Internprissättning av patent och FoU
samt bevisningsfrågor till följd av dokumentationskravet
As the globalization progresses, the matters of transfer pricing have become essential to multinational enterprises and tax administrations. For states it is important that the transfer pricing is correct to defend their tax base. Incorrect transfer pricing can also have dire effect on the enterprises. They run the risk of both double taxation and tax penalties. Some of the most difficult assets to put a transfer price on are intangibles. The essay covers the transfer pricing of two specific assets: patents and R&D.The OECD guidelines and commentary to the model tax convention may be used to interpret the Swedish internal ?correction rule?. Therefore a comparison between the correction rule and article 9.1 in the model tax convention is made within the essay. The conclusions drawn are that the differences are so small that they do not have any impact on the application of the correction rule on patents and R&D.When applying the correction rule it is necessary to evaluate the assets transferred. The essay presents the different transfer pricing methods recommended by OECD and some additional methods mentioned in Swedish doctrine and praxis. Thereafter follows a discussion of the suitability of each method for the purpose of evaluating patents and R&D. The conclusion is that it is not one method that is the most suitable in all cases. Not even when the transactions are restricted to contain patents and R&D. Even though the transaction is restricted to contain these assets, different factors may affect the suitability of certain transfer pricing methods. Such a factor is whether the transaction concerns a transfer or a lease of the assets.Last the requirement of documentation in Swedish law is presented briefly. The presentation is followed by a discussion whether the requirement has meant a change regarding the burden of proof or the level of proof. The conclusion is that even though no change was intended regarding the burden of proof or the level of proof, some changes have taken place. Possibly the burden of proof has shifted slightly from the Swedish tax administration to the enterprise and the level of proof demanded of the tax administration has been slightly lifted.