Most Appropriate Method

The Most Appropriate Method (MAM) is a key concept in transfer pricing that determines the best method to evaluate whether intra-group transactions adhere to the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP). The ALP ensures that transactions between related parties are priced as they would be between independent parties under comparable conditions. The selection of the MAM depends on several factors, including the nature of the transaction, availability of data, and the specific circumstances of the taxpayer and transaction.

The MAM framework is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, it requires a thorough analysis of various transfer pricing methods outlined in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and domestic regulations, such as the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, Resale Price Method (RPM), Cost Plus Method (CPM), Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), and the Profit Split Method (PSM).


Key Factors in Selecting the Most Appropriate Method

  1. Nature of the Transaction: The complexity, type, and scope of the transaction heavily influence the choice of method. For example, CUP is often preferred for commodities.
  2. Availability of Data: Reliable, comparable data is crucial. Methods like TNMM are often used when limited internal comparables exist.
  3. Functional Analysis: Evaluating the functions performed, risks assumed, and assets employed helps identify the most relevant method.
  4. Regulatory Requirements: Some jurisdictions impose preferences for certain methods (e.g., CUP or TNMM).
  5. Degree of Comparability: The chosen method must yield results that are consistent with the ALP.

Examples of the Most Appropriate Method in Practice

Example 1: Application of the CUP Method in Commodity Transactions

A multinational enterprise (MNE) sells crude oil from its extraction subsidiary in Country A to a refining subsidiary in Country B. The CUP method is deemed the MAM because crude oil has publicly available market prices. By benchmarking the intercompany price against market prices on the transaction date, the MNE demonstrates compliance with the ALP.


Example 2: Application of the TNMM in Manufacturing

A subsidiary in Country X manufactures electronic components for its parent company. The subsidiary performs routine manufacturing functions with low risk. Due to the lack of internal comparables, TNMM is selected as the MAM. The subsidiary’s net profit margin is compared to those of independent manufacturers performing similar functions, adjusting for differences in risks and assets.


Example 3: Application of the Profit Split Method in Joint Development

Two subsidiaries in different countries collaborate on developing a new pharmaceutical product, sharing risks and costs equally. As both entities contribute valuable intangible assets, the Profit Split Method is the MAM. Profits from the eventual sale of the product are split based on the relative value of contributions by each subsidiary, as determined through functional and economic analysis.


Case Studies Highlighting the Most Appropriate Method

GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. Canada

The dispute focused on whether the CUP method or TNMM was the MAM for pricing active pharmaceutical ingredients. The court ultimately favoured the CUP method, as reliable third-party comparable data existed, illustrating the importance of data availability in determining the MAM.


E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. United States

In this US Tax Court case, the TNMM was chosen as the MAM due to difficulties in finding direct comparables for the licensing of intangibles. The case highlights the flexibility required when selecting a method based on available data.


Shell Petroleum v. Federal Inland RevenueRevenue Service

The court upheld the TNMM as the MAM for determining the arm’s length nature of services rendered between related entities, emphasizing the functional analysis and comparability considerations.