bearing on the valuation, however, is the level of operating leverage the cost sharing or licensing transaction introduces in the financial statements of the transferee or licensee, respectively. The need for that analysis can no longer be overlooked by practitioners. Philippe G. Penelle (Los Angeles) Principal Deloitte Tax LLP ppenelle@deloitte.com 13 Perfectly competitive returns are achieved by profit-maximizing firms facing a perfectly elastic demand when they produce a level of output such that marginal cost is equal to the price they face (no market power). This results in a loss in the presence of fixed costs. Perfect competition is thus inconsistent with a market with perfectly elastic demands and the presence of fixed costs. Profit-maximizing firms facing fixed costs will produce at a level of output where marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue, which requires some inelasticity in the demand they face (some level of market power). The resulting price markup over marginal cost is what provides the return to the fixed costs. In other words, the presence of fixed costs creates barriers to entry and the resulting market structure cannot be perfectly competitive. 14 Typically, in a licensing arrangement, the U.S. parent company will bear all the fixed costs associated with the development of the intangibles, and the controlled foreign licensee will bear all the incremental fixed costs associated with the exploitation of the intangibles. In contrast, in a cost sharing arrangement, the controlled foreign participant will typically bear all the fixed costs associated with both the development and the exploitation of the intangibles. Under U.S. law, nothing prevents a licensing transaction to provide that the licensee will bear some of the costs associated with the development or maintenance of the intangibles, thereby increasing the proportion of fixed costs the licensee agrees to fund, and thereby justifying leaving a greater portion of the intangible return to the licensee. Arm s Length Standard Page 5 of 6 Copyright 2012, Deloitte Global Services Limited.
6 About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Global Services Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Global Services Limited and its member firms. Deloitte is the brand under which tens of thousands of dedicated professionals in independent firms throughout the world collaborate to provide audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, and tax services to selected clients. These firms are members of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), a UK private company limited by guarantee. Each member firm provides services in a particular geographic area and is subject to the laws and professional regulations of the particular country or countries in which it operates. DTTL does not itself provide services to clients. DTTL and each DTTL member firm are separate and distinct legal entities, which cannot obligate each other. DTTL and each DTTL member firm are liable only for their own acts or omissions and not those of each other. Each DTTL member firm is structured differently in accordance with national laws, regulations, customary practice, and other factors, and may secure the provision of professional services in its territory through subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities. Disclaimer This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Global Services Limited, its member firms, or its and their affiliates are, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your finances or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. None of Deloitte Global Services Limited, its member firms, or its and their respective affiliates shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication. Arm s Length Standard Page 6 of 6 Copyright 2012, Deloitte Global Services Limited.
The Economics of Business Restructuring and Exit Charges
The Economics of Business Restructuring and Exit Charges A production facility with high fixed costs, relative to variable costs, is said to have high operating leverage. High operating leverage means
More informationThe discussion draft addresses BEPS Actions 8, 9, and 10, which concern the development of:
BEPS Actions 8, 9, and 10: Discussion Draft on Revisions to Chapter I of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines (Including Risk, Recharacterization, and Special Measures) The Organization for Economic Cooperation
More informationCorporate Financial Management. Lecture 3: Other explanations of capital structure
Corporate Financial Management Lecture 3: Other explanations of capital structure As we discussed in previous lectures, two extreme results, namely the irrelevance of capital structure and 100 percent
More informationFINANCE 402 Capital Budgeting and Corporate Objectives. Syllabus
FINANCE 402 Capital Budgeting and Corporate Objectives Course Description: Syllabus The objective of this course is to provide a rigorous introduction to the fundamental principles of asset valuation and
More informationGene Ferraro, Mazars USA LLP New York, NY William D. James, BKD, LLP St. Louis, MO
How to Plan for IP? Gene Ferraro, Mazars USA LLP New York, NY gene.ferarro@mazarsusa.com William D. James, BKD, LLP St. Louis, MO wdjames@bkd.com Cormac Kelleher, Mazars Dublin, Ireland ckelleher@mazars.ie
More informationThe latest and expected changes in Russian and U.S. Transfer Pricing legislation
American Chamber of Commerce in Russia The latest and expected changes in Russian and U.S. Transfer Pricing legislation AmCham's 2015 Annual Tax Conference, 30 October 2015 Dmitry Kulakov, Tax Partner
More informationTermination of sales and distribution arrangements in Australia
Termination of sales and distribution arrangements in Australia Will terminating or significantly revising an intercompany sales or distribution agreement result in compensation 1 to the affiliate carrying
More informationRecent cases on the application of Taiwan sourcing rules
Recent cases on the application of Taiwan sourcing rules Taiwan s income sourcing rules have always been a controversial issue in cross-border transactions, particularly transactions relating to the provision
More informationCapital structure I: Basic Concepts
Capital structure I: Basic Concepts What is a capital structure? The big question: How should the firm finance its investments? The methods the firm uses to finance its investments is called its capital
More informationWACC Calculations in Practice: Incorrect Results due to Inconsistent Assumptions - Status Quo and Improvements
WACC Calculations in Practice: Incorrect Results due to Inconsistent Assumptions - Status Quo and Improvements Matthias C. Grüninger 1 & Axel H. Kind 2 1 Lonza AG, Münchensteinerstrasse 38, CH-4002 Basel,
More informationDirexion/Wilshire Dynamic Asset Allocation Models Asset Management Tools Designed to Enhance Investment Flexibility
Daniel D. O Neill, President and Chief Investment Officer Direxion/Wilshire Dynamic Asset Allocation Models Asset Management Tools Designed to Enhance Investment Flexibility Executive Summary At Direxion
More informationValuation Methods and Discount Rate Issues: A Comprehensive Example
9-205-116 REV: NOVEMBER 1, 2006 MARC BERTONECHE FAUSTO FEDERICI Valuation Methods and Discount Rate Issues: A Comprehensive Example The objective of this note is to present a comprehensive review of valuation
More informationUse of Differential Income Stream as an Application of the Income Method and as a Consideration in Assessing the Best Method
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/27/2013 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-20786, and on FDsys.gov [4830-01-p] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
More informationPAPER No.: 8 Financial Management MODULE No. : 25 Capital Structure Theories IV: MM Hypothesis with Taxes, Merton Miller Argument
Subject Financial Management Paper No. and Title Module No. and Title Module Tag Paper No.8: Financial Management Module No. 25: Capital Structure Theories IV: MM Hypothesis with Taxes and Merton Miller
More informationThe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) put forth the investor model in the proposed
Modelling risk Rebel Curd, Robin Hart, and Catie Magelssen of the Ballentine Barbera group, a CRA International company, explore the potential for risk in an investment model recently published by the
More informationThe New Partnership Disguised Sale and Liability Allocation Regulations
The New Partnership Disguised Sale and Liability Allocation Regulations Tax Executives Institute Houston Chapter Amy L. Sutton Deloitte Tax LLP May 2, 2017 Sections 707 and 752: Final, Temporary, and Proposed
More informationUSING INTERCOMPANY TRANSFER PRICE METHODS
Property Taxation Valuation USING INTERCOMPANY TRANSFER PRICE METHODS TO SEGREGATE TANGIBLE/INTANGIBLE ASSETS IN UNIT VALUATION PROPERTY TAX APPRAISALS Melvin R. Rodriguez and Robert F. Reilly 3 INTRODUCTION
More informationFrance clarifies tax treatment of international employees equity compensation
France clarifies tax treatment of international employees equity compensation The French tax authorities published two sets of long-awaited regulations on the equity compensation of internationally mobile
More informationProtocol to New Zealand-U.S. treaty: A New Zealand perspective
Protocol to New Zealand-U.S. treaty: A New Zealand perspective The 2008 protocol updating the New Zealand-U.S. tax treaty came into force on 12 November 2010. The protocol provides for significantly more
More informationAnalysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector
Analysing BEPS Impact Private Equity sector January 2016 Second line optional lorem ipsum B Subhead lorem ipsum, date quatueriure In this age of increasing focus on bottomlines, it is indeed tempting for
More informationOil and gas taxation in Namibia Deloitte taxation and investment guides
Oil and gas taxation in Namibia Deloitte taxation and investment guides Contents 1.0 Summary 1 2.0 Corporate income tax 1 2.1 In general 1 2.2 Rates 1 2.3 Taxable income 1 2.4 Revenue 2 2.5 Deductions
More informationIntellectual Property
www.internationaltaxreview.com Tax Reference Library No 24 Intellectual Property (4th Edition) Published in association with: The Ballentine Barbera Group Ernst & Young FTI Consulting NERA Economic Consulting
More informationWhat s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax
What s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax Impact of the New Revenue Standard on Transfer Pricing In May 2014 the International Accounting Standards Board ( IASB ) and Financial
More informationIRS adopts final cost sharing regulations
22 December 2011 International Tax Alert News and views from Transfer Pricing IRS adopts final cost sharing regulations Executive summary Get the world to go! You can access corporate income tax rates
More informationThe Deloitte 401(k) Plan Saving for the Future
The Deloitte 401(k) Plan Saving for the Future Total Rewards July 2016 00 The Deloitte 401(k) Plan Introduction Introduction The Deloitte 401(k) Plan ( the 401(k) Plan ) provides a customizable savings
More informationThe homework assignment reviews the major capital structure issues. The homework assures that you read the textbook chapter; it is not testing you.
Corporate Finance, Module 19: Adjusted Present Value Homework Assignment (The attached PDF file has better formatting.) Financial executives decide how to obtain the money needed to operate the firm:!
More informationFinancial Leverage: the extent to which a company is committed to fixed charges related to interest payments. Measured by:
Wk 11 FINS1613 Notes 13.1 Discuss the effect of Financial Leverage Financial Leverage: the extent to which a company is committed to fixed charges related to interest payments. Measured by: The debt to
More informationESTIMATING DISCOUNT RATES AND CAPITALIZATION RATES
Intellectual Property Economic Analysis ESTIMATING DISCOUNT RATES AND CAPITALIZATION RATES Timothy J. Meinhart 27 INTRODUCTION In intellectual property analysis, the terms "discount rate" and "capitalization
More informationUS Tax Court s Altera Decision Raises Broader Questions
US Tax Court s Altera Decision Raises Broader Questions The US Tax Court on July 27 held, in a unanimous 15-0 decision in Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, that a rule promulgated under the 1995 cost sharing
More informationThis section contains major captions for through Allocation of income and deductions among taxpayers.
Transfer Pricing in International Investments Compiled by Lawrence Shoenthal, Consultant with Weiser Mazars LLP in NY 1 516-620-8733 Below is the U.S. Internal Revenue Regulation Section 1.482-0. This
More informationAdvanced Risk Management
Winter 2015/2016 Advanced Risk Management Part I: Decision Theory and Risk Management Motives Lecture 4: Risk Management Motives Perfect financial markets Assumptions: no taxes no transaction costs no
More informationPerformance attribution Investment performance under the microscope
Performance attribution Investment performance under the microscope Xavier Zaegel Partner Advisory & Consulting Deloitte Hervé Hens Manager Advisory & Consulting Deloitte Introduction When assessing a
More informationCHAPTER 14. Capital Structure in a Perfect Market. Chapter Synopsis
CHAPTR 14 Capital Structure in a Perfect Market Chapter Synopsis 14.1 quity Versus Debt Financing A firm s capital structure refers to the debt, equity, and other securities used to finance its fixed assets.
More informationETNO Reflection Document on the ERG draft Principles of Implementation and Best Practice for WACC calculation
November 2006 ETNO Reflection Document on the ERG draft Principles of Implementation and Best Practice for WACC calculation Executive Summary Corrections for efficiency by a national regulatory authority
More informationO n Dec. 16 more than six years after the Internal
Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report Reproduced with permission from Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report, Vol. 20 No. 17, 1/12/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationU.S. tax authorities issue guidance on foreign account tax compliance
U.S. tax authorities issue guidance on foreign account tax compliance The U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on 27 August 2010 issued initial and lengthy guidance under new
More informationThe implied cost of capital of government s claim and the present value of tax shields: A numerical example
The implied cost of capital of government s claim and the present value of tax shields: A numerical example By M.B.J. Schauten and B. Tans M.B.J. Schauten is Assistant Professor in Finance, Erasmus University
More informationInternational Journal TM
International Journal TM Reproduced with permission from Tax Management International Journal, 47 TM International Journal 328, 5/11/18. Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationAre Capital Structure Decisions Relevant?
Are Capital Structure Decisions Relevant? 161 Chapter 17 Are Capital Structure Decisions Relevant? Contents 17.1 The Capital Structure Problem.................... 161 17.2 The Capital Structure Problem
More informationTEI School - Houston. Intangible Property ( IP ) - Basics in IP Planning. May 3, 2017
TEI School - Houston Intangible Property ( IP ) - Basics in IP Planning May 3, 2017 Disclaimer EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global
More informationChapter 13 Capital Structure and Distribution Policy
Chapter 13 Capital Structure and Distribution Policy Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, students should be able to: Differentiate among the following capital structure theories: Modigliani
More informationJeffrey F. Jaffe Spring Semester 2011 Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Syllabus, page 1 of 8
Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Syllabus, page 1 of 8 Spring 2011 Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Wharton School of Business Syllabus Course Description This course provides an introduction to the theory, the methods,
More informationMeeting the requirements of the UK Bribery Act A guide for South African companies
Meeting the requirements of the UK Bribery Act Background The Bribery Act in the United Kingdom (UK), commonly referred to as the UK Bribery Act (the Act), came into effect on 1 July 2011. Prior to this,
More informationCorporate Finance.
Finance 100 Spring 2008 Dana Kiku kiku@wharton.upenn.edu 2335 SH-DH Corporate Finance The objective of this course is to provide a rigorous introduction to the fundamental principles of asset valuation,
More informationBEPS Impact on Private Equity
BEPS Impact on Private Equity BEPS impact on private equityspace An Indian perspective In this age of increasing focus on bottomlines, it is indeed tempting for a global tax director of a multinational
More informationChapter 19 Optimal Fiscal Policy
Chapter 19 Optimal Fiscal Policy We now proceed to study optimal fiscal policy. We should make clear at the outset what we mean by this. In general, fiscal policy entails the government choosing its spending
More informationCorporate Finance, Module 21: Option Valuation. Practice Problems. (The attached PDF file has better formatting.) Updated: July 7, 2005
Corporate Finance, Module 21: Option Valuation Practice Problems (The attached PDF file has better formatting.) Updated: July 7, 2005 {This posting has more information than is needed for the corporate
More informationLegal entity reduction: Savings on tap?
Legal entity reduction: Savings on tap? Perhaps few other corporate planning opportunities better embody the concept of less is more than legal entity reduction. At a time when many multinational companies
More informationJeffrey F. Jaffe Spring Semester 2015 Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Syllabus, page 1. Spring 2015 Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Wharton School of Business
Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Syllabus, page 1 Spring 2015 Corporate Finance FNCE 100 Wharton School of Business Syllabus Course Description This course provides an introduction to the theory, the methods,
More informationTax Management. Using Internal Agreements to Price Intangibles Transfers
Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report Reproduced with permission from Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report, Vol. 23 No. 6, 7/10/2014. Copyright 2014 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationLeverage. Capital Budgeting and Corporate Objectives
Leverage Capital Budgeting and Corporate Objectives Professor Ron Kaniel Simon School of Business University of Rochester 1 Overview Capital Structure does not matter!» Modigliani & Miller propositions
More informationRisks and Returns of Relative Total Shareholder Return Plans Andy Restaino Technical Compensation Advisors Inc.
Risks and Returns of Relative Total Shareholder Return Plans Andy Restaino Technical Compensation Advisors Inc. INTRODUCTION When determining or evaluating the efficacy of a company s executive compensation
More informationIFRS industry insights
IFRS Global Office March 2013 IFRS industry insights Joint arrangements in the life sciences industry IFRS 11 does not change the definition of a joint arrangement under IAS 31 as being an arrangement
More informationTen Questions on the OECD s DEMPE Concept and Its Role in Valuing Intangibles
Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report TM Reproduced with permission from Tax Management Transfer Pricing Report, Vol. 26, 06/01/2017. Copyright 2017 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationFASB Emerging Issues Task Force
EITF Issue No. 07-1 FASB Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 07-1 Title: Accounting for Collaborative Arrangements Related to the Development and Commercialization of Intellectual Property Document: Issue
More informationBEPS Action Plan Item 13: The New Documentation Standard and Implications for the Financial Services Industry
BEPS Action Plan Item 13: The New Documentation Standard and Implications for the Financial Services Industry The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development completed and released the Guidance
More information08-Nov Graeme Wood Procter & Gamble November 2011
Graeme Wood Procter & Gamble November 2011 For TP purposes, how does one identify which legal entity ( LE ) within an MNE group should get the profits from the brand value under the ALP? How should brand
More information2017 Deloitte Renewable Energy Seminar Innovating for tomorrow November 13-15, 2017
2017 Deloitte Renewable Energy Seminar Innovating for tomorrow November 13-15, 2017 Renewable energy project considerations when transacting with regulated utilities John W. Hartman, Senior Manager, Deloitte
More informationBase Erosion and Profit Sharing Action Plan 11, 12, 14 & 15. Mr. S.P. Singh, Ex-IRS 7th November, 2015
Base Erosion and Profit Sharing Action Plan 11, 12, 14 & 15 Mr. S.P. Singh, Ex-IRS 7th November, 2015 Contents Action 11 - Establishing Methodologies to Collect and Analyze Data on BEPS Action 12 Requiring
More informationCapital Structure. Katharina Lewellen Finance Theory II February 18 and 19, 2003
Capital Structure Katharina Lewellen Finance Theory II February 18 and 19, 2003 The Key Questions of Corporate Finance Valuation: How do we distinguish between good investment projects and bad ones? Financing:
More informationPENSION & BENEFITS! T reasury and IRS face a fundamental choice: Do A BNA, INC. DAILY
A BNA, INC. PENSION & BENEFITS! DAILY Reproduced with permission from Pension & Benefits Daily, 107 PBD, 06/03/2011, 06/03/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372- 1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationCapital Structure Decisions
GSU, Department of Finance, AFM - Capital Structure / page 1 - Corporate Finance Capital Structure Decisions - Relevant textbook pages - none - Relevant eoc-problems - none - Other relevant material -
More informationAdvanced Corporate Finance. 3. Capital structure
Advanced Corporate Finance 3. Capital structure Objectives of the session So far, NPV concept and possibility to move from accounting data to cash flows => But necessity to go further regarding the discount
More informationDebt. Firm s assets. Common Equity
Debt/Equity Definition The mix of securities that a firm uses to finance its investments is called its capital structure. The two most important such securities are debt and equity Debt Firm s assets Common
More informationTechnically Speaking The road ahead
10th Edition - June 2011 Technically Speaking The road ahead Accounting & Auditing - External Contents Welcome Dear Colleagues Welcome to our tenth edition of Technically Speaking! We look forward to your
More informationGlobal Transfer Pricing Alert
Global Transfer Pricing 15 December 2017 Cambodia introduces transfer pricing rules Global Transfer Pricing Alert 2017-056 Cambodia s Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) issued the country s first transfer
More informationMP&S DECOSIMO GLOBAL TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION, CONSULTING AND ARMS-LENGTH PRICE DETERMINATION
TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION, CONSULTING AND ARMS-LENGTH PRICE DETERMINATION Transforming global problems into global solutions Transfer pricing is a term used to describe all aspects of intercompany
More informationDevelopment Discussion Papers
Development Discussion Papers Financial Discount Rates in Project Appraisal Joseph Tham Development Discussion Paper No. 706 June 1999 Copyright 1999 Joseph Tham and President and Fellows of Harvard College
More informationChina Related Party Transactions and TP Documentation Rules Highlights. 10 August 2016
China Related Party Transactions and TP Documentation Rules Highlights 10 August 2016 Related Party Transactions and TP Documentation Rules Aligned with OECD recommendations and adapted for China Bulletin
More informationtransfer pricing insider
transfer pricing insider tm onesource transfer pricing Volume 3, issue 2 august 2009 COST SHArING ARRANGE- MENTS ARE LESS ATTRACTIVE UNDER NEW REGULATIONS The Temporary Regulations, like the 2005 Proposed
More informationOECD Release on Intangibles: Many Issues Unanswered
OECD Release on Intangibles: Many Issues Unanswered On 16 September, the OECD issued revisions to Chapter VI of the transfer pricing guidelines, Special Considerations for Intangibles, as part of the release
More informationThe New Revenue Standard State of the Industry and Prevailing Approaches for Adoption Where are we today and what s to come?
