the potential impact of tariffs on transfer pricing …...— new tariffs may not be reflected in...
TRANSCRIPT
2019 U.S. Cross-Border Tax ConferenceMay 14 – 16, 2019
tax.kpmg.us
The Potential Impact of Tariffs on Transfer Pricing Issues and Customs Valuation
2© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
The following information is not intended to be “written advice concerning one or more Federal tax matters” subject to the requirements of section 10.37(a)(2) of Treasury Department Circular 230.
The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.
Notices
AgendaHigh tariffs potential impact on transfer prices / customs value
Tax Reform – What does BEAT and FDII mean for me?
Looking Ahead – Closing thoughts
Q&A
01
02
03
04
4© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Today’s presentersName Title Firm/Company Name Email
Luis (Lou) Abad Principal, Trade and Customs KPMG WNT [email protected]
Brian Cody Principal, Economic and Valuation Services KPMG WNT [email protected]
High tariffs potential impact on transfer prices and customs value
6© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Accounting for tariffs
Usually included as inventoriable cost, ultimately ending up in cost of goods sold
7© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Potential impact on transfer pricing
Exposure to tariff risk could affect comparables information used to establish or verify arm’s-length pricing— New tariffs may not be reflected in comparables information, for example,
due to time lag in reporting of financial data— Depending on supply chain, comparables may face similar tariffs or retaliatory tariffs— Supply chains may change — Tariff exemptions may be extended or removed
Tariff impact could trigger need to make transfer pricing adjustment— Quantification is expected to be difficult
Importer of record” initially bears the tariff— Attempt to pass tariff on to customers— No prohibition against allocation of tariff “risk”, but still must be
arm’s length
8© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Example
Forco sells goods to USco, wholly-owned U.S. distribution subsidiary1
Arm’s length range found to be operating margin (OM) of 2–4% of net sales2
$10 M goods produced in China and subjected to 25% tariff ($2.5M)3
Before tariff, USco earned $3M on sales of $100M goods (3% OM)4
No portion of tariff passed on to third party customers5
Tariff would reduce operating profit from $3M to $0.5M (0.5% OM)6
Assuming no change in the arm’s-length range, USco must make at least a $1.5Mdownward adjustment to its transfer pricing to increase U.S. profits and move results into arm’s length range ($.5M + 1.5M = $2M or 2% OM)
7
9© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Impact of tariffs on transfer prices requires a detailed analysis of all facts and
circumstances of the intercompany transactions — no one-size-fits-all
solution.
— Capability of management of U.S. importer to negotiate alternative supply arrangements
— Capability of U.S. exporter (e.g., manufacturer) to negotiate alternative export arrangements, alter customer contracts, etc.
Other TP considerations
— Availability of alternative sources of supply— Ability of U.S. importer to pass tariff impact along
to its customers— Necessity of U.S. exporter to absorb retaliatory
tariffs imposed on its goods in foreign jurisdictions
Industryanalysis
Legal and othercontractual obligations
Functionalanalysis
10© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Customs impact of transfer pricing adjustmentGenerally, retroactive transfer pricing
adjustments alter the customs value of previously imported goods, and
must be reported
The adjusted transfer price must satisfy CBP’s arm’s-length rules and methods
(which are different than tax/IRC 482 methods)
In addition, if the transfer pricing adjustment results in a retroactive decrease in the
customs value, then the importer must satisfy CBP’s 5-factor criteria in order to be eligible
for a tariff refund
CBP reporting options:— Reconciliation Program
(21 months to adjust)— Post summary corrections (PSCs) — Protests (downward adjustments)— Voluntary “prior disclosure” (violations)
First Sale customs valuation basis? –potential tariff mitigation strategy
11© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Possible reactions of treaty partners to transfer pricing adjustment
If U.S.-enacted tariffs cause the adjustment, how willing will
other governments be to negotiate with U.S. to eliminate
double tax?
New tariffs could drastically change transfer price on
impacted goods
Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) allows treaty partners to
negotiate to alleviate double taxation
Post-year-end adjustments and transfer pricing examinations could result in double taxation
12© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Potential impact of advance pricing agreement on tariff cost
Restrictive reading of APA critical assumption – new
tariffs may not trigger violation
Same treatment as aboveexample appears to apply
13© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Overview— Foreign parent / exporter absorbed the impact of high Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin
goods, decreasing its OPM and adversely impacting its ability to satisfy customs arm’s length requirements (all costs plus profit)
— KPMG was engaged to evaluate alternative value methods— KPMG gathered the necessary costs and financial data to model the various
customs valuation methodsApproach / Considerations— Alternative value methods (e.g., computed and deductive value) were not operationally feasible— First sale— Moving production outside of ChinaOutcome— Shifting some production outside of China mitigated the compliance impact of the high tariffs on
the customs arm’s length requirements and yielded the largest savings of all the alternatives— Greater coordination between tax and customs functions, on a global basis, with documentation
to potentially support both tax and customs arm’s length requirements.
Case study – Exploring other value methods
14© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Trade & Customs— Assess applicability of new tariffs (classification and origin)— Consider exclusion process— Mitigate (e.g., first sale valuation; sourcing alternatives etc)— Address potential transfer pricing impact (e.g., arm’s length considerations; report adjustments;
duty refunds?)Transfer Pricing and Dispute Resolution— Tariff impacts on transfer prices will vary substantially by industry and by company – industry and
competitive analyses matter— Comparability analysis requires ever-increased attention on allocation and management of risks
– supply chain, pricing, year of information, etc.— Post-year-end adjustments and transfer pricing examinations could result in double taxation if
adjustments were not to be accepted by foreign tax authorities – consider APAs and other planning to mitigate and resolve transfer pricing risks
Operational Changes/VCM— Companies can change supply chains and discontinue transactions made unprofitable by tariffs
Key takeaways
Tax Reform – What does BEAT and FDII mean for me?
16© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
BEAT— Imposes minimum tax— Imposes 10% tax on certain payments
to foreign related persons
Overview of new international tax framework
U.S.
FDII – 13.125%— Income from sale, leases, licenses, and
dispositions of property to foreign person for foreign use
— Income from services to person outside the U.S.
Distributions –— Mandatory Repatriation— Participation Exemption— 0% on Previously Taxed Income
GILTI – 10.5% (13.125%)— CFC income that is not
exempt or sub F— Current inclusion with 50%
deduction— 80% FTC— Separate basket— No FTC carryforward
Sub F – 21%— Current inclusion at 21%— General and passive baskets— 10 year FTC carryforward
Exempt Income – 0%— 10% QBAI— High Tax sub F
income (elective)
Branch Income – 21%— Current inclusion— Separate basket— 10 year carryforward— Cannot get FDII
Other Income – 21%— U.S. and Foreign source
income that is not FDII or GILTI or eligible for DRDs
163(j) Limit on interest deduction— Related and unrelated party debt— 30% of EBITDA (EBIT in 2026)
CFC2F Branch
17© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
BEAT functions as an alternative minimum tax (i.e., it’s a parallel tax system)BEAT could lead to significant supply chain rationalizations— Different treatment for payments to domestic related parties vs. foreign related parties— Different treatment for payments to third party vs. related parties— Different treatment for reduction in gross receipts vs. deductions – COGS not subject to BEATBEAT SCM services exception is critical for many taxpayers— Statutory and draft regulations provide that the total services costs component of eligible
marked-up services can qualify for that exception— Robust transfer pricing documentation is critical
- White list analysis; and- Low margin covered services analysis
Emerging trends and patterns— Agency arrangements— Disaggregation of SCM services from non-SCM services— Cost sharing arrangements
Key transfer pricing considerations for BEAT
18© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
— Intellectual property ("IP") costs baked into the transfer price (product price) from principal to U.S. importing company, resulting in a higher customs/import value
— Principal is in a low tax jurisdiction- Principal either owns the IP or owns the rights (i.e., pays the IP owner a royalty)- IP, even if developed in the U.S., is owned off-shore
Traditional customs considerations:— Duty-free vs. high tariffs— First Sale for export — R&D (design and development) assists
Example: Integrated supply chain (pre-tax reform)
Contract manufacturer Principal (IP owner) U.S. importer
— Transfer price based on cost-plus, low margin commensurate with routine contract manufacturing
— Entrepreneurial risk-taker— IP provided to contract
manufacturer (assist)
— Transfer price based on resale-minus, low margin commensurate with low-risk distribution
19© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
FDII – foreign-derived intangible income provisions provides incentives for companies to migrate IP back to the U.S (i.e., to act as an IP Hub) if US then licenses IP to foreign parties.New customs considerations:— Reduced customs value
- Lower transfer price/customs basis- Assist exception (19 U.S.C. § 1401a(h)(1)(B)) – R&D undertaken in the U.S. is excludable
— Custom value reduction can be significant for companies with R&D operations in the U.S.
Example: U.S. tax reform structure (FDII)
Contract manufacturer U.S. importing(IP owner)
— Transfer price based on cost-plus, low margin commensurate with routine contract manufacturing
— IP provided to contract manufacturer (assist)
20© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
If companies do not adjust business practice to account for the new legislation, BEAT may raise dutiable customs value for imported products, increasing duty exposure and heightening compliance risk in the area of product valuation.— Restructure supply chain to aggregate the supply of goods with services currently provided by a
related party; “BEATable” costs may potentially be included in the COGS for imported goods — Restructure intercompany arrangements to characterize (and bundle, if appropriate) “BEATable”
license or service costs as included in the COGS for imported goods— Restructure intercompany arrangements or supply chain to unbundle excludable 3rd party service
costs (e.g., 3rd party tolling/assembly services) from intercompany payments for imported goodsU.S. Customs Considerations: — Understanding net financial impact of adjusting valuation / payment arrangements; — Duty increase may be mitigated (e.g. first Sale rule); — Adjustments could belie past “non-dutiable” customs positon; — New arrangement must comply with customs regulations (e.g. bona fide buying agent); — Changes may preclude transaction value (including first Sale), triggering alternative,
more onerous customs value methods.
Base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT)
21© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Inbound structure: BEAT issues
Trade and Customs Considerations— Understand the customs duty impact and net financial impact of the alternative arrangement – dutiable?— Can a non-dutiable arrangement be implemented? For example, see HQ H242894 (2013), territorial
exclusivity fee under an exclusive distribution agreement.— Understand the customs reporting and compliance requirements.
ID of Potential BEAT Issues— U.S. Co payment of a fee to FP could be considered a base
erosion payment and potentially subject to BEAT.— In many cases the fee could be treated as allocable to
inventory and hence would be treated a reduction in gross receipts. AMCS should be consulted.
FP
U.S. Customers
IP
Intercompany Fee
China CoSuppliers
Potential base-erosion tax on payment of fee paid from U.S. Co to FP
U.S. Co (licensed
distributor)
Sales
Sales Sales
Overview— Foreign-parented multinational corporation (“FP”) is a
multinational manufacturer. — FP operates in the U.S. market via a licensed distributor
(“U.S. Co”)— U.S. Co pays a fee of 5% of sales to FP— U.S. Co purchases goods at cost plus 5% from a foreign
manufacturing affiliate (“China Co”).
22© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
BEAT – Alternative to explore and issues to consider
Further Considerations— Transfer pricing - Conversion costs for U.S. Co?— Trade and customs - Higher customs costs as a result of higher finished goods price under the
new supply chain arrangement? — Trade and customs - Can we mitigate the higher customs cost with “first sale” customs valuation?
If not, does the new transfer price between FP and U.S. Co satisfy customs arm’s length requirements?— Chinese origin goods – Sec. 232 or 301 tariffs?
Potential Alternative Structure— Establish FP as a global principal company whereby U.S. Co
would purchase all its finished goods from FP.— Establish U.S. Co as a limited risk distributor (as opposed to a
licensed distributor). This would have the effect of eliminating the separate royalty. (Note, merely being an “LRD” does not automatically turn off BEAT).
Overview— Foreign-parented multinational corporation (“FP”) is a
multinational manufacturer. — FP operates in the U.S. market via a licensed distributor
(“U.S. Co”)— U.S. Co purchases goods at cost plus 5% from a foreign
manufacturing affiliate (“China Co”).
FP(principal)
U.S. Customers
IP
Sales (resale minus)
China CoSuppliersU.S. Co
(limited risk distributor)Sales Sales
Sales
23© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Procurement structure: BEAT issues
ID of Potential BEAT Issues— USP’s procurement fee to Hong Kong Co could potentially be
considered a base erosion payment (assuming the procurement fee is treated as deduction and not a reduction in gross receipts for tax accounting purposes) and subject to BEAT.
— In many cases the procurement fee would be treated as allocable to inventory and hence would be treated as reduction in gross receipts. AMCS should be consulted.
Overview— U.S.-parented multinational corporation (“USP”) is a
multinational apparel company. — USP relies on third party manufacturers in China.— USP utilizes a foreign affiliated procurement company
(“Hong Kong Co”) to source goods from the third party manufacturers in China.
— USP pays Hong Kong Co a procurement fee / buying agency fee based upon the volume of goods Hong Kong Co procures.
USP U.S. Customers
Procurement fee / Buying agency fee
ChinaManufacture
Potential base-erosion tax on payment of procurement fee from USP to Hong Kong Co
Hong Kong Co(fee based)
SalesSales
24© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Procurement structure: Alternatives
Trade and Customs Considerations— Transfer pricing - Would the U.S. require compensation for giving up a contract?— Trade and customs – Will buying and importing goods from Hong Kong Co. (related party) results in more customs
costs than buying and importing directly from third party manufacturers in China? Was the sourcing commission included in dutiable value originally?
— Trade and customs - Can we mitigate the higher customs cost with “first sale” customs valuation? If not, does the new transfer price between FP and U.S. Co satisfy customs arm’s length?
— Impact of Sec. 232 or 301 tariffs?
ID of Potential BEAT Issues— Establish Hong Kong Co as a buy-sell procurement company
rather than a fee based procurement company. This would have the effect of transforming a BEAT payment (deduction) into a non-BEAT payment for inventory (reduction in gross receipts).
Overview— U.S.-parented multinational corporation (“USP”) is a multinational
apparel company. — USP relies on third party manufacturers in China.— USP utilizes a foreign affiliated procurement company
(“Hong Kong Co”) to source goods from the third party manufacturers in China.
— USP pays Hong Kong Co a procurement fee based upon the volume of goods Hong Kong Co procures.
USP U.S. Customers
Sales of inventory
Hong Kong Co(buy-sell)
Sales
Sales
ChinaManufacture
Looking Ahead
26© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
#kpmgxb
Trade and customs professionals should be involved in strategic tax planning discussions.The trade point of view can be helpful to: — Assess feasibility and calculate customs duty and indirect tax costs;— Determine the potential net financial cost of any new arrangement is understood
before implementation; — Mitigate or reduce additional duty costs where possible (e.G., Through first sale, ftzs, etc.); — Address any import or export regulatory compliance risks (and exposures) that may arise; and — Recommend tailored trade compliance programs or global trade management systems
(automation) to facilitate trade operations.Companies should also continue to monitor United States trade policies and remedies that could potentially offer additional “carrots” or “sticks” concerning the supply chain (e.g., restructure or move existing operations) or could potentially necessitate a transfer pricing adjustment:— Section 201 safeguard tariffs— Section 232 national security tariffs— Section 301 unfair trade tariffs
ConclusionHave you thought of the customs costs to your tax reform planning?
Questions
Thank you
© 2019 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. NDPPS 821761
The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
The information contained herein is of a general nature and based on authorities that are subject to change. Applicability of the information to specific situations should be determined through consultation with your tax adviser.
kpmg.com/socialmedia
Some or all of the services described herein may not be permissible for KPMG audit clients and their affiliates or related entities.