Feedback

HEC-Ecole de gestion de l'Université de Liège
HEC-Ecole de gestion de l'Université de Liège
MASTER THESIS
VIEW 352 | DOWNLOAD 2543

Analyse critique de l'action 8 du plan BEPS concernant les prix de transfert d'actifs incorporels

Download
Schoonbrodt, Kévin ULiège
Promotor(s) : Richelle, Isabelle ULiège
Date of defense : 23-Jun-2016/28-Jun-2016 • Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2268.2/1217
Details
Title : Analyse critique de l'action 8 du plan BEPS concernant les prix de transfert d'actifs incorporels
Author : Schoonbrodt, Kévin ULiège
Date of defense  : 23-Jun-2016/28-Jun-2016
Advisor(s) : Richelle, Isabelle ULiège
Committee's member(s) : Deprez, Michel ULiège
Alexandre, Marc ULiège
Language : French
Number of pages : 117
Keywords : [en] base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), transfer pricing, intangibles, action 8, critical analysis
Discipline(s) : Law, criminology & political science > Tax law
Institution(s) : Université de Liège, Liège, Belgique
Degree: Master en sciences de gestion, à finalité spécialisée en Financial Analysis and Audit
Faculty: Master thesis of the HEC-Ecole de gestion de l'Université de Liège

Abstract

[en] In October 2015, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released finalisation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) action 8. This action 8 contains recommendations for transfer pricing issues related to intangibles. The main objective of this transfer pricing guidelines’ reform is to realign transfer pricing outcomes from intangibles with value creation. Therefore it would prevent base erosion and profit shifting by moving intangibles among group members of a multinational.
The content of action 8 revolves around five axes. Firstly, it provides additional guidance on determination of arm’s length conditions including detailed discussion on location savings, assembled workforce, other local market features, group synergies and available realistic options. Secondly, it provides instructions for the identification of intangibles, especially a new definition of the intangible asset. Thirdly, the action 8 adds guidance to identify which entity or entities within a multinational group are entitled to outcomes from exploiting intangibles. In particular, it emphasises the importance of a detailed functional, risk and asset analysis stating the entities that perform functions, utilise assets and assume risks associated with the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles. Fourthly, it provides guidance on the applicability of Transfer pricing methods with intangibles. And finally, it provides specific guidance when an intra-group transaction involves the transfer of hard-to-value intangibles.
Based on that observation, we wanted to study the opinion of transfer pricing specialists about the proposals resulting from the action 8. So the problematic viewed is: are action’s proposals in line with the main objective of this action? By using a qualitative approach, we identify the different outlooks of each transfer pricing experts. And the results of our dissertation show that some progresses have been made on the transfer pricing aspects of intangibles. However, the new guidance remains based on the arm’s length principle. Therefore, some orientations appear not to fit with the objective.


File(s)

Document(s)

File
Access Mémoire_KévinSchoonbrodt_s092305_2016.pdf
Description:
Size: 1.85 MB
Format: Adobe PDF

Author

  • Schoonbrodt, Kévin ULiège Université de Liège > Master sc. gest., fin. spéc. fin. analysis & aud (ex 2e ma.)

Promotor(s)

Committee's member(s)

  • Total number of views 352
  • Total number of downloads 2543










All documents available on MatheO are protected by copyright and subject to the usual rules for fair use.
The University of Liège does not guarantee the scientific quality of these students' works or the accuracy of all the information they contain.