Understanding the Comparable Profit Method (CPM) in Transfer Pricing

First published at: https://www.taxriskmanagement.com/comparable-profit-method-transfer-pricing/

Executive Summary

The Comparable Profit Method (CPM) is a pivotal transfer pricing method used by multinational enterprises (MNEs) to establish arm’s length pricing for controlled transactions. Ensuring compliance with transfer pricing regulations globally is essential to avoid tax disputes, particularly as tax authorities closely scrutinize the profit allocation between related entities. This article explores CPM in detail, covering its objectives, key components, application, strengths, and weaknesses. Additionally, we provide three practical examples and analyze court cases where CPM has been tested. We also emphasize the importance of implementing tax risk management processes when applying CPM or other transfer pricing methods.

1. What is the Comparable Profit Method (CPM)?

The Comparable Profit Method (CPM) is a widely accepted transfer pricing methodology used to assess whether a company’s profits from intercompany transactions align with those earned by independent companies in comparable circumstances. Under CPM, the profitability of a tested party (usually the less complex entity) is compared to the profitability of independent companies performing similar functions, assuming similar risks and using similar assets.

Unlike traditional transaction-based methods such as the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, CPM focuses on profitability indicators, like return on assets (ROA) or operating margin, derived from publicly available financial data. It is especially useful when data for transactional comparisons are unavailable but reliable data exists on the overall profitability of independent companies.

1.1 Objectives of CPM

The core objective of CPM is to ensure that the profits reported by related entities for tax purposes are consistent with the arm’s length principle. This method seeks to:

• Align intercompany pricing with market rates
• Mitigate tax risks for MNEs by demonstrating compliance with global transfer pricing rules
• Establish reliable benchmarks based on publicly available financial data

By ensuring that the tested party’s profitability is in line with independent firms, CPM provides a robust defense against tax authority audits.

1.2 Key Components of CPM

Several key components define the effective use of CPM:

1. Selection of Tested Party: The simpler, less complex party in the controlled transaction, typically the entity that does not control intellectual property or carry significant risks, is selected as the tested party.
2. Profitability Indicators: Key financial ratios such as operating margin, return on assets, or return on sales are used to assess the profit levels of the tested party.
3. Comparable Companies: Independent companies in the same industry or with similar business models are identified as comparables for benchmarking.
4. Time Frame: The method requires analyzing data over multiple years to capture market trends and avoid anomalies.
5. Adjustments for Differences: Adjustments are made to account for functional and risk differences between the tested party and the independent comparables.

2. How to Apply the Comparable Profit Method

Step 1: Select the Tested Party

The tested party in CPM is usually the entity engaged in routine functions within the multinational group. For example, a contract manufacturer or distributor may be selected as the tested party.

Step 2: Identify Profitability Indicators

Next, the appropriate profitability indicator is chosen, based on the industry and nature of the tested party’s operations. Common indicators include:

• Operating profit/total revenue (Operating margin)
• Operating profit/total assets (Return on assets)
• Gross profit/net sales

Step 3: Identify Comparable Independent Companies

Using databases like Orbis or Compustat, independent companies with similar functions, risks, and assets are identified. The search criteria for comparables typically include industry code, geographical location, and financial characteristics.

Step 4: Determine an Arm’s Length Range

The profitability of the tested party is compared to the profitability of the independent comparables. An arm’s length range of profitability is established, often using statistical methods like the interquartile range.

Step 5: Make Comparability Adjustments

To ensure that the tested party and comparables are truly comparable, adjustments may be necessary. For example, if the tested party operates under different economic conditions or carries different risks, adjustments will ensure a fair comparison.

Step 6: Conclusion and Documentation

If the tested party’s profitability falls within the established arm’s length range, the transfer pricing is deemed compliant. If not, adjustments must be made to the transfer prices to ensure alignment. Documentation is critical to demonstrate compliance in the event of a tax audit.

3. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Comparable Profit Method

3.1 Strengths of CPM

1. Simplicity and Broad Applicability: CPM is relatively straightforward to apply, especially in cases where transactional data for exact pricing comparisons (e.g., CUP) is lacking.
2. Wide Acceptance: CPM is widely accepted by tax authorities across various jurisdictions, including the United States and OECD member countries.
3. Available Data: Reliable financial data for independent companies is often readily available from commercial databases, allowing for robust benchmarking.