The New Revenue Standard Where are we today and what s to come? June 26, 2017 Speaking with you today Grant Casner Grant has been with Deloitte for over 14 years and advises companies on complex accounting
More informationInternational tax implications of US tax reform
Arm s Length Standard Global views within reach. International tax implications of US tax reform Congress has approved and President Trump has signed into law a massive tax reform package that lowers tax
More informationUN Releases Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries
UN Releases Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries The United Nations Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters on October 15-19 adopted the Practical Manual
More informationCyprus Tax News New rules for taxation of intra-group financing arrangements
Cyprus Tax & Legal Services 3 July 2017 Issue 14/2017 Cyprus Tax News New rules for taxation of intra-group financing arrangements On 30 June 2017, the Cyprus Tax Department ( CTD ) issued a Circular with
More information24 th Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference
24 th Annual Health Sciences Tax Conference Understanding the tax impact of joint ventures and December 10, 2014 Disclaimer EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member
More informationPhillip Beutel, Bryan Ray, Steven Schwartz
TWO WORLDS COLLIDING? TRANSFER PRICING AND DAMAGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION Phillip Beutel, Bryan Ray, Steven Schwartz I. INTRODUCTION The profitable management of intellectual property (IP)
More informationCost Sharing Arrangements Are Less Attractive Under New Regulations
Checkpoint Contents International Tax Library WG&L Journals Journal of International Taxation (WG&L) Journal of International Taxation 2009 Volume 20, Number 04, April 2009 Articles Cost Sharing Arrangements
More informationMcKinsey on Chemicals
McKinsey on Chemicals Number 5, Spring 2014 4 Chemical innovation: An investment for the ages 13 What s next for international chemical companies in China? 23 When gas gets tight: Next steps for the Middle
More informationThe internal rate of return (IRR) is a venerable technique for evaluating deterministic cash flow streams.
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Vol. 55, No. 6, June 2009, pp. 1030 1034 issn 0025-1909 eissn 1526-5501 09 5506 1030 informs doi 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0989 2009 INFORMS An Extension of the Internal Rate of Return to Stochastic
More informationTax Seminar 2015 Know the rules, know your way ahead. December 15, 2015
Tax Seminar 2015 Know the rules, know your way ahead December 15, 2015 Agenda Corporate Tax Withholding Tax Practical Issues Overview of the TAS Questions and answers 2 2015 Deloitte & Touche (M.E.) Overview
More informationMaximizing the value of the firm is the goal of managing capital structure.
Key Concepts and Skills Understand the effect of financial leverage on cash flows and the cost of equity Understand the impact of taxes and bankruptcy on capital structure choice Understand the basic components
More informationII. Currency & Hedging 1
II. Currency & Hedging 1 Overview This presentation is designed to: 1. Address why currency is a significant consideration for institutional investors: Components of international returns to US investors
More informationTransfer Pricing: Theory & Practice
Transfer Pricing: Theory & Practice TEI Houston Chapter Your Auditor and Transfer Pricing Randy G. Price, Deloitte Tax LLP Rupesh R. Vadapalli, Deloitte Tax LLP March 1, 2018 Agenda Impact of International
More informationNATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL, INC.
NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE COUNCIL, INC. 1625 K STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1604 TEL: (202) 887-0278 FAX: (202) 452-8160 December 6, 2005 CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-144615-02) Room 5203 Internal Revenue Service
More informationSoftware and innovation deduction: Belgium is the place to be! 23 November 2017
Software and innovation deduction: Belgium is the place to be! 23 1 Innovation income deduction (adopted by the Chamber of Representatives on 2 February 2017) R&D incentives Innovation income deduction
More informationPage 515 Summary and Conclusions
Page 515 Summary and Conclusions 1. We began our discussion of the capital structure decision by arguing that the particular capital structure that maximizes the value of the firm is also the one that
More informationTax Espresso Transfer Pricing update: Master file requirement introduced alongside other BEPS recommendations
Malaysia Tax 7 July 2017 Tax Espresso Transfer Pricing update: Master file requirement introduced alongside other BEPS recommendations The Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia ( IRB ) has released the first
More informationStatus of transactional profit methods as last resort methods
Grant Thornton UK LLP Chartered Accountants UK member of Grant Thornton International Caroline Silberztein - CTP/TTP Head of the Transfer Pricing Unit OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration 2, rue
More informationNotice Announces New and Improved Substantial Assistance Rules
As originally published in: Tax Management International Journal April 13, 2007 Notice 2007-13 Announces New and Improved Substantial Assistance Rules By: Michael J. Miller INTRODUCTION Notice 2007-13
More informationChapter 14: Capital Structure in a Perfect Market
Chapter 14: Capital Structure in a Perfect Market-1 Chapter 14: Capital Structure in a Perfect Market I. Overview 1. Capital structure: mix of debt and equity issued by the firm to fund its assets Note:
More informationIncome Shifting from Transfer Pricing: Further Evidence from Tax Return Data. Michael McDonald* OTA Technical Working Paper 2 July 2008
Income Shifting from Transfer Pricing: Further Evidence from Tax Return Data by Michael McDonald* OTA Technical Working Paper 2 July 2008 OTA Technical Working Papers is an occasional series of reports
More informationAfter the Breakup Valuation of Corporate Spinoffs and Divestitures. Bret Tack. May/June 2015
After the Breakup Valuation of Corporate Spinoffs and Divestitures Bret Tack May/June 2015 pinoffs and divestitures comprise a large portion of the overall deal market. 1 Independent valuations are often
More informationUnited Kingdom Tax Alert
International Tax United Kingdom Tax Alert Contacts Bill Dodwell bdodwell@deloitte.co.uk Christie Buck cbuck@deloitte.co.uk Alison Lobb alobb@deloitte.co.uk 11 December 2014 Draft legislation on diverted
More informationIRS PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS
- 1 - COPENHAGEN RESEARCH GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - CORIT DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 2. 2009 IRS PROPOSED TRANSFER PRICING REGULATIONS By Stuart Webber November 8, 2006 - 2 - Abstract Over the past decade
More informationUWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.
Tucker, J. (2009) How to set the hurdle rate for capital investments. In: Stauffer, D., ed. (2009) Qfinance: The Ultimate Resource. A & C Black, pp. 322-324. Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11334
More informationNACVA. National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts. Professional Standards
NACVA National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts Professional Standards Effective May 31, 2002 NACVA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Table of Contents Preamble... 4 General and Ethical Standards... 4
More informationLet s Build a Capital Structure
FIN 614 Capital tructure Design Principles Professor Robert.H. Hauswald Kogod chool of usiness, AU Let s uild a Capital tructure Determinants of firms debt-equity mix operations funded with a combination
More informationCustomized solution for direct tax compliance. TAXDialogue
Customized solution for direct tax compliance TAXDialogue What is Tax Dialogue? A user-friendly web-based client portal specified for corporate income tax compliance purposes Built-in workflow that leads
More informationInternational Glossary of Business Valuation Terms
International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms To enhance and sustain the quality of business valuations for the benefit of the profession and its clientele, the below identified societies and organizations
More information