|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
It is not solely 'software patents' but these present a
particular problem as
they are belong to a particularly
problematic category (ironically about their
exact nature
with echoes as to whether they are in the category of
"patentability") of inter-company transfers. Is software
itself a product or
an 'intangible' to be licensed or, in
effect, a mixture of both - at least to
the end user? There
are different sources available that have looked at this
question but this is from 'the enemy' Accountants,
PricewaterhouseCooper "... advising
on transfer pricing and
tax planning
for multinational companies."
If software is determined to be an
intangible,
the question is then whether it is a manufacturing or a
marketing
intangible. Whatever the answer, the important
question for inter-company
pricing purposes is: Which legal
entity developed the value of the intangible?
The developer
must receive an arm’s-length remuneration for the use of its
property from any user of the intangible. luxembourg.pdf
indicates
the benefits of Luxembourg as a jurisdiction.
Please note that, for tax
purposes in the US, I believe
(but do not know for sure) that some kind of
'market
analysis' has to be done. See International Transfer
Pricing"?
This is part of my argument, above,
that there is an in-built bias to inflate
and leverage the
value of whatever 'intangible asset' is being transferred.
However, it is a known fact that software patents are abused
in this way for
transferring. Other transfer pricing is
abused but we are talking about 'IP'
for technological
companies - so, for tax avoidance, other than 'brand'
these are their most 'valuable' and easily transferable
assets.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