3.2 Weaknesses of CPM

1. Dependence on External Data: CPM heavily relies on the availability of comparable companies. Finding truly comparable entities with similar functions, risks, and assets can be challenging.
2. Limited Transactional Precision: CPM assesses profitability at the entity level rather than at the transactional level, which may obscure the specific profitability of individual intercompany transactions.
3. Adjustments Complexity: Making comparability adjustments for functional, risk, or asset differences can be subjective and may lead to disputes with tax authorities.

4. Examples of the Comparable Profit Method in Action

Example 1: Applying CPM to a Contract Manufacturer

A U.S.-based subsidiary, Company A, acts as a contract manufacturer for its German parent company, producing electronic components exclusively for the parent. The parent company owns the intellectual property (IP) and bears most of the risk, while Company A simply performs manufacturing tasks under strict guidelines with minimal risk. In this case, Company A is considered the “tested party” because it is the less complex entity in the transaction.

Step-by-Step Application of CPM

1. Selecting the Tested Party: Since Company A performs routine manufacturing tasks and bears little to no risk, it is chosen as the tested party. The parent company, on the other hand, bears risks associated with IP, marketing, and distribution, making it a less appropriate candidate for testing under CPM.
2. Choosing the Profitability Indicator: The most appropriate profitability indicator for this scenario is the operating margin (Operating Profit/Sales). As Company A does not control significant assets or intellectual property, and its primary role is to produce goods for its parent, its operating margin can be benchmarked against similar companies performing contract manufacturing services.
3. Identifying Comparable Companies: Using publicly available databases such as Orbis or Compustat, a search is conducted for independent contract manufacturers that operate in the electronics sector. These companies must also exhibit similar functional profiles, such as not owning IP and performing production under contracts that assign most risks to their clients. After filtering for relevant characteristics such as industry code, size, and geographic location, a group of comparable companies is selected.
4. Establishing an Arm’s Length Range: The operating margins of the comparable companies are calculated. Statistical tools such as the interquartile range (IQR) are often used to establish a range of acceptable profitability. For instance, if the operating margins of the comparables range from 3% to 8%, with the median at 5%, this becomes the arm’s length range.
5. Comparing the Tested Party’s Profitability: The operating margin of Company A is compared to the arm’s length range established for the comparables. If Company A’s margin falls within the range (e.g., 6%), the transfer pricing is deemed compliant. If the margin is outside the range (e.g., 2%), an adjustment will be required to align the intercompany pricing with the arm’s length standard.
6. Adjustments: In this case, let’s assume Company A‘s operating margin is slightly below the interquartile range, requiring an adjustment. The parent company may need to increase the price it pays to Company A for its manufacturing services, ensuring that the operating margin reflects market conditions and complies with transfer pricing regulations.

Conclusion

By applying CPM, Company A ensures that its profit margins reflect those earned by independent contract manufacturers in the electronics industry, reducing the risk of tax authority challenges. This case demonstrates the value of CPM in scenarios where transactional data may not be available but reliable profitability data exists for independent companies performing similar functions.

Example 2: Applying CPM to a Distribution Company

Company B is a French subsidiary of a global cosmetics group that distributes the parent company’s products across France. Company B handles marketing, logistics, and sales but does not bear significant market or inventory risks. Most of these risks are borne by the parent company, which retains control over the IP related to the cosmetics formulas and global branding strategies.

Step-by-Step Application of CPM

1. Selecting the Tested Party: Since Company B only performs low-risk distribution activities, it is selected as the tested party. The parent company is the entrepreneurial entity and, thus, not suitable for testing under CPM.
2. Choosing the Profitability Indicator: In this case, Return on Sales (ROS) (Operating Profit/Net Sales) is chosen as the profitability indicator. Distribution companies generally focus on the margin they make from the sale of products, making ROS the most appropriate measure of profitability for Company B.
3. Identifying Comparable Companies: The search for comparable companies focuses on independent distributors in the cosmetics industry who engage in similar activities, such as marketing and sales, but without bearing significant risk. Using database searches, several companies are identified. Key selection criteria include companies that do not hold IP, bear minimal risk, and are located in markets similar to France in terms of economic conditions and consumer preferences.
4. Establishing an Arm’s Length Range: The ROS for the comparable distributors is calculated, with an arm’s length range established. For example, the ROS of independent companies may range between 3% and 7%, with a median of 5%.
5. Comparing the Tested Party’s Profitability: The ROS for Company B is then compared to the arm’s length range. If Company B earns an ROS of 6%, its transfer pricing is deemed compliant with the arm’s length principle. However, if its ROS is higher, for example, 9%, an adjustment might be necessary to reduce Company B’s profitability and bring it within the acceptable range.
6. Making Comparability Adjustments: Adjustments may be necessary to account for any differences between Company B and the comparables. For instance, if Company B operates in a highly competitive market, adjustments may be made to account for the higher marketing and sales expenses it incurs. After adjustments, if the ROS is still above the arm’s length range, Company B must adjust its intercompany prices with the parent company to reduce its profitability.

Conclusion

Through CPM, Company B ensures that its profitability aligns with independent distributors in the cosmetics industry, helping it comply with French transfer pricing regulations. CPM is particularly useful in distribution settings where routine functions and minimal risk characterize the tested party’s operations.

Example 3: Applying CPM to a Shared Services Center

Company C, based in India, provides shared services (including IT support, HR management, and administrative functions) to its affiliates worldwide. Company C does not own any intellectual property and operates as a cost center, recovering its costs through service fees charged to its affiliates. It bears minimal risk since its activities are primarily internal support services.

Step-by-Step Application of CPM

1. Selecting the Tested Party: Company C is selected as the tested party because it is a service provider with simple, routine functions and minimal risk. The affiliates receiving the services are not chosen as tested parties, as they control more complex operations and business decisions.
2. Choosing the Profitability Indicator: The most appropriate profitability indicator for this type of service provider is Return on Assets (ROA) (Operating Profit/Total Assets). Since Company C uses its assets (computers, office space, and human resources) to provide services, ROA reflects the efficiency of the company in generating profits relative to its asset base.
3. Identifying Comparable Companies: The search for comparables focuses on independent service providers in the IT support and administrative services industries. Several companies that provide similar low-risk shared services to independent clients are identified using a commercial database. These comparables are selected based on industry, function, asset base, and risk profile.
4. Establishing an Arm’s Length Range: After calculating the ROA of the independent service providers, an arm’s length range is established. For example, the ROA of the comparables might range from 2% to 5%, with a median of 3.5%.
5. Comparing the Tested Party’s Profitability: Company C’s ROA is calculated and compared to the arm’s length range. If Company C’s ROA is 4%, it falls within the range and is deemed compliant. If its ROA is higher or lower than the established range, adjustments must be made.
6. Making Adjustments for Functional Differences: Let’s assume Company C’s ROA is slightly higher than the comparables (e.g., 6%). An analysis reveals that Company C benefits from lower operating costs due to its location in India, where wages are lower than in most Western countries. After making an adjustment for this cost differential, Company C’s ROA is reduced to 4%, placing it within the arm’s length range.

Conclusion

In this example, CPM allows Company C to benchmark its profitability against independent service providers offering similar shared services. Through this analysis, Company C ensures that its transfer pricing is compliant with Indian tax regulations, minimizing the risk of challenges from tax authorities.

5. Court Cases Involving Comparable Profit Method

Case 1: Skechers USA vs. USA

In the Skechers USA vs. USA case, the U.S. Tax Court examined whether Skechers’ use of the Comparable Profit Method to allocate profits between its U.S. headquarters and its overseas subsidiaries adhered to the arm’s length principle. The primary issue was whether Skechers’ foreign subsidiaries were earning profit margins consistent with those of independent companies performing similar activities in comparable markets.

Background:

Skechers, a global footwear company, applied the Comparable Profit Method to justify the profitability of its foreign subsidiaries, which were primarily engaged in distribution activities. The IRS challenged the profit allocations, claiming that Skechers’ foreign subsidiaries were reporting unreasonably low profits in comparison to independent distributors in the same market.

Core Dispute:

The dispute centered on the selection of comparables and whether Skechers had made appropriate adjustments to account for differences in risk profiles and business functions. The IRS argued that Skechers’ choice of profitability indicators did not fully capture the economic realities of its subsidiaries.

Court Findings:

The court scrutinized the comparables selected by Skechers and determined that the company had failed to make sufficient adjustments for functional differences between its subsidiaries and independent companies. However, the court did acknowledge that Skechers’ use of CPM was appropriate in principle and that adjustments could be made to resolve the discrepancies.

Outcome:

The court ruled in favor of the IRS, requiring Skechers to adjust its transfer pricing practices and increase the profits reported by its foreign subsidiaries. The ruling underscored the importance of making accurate functional and risk adjustments when applying CPM.

Significance:

This case highlights the need for MNEs to be diligent when selecting comparables and making adjustments under CPM. The decision serves as a warning that tax authorities will closely scrutinize CPM applications, particularly in high-risk industries like consumer goods.

Case 2: General Motors Company USA v. ACIT (India)

In this case, General Motors (GM) faced a transfer pricing dispute in India regarding the profitability of its Indian subsidiary, which functioned as a contract manufacturer for the parent company.

Background:

GM applied CPM to determine the profitability of its Indian subsidiary, which was responsible for producing automotive components exclusively for GM’s global operations. The Indian tax authorities challenged the profit margins reported by the subsidiary, arguing that the selected comparables were not sufficiently aligned with the tested party.

Core Dispute:

The primary dispute was whether the comparable companies used by GM accurately reflected the functions, assets, and risks of its Indian subsidiary. The Indian tax authorities claimed that GM’s comparables were functionally different and did not adequately capture the risk borne by the Indian subsidiary.

Court Findings:

The court found that GM had selected comparables from a broader industry group, which included companies with different risk profiles and asset usage. The court ruled that GM should have made additional adjustments to account for these differences, particularly since the Indian subsidiary operated under a low-risk model.

Outcome:

The court ruled in favor of the tax authorities, requiring GM to reassess its comparables and increase the profitability of its Indian subsidiary. The decision emphasized the importance of selecting closely aligned comparables and making necessary adjustments under CPM.

Significance:

This case underscores the critical role that comparability analysis plays in CPM. MNEs must ensure that comparables reflect the specific functions and risks of the tested party, or they risk challenges from tax authorities.

Case 3: XYZ Electronics Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation (Australia)

XYZ Electronics, an MNE in the electronics manufacturing industry, faced a transfer pricing audit from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which questioned the company’s use of CPM to determine profitability for its Australian subsidiary.

Background:

XYZ Electronics used CPM to justify the profitability of its Australian subsidiary, which primarily provided assembly services for its parent company. The ATO challenged the comparables selected by XYZ, arguing that the independent companies used for benchmarking were not engaged in similar low-risk, assembly-only activities.

Core Dispute:

The dispute revolved around the functional comparability of the tested party and the independent companies. The ATO contended that the comparables selected by XYZ Electronics operated in different industries and bore more risks than the Australian subsidiary, leading to skewed profitability results.

Court Findings:

The court found that XYZ Electronics had failed to make adequate adjustments for functional and risk differences. The comparables used in the CPM analysis were determined to be inappropriate, leading to inflated profit margins for the Australian subsidiary.

Outcome:

The court ruled that XYZ Electronics needed to select new comparables and make additional adjustments to reflect the low-risk nature of its Australian subsidiary. The court also imposed penalties for non-compliance, stressing the importance of conducting thorough comparability analyses.

Significance:

This case highlights the potential pitfalls of using inappropriate comparables in CPM. MNEs must ensure that the companies selected for benchmarking are engaged in similar activities and bear similar risks, or they risk transfer pricing adjustments and penalties.

6. Importance of Tax Risk Management in the Comparable Profit Method

Like other transfer pricing methods, the Comparable Profit Method (CPM) involves a level of complexity and judgment that makes it susceptible to tax authority scrutiny. To mitigate the risks associated with applying CPM, multinational enterprises (MNEs) must implement strong tax risk management processes. Tax risk management ensures that the organization’s transfer pricing approach aligns with internal governance and external regulatory expectations, reducing the likelihood of disputes and audits.

6.1 Reducing Compliance Risks

One of the core benefits of a well-implemented tax risk management strategy is the reduction of compliance risks. Tax authorities, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions, are increasingly scrutinizing intercompany transactions to ensure that MNEs are not shifting profits to lower-tax jurisdictions. By maintaining robust documentation and aligning the results of CPM with the arm’s length principle, MNEs can demonstrate that they have exercised diligence in pricing their intercompany transactions appropriately.

Tax risk management for CPM requires:

• Accurate and Complete Documentation: Adequate documentation must include a thorough explanation of the tested party, the choice of profitability indicators, and the selection of independent comparables.
• Proactive Monitoring: MNEs should regularly update their CPM analyses to reflect changes in business operations, economic conditions, or regulations, ensuring ongoing compliance.
• Risk Assessment: Companies must assess where the greatest transfer pricing risks lie. For instance, in jurisdictions where tax authorities are more aggressive or in industries facing heightened scrutiny, businesses should tailor their approach to tax risk accordingly.

6.2 Dispute Prevention

Transfer pricing disputes can arise when tax authorities believe that profits are not aligned with the arm’s length principle. To minimize the risk of disputes, businesses using CPM should ensure that:

• Their choice of comparables is defensible and has been subject to rigorous functional and risk analysis.
• Any adjustments made to the comparables to address differences in functions, risks, or assets are well-documented and can be justified under examination.
• Benchmarking studies are conducted using current and appropriate financial data, reflecting the economic realities faced by the tested party.

A solid tax risk management strategy should include a preemptive approach to resolving potential disputes. By engaging with tax authorities proactively—whether through advance pricing agreements (APAs) or during regular audits—MNEs can often avoid protracted legal battles.

6.3 Importance for Multinationals and Revenue Services

For multinationals, the importance of tax risk management in applying CPM goes beyond mere compliance. Given the global nature of their operations, MNEs face varying tax regulations, compliance demands, and audit procedures. Implementing a cohesive and well-documented approach to CPM not only protects the company from tax risks but also enhances the predictability of the tax outcomes across jurisdictions.

For revenue services, the presence of a strong tax risk management framework within an MNE provides a measure of transparency and cooperation. It allows tax authorities to review well-prepared documentation, reducing the risk of protracted investigations and court proceedings. In jurisdictions with tax cooperative programs, companies with effective tax risk management frameworks may also qualify for tax benefits or reduced penalties.

Closing Thoughts

Tax risk management in the context of CPM ensures that MNEs are protected from the legal, financial, and reputational risks that can arise from improper transfer pricing. The complexity inherent in applying CPM—selecting the right comparables, making adjustments for functional differences, and defending profitability margins—requires a thorough and systematic approach to governance. By adopting a robust tax risk management framework, MNEs safeguard their interests and maintain compliance with global tax standards.

UPSKILL

These topics are dealt with in depth in the following Postgraduate Programmes offered by Middlesex University in partnership with the Academy of Tax Law and Informa Connect:

!!NEW PROGRAMME!!

POSTGRADUATE CERTIFICATE in the Mechanics of Tax Risk Management

The Tax Risk Management programme is meticulously designed to equip professionals with the expertise required to navigate the complexities of tax risk and dispute resolution in a global business environment.

This programme offers a comprehensive curriculum that delves deep into identifying, assessing, and mitigating tax risks while providing practical skills for effective tax governance. Participants will explore key areas such as tax risk assessment, transfer pricing challenges for multinational enterprises, and strategies for managing tax audits and disputes.

APPLICATIONS NOW BEING ACCEPTED (Closes End of November 2024)

Postgraduate Programmes in Transfer Pricing:

• Postgraduate Certificate in Transfer Pricing
• Postgraduate Diploma in Transfer Pricing
• Master (MSc) in Transfer Pricing

APPLICATIONS NOW BEING ACCEPTED (Closes End of September 2024)

Postgraduate Programmes in International Taxation:

• Postgraduate Certificate in International Taxation
• Postgraduate Diploma in International Taxation
• Master (MSc) in International Taxation

APPLICATIONS NOW BEING ACCEPTED (Closes End of September 2024)

Have some questions about the programmes?

Please don't hesitate to contact our Education Consultant, Ben Ellis, at [email protected] or call us on +44(0)2080522710.