Profit Level Indicator

A Profit Level Indicator (PLI) is a financial metric used in transfer pricing to evaluate and compare the relative profitability of related-party transactions. PLIs serve as a critical tool in determining whether intercompany transactions comply with the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP), which mandates that transactions between related entities should be conducted as if they were independent parties operating in open market conditions.

PLIs typically involve ratios derived from financial data, such as operating profit to sales, operating profit to operating expenses, or return on assets. The choice of a specific PLI depends on the nature of the tested transaction, the industry context, and the availability of comparable data.

The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and many national tax regulations emphasise the importance of PLIs in the application of various transfer pricing methods, such as the Comparable Profits Method (CPM) or Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). A robust PLI ensures consistency and comparability when benchmarking related-party transactions against independent benchmarks, providing an objective basis for evaluating arm’s length outcomes.

Key Components of a Profit Level Indicator

  1. Numerator: Reflects a profitability measure, such as operating profit or gross profit.
  2. Denominator: Represents a financial base, such as sales, costs, or assets.
  3. Purpose: Measures the financial performance of the tested party to ensure alignment with comparable independent entities.

Examples of Profit Level Indicators in Practice

1. Operating Profit to Sales (OP/S)

This PLI evaluates the profitability of sales by comparing operating profit to net sales revenue. It is commonly used in distribution activities where the tested party is a reseller without substantial intangible assets or risks.

For example, a distributor in a multinational group operating in Europe benchmarks its OP/S ratio against comparable third-party distributors. If its OP/S is significantly lower than the comparables, adjustments may be necessary to align the transfer pricing outcomes with the arm’s length range.


2. Operating Profit to Operating Expenses (Berry Ratio)

The Berry Ratio is particularly useful for service providers and entities performing routine functions. It compares operating profit to operating expenses, excluding cost of goods sold.

For instance, an entity in a multinational enterprise (MNE) provides IT support services to group entities. Its Berry Ratio of 1.2 (indicating a 20% markup over operating expenses) is compared against independent IT service providers to validate compliance with the ALP.


3. Return on Assets (ROA)

ROA measures profitability in relation to total assets and is often applied in capital-intensive industries.

For example, a manufacturing subsidiary of an MNE benchmarks its ROA against similar independent manufacturers. If its ROA is below the lower quartile of the comparables, adjustments to its intercompany pricing policies may be warranted to achieve arm’s length results.


Key Cases Highlighting Profit Level Indicators

Coca-Cola Co. vs. IRS

This case involved the use of PLIs to assess the profitability of Coca-Cola’s foreign bottlers. The IRS challenged Coca-Cola’s application of transfer pricing methods, arguing that the profitability ratios used by the bottlers did not reflect arm’s length outcomes. The court’s decision underscored the importance of selecting appropriate PLIs aligned with the tested party’s functional and risk profile.


GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) vs. Canada Revenue Agency

In this landmark case, GSK’s use of PLIs was scrutinised to evaluate whether its intercompany pricing practices reflected the contributions of related parties. The dispute highlighted the necessity of reliable PLIs to justify pricing policies in complex intercompany transactions.


Medtronic Inc. vs. Commissioner 

Medtronic’s choice of PLI for its licensing transactions was contested by the IRS, which argued that the chosen ratios did not adequately reflect the value of intellectual property. The court’s analysis reaffirmed the need for accurate PLIs to benchmark transactions involving intangible assets.