【正文】 e, the “first mover” advantage of a pany, superior management skills, the existence of barriers to entry in a particular activity, the advantage of having a “workforce in place”, or the advantages resulting from scale or future profit potential could all be regarded as intangible assets in some circumstances. The OECD is examining the question of whether further clarification might be needed for the treatment of these assets for transfer pricing purposes. The OECD consultation on intangibles may also result in further clarification of the treatment of goodwill in a transfer pricing context, as this is an issue that currently gives rise to differing views. Another possible development is that the Guidelines could be amended to provide more guidance on financial methods of valuing intangibles.Intragroup ServicesWith regard to intragroup services, the Guidelines recognize that multinational groups generally arrange for a wide scope of services to be available to group members, such as administrative, technical, financial and mercial services. The Guidelines also recognize that such services may include group management, coordination and control functions and may be provided by a specially designated group member (. a group service center), or by another group member. The main issues are (a) whether intragroup services have in fact been provided and (b) what the intragroup charge for such services for tax purposes should be on an arm’s length basis. The key tests are whether an independent enterprise in parable circumstances would have been willing to pay for the service, and if so, what would independent enterprises be willing to pay. The actual facts and circumstances of particular transactions are the guiding principle of determining whether a service was rendered and if consideration is payable.The Guidelines offer some illustrative examples for determining whether intragroup services have been rendered and for determining an appropriate arm’s length charge for such services. The distinction between “shareholder activity” services provided to a subsidiary from a parent and other business services provided for the benefit of the subsidiary is explained in the Guidelines, and they include guidance on calculating the arm’s length consideration and some examples of actual intragroup services provided. In view of the difficulties of directