• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Capital Projects Energy Funds & Finance Mining View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management ESG Strategy and Solutions Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events New Energy Economy Series
Business Law Talks Podcast Economic Outlook Class Actions: Looking Forward Quarterly M&A Insights
ESG & the CIO Subscribe
People
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
About
Offices
News
Careers
Insights
Law Students
Events
Search
Alumni
Payments
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

Marketing Intangibles in International Transfer Pricing

January 29, 2013

An Indian tax appellate tribunal has recently ruled on the issue of marketing intangibles in a transfer pricing case involving the Indian manufacturing and sales subsidiary of the Korea-based LG Electronics Inc. In that case, the Indian authorities alleged the subsidiary incurred excessive marketing expenses relative to comparable companies and the excess amount should be treated as brand promotion on behalf of the parent, entitling the subsidiary to compensation for these expenses and a mark-up. The tribunal endorsed this approach in principle while referring this particular matter back for redetermination on technical grounds.

Marketing intangibles are also a key areas of focus for the Canada Revenue Agency in transfer pricing audits.

In our experience, the CRA often alleges that routine marketing expenses in the local jurisdiction incurred by a Canadian manufacturer or distributor in a multi-national group, in fact, enhance the brand and thereby give rise to a valuable marketing intangible on the part of the Canadian entity that entitle it to a premium return and/or disallowance of a royalty expense.  Such reassessments can give rise to material double taxation requiring redress through the Canadian courts or under the competent authority procedures of an applicable double tax treaty if the matter cannot be successfully resolved with CRA.

Although these proceedings may ultimately vindicate the taxpayer's position, they can be costly and time-consuming. It is important that the Canadian entity's contemporaneous documentation be drafted with  CRA's audit posture in mind; be comprehensive, including not only a transfer pricing study but also appropriate licensing and other legal agreements; and, that it be updated regularly to ensure it remains current.

Download PDF

Author

  • Claire M.C. Kennedy Claire M.C. Kennedy, Senior Advisor, Clients and Industries

Our Managing Partners on Workplaces Where Women Thrive

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

The Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms the Narrow Confines [...]

June 01, 2023
       

Blog

Ontario’s Dismissal for Delay Regime—the Year in Review

June 01, 2023
       

Blog

Securities Class Actions Round-Up

June 01, 2023
       

Blog

Developments in General Causation Methodologies for Class Certification

June 01, 2023
       

Blog

The Lack of Present Injuries and Reliable Scientific [...]

June 01, 2023
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
  • History
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2023. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones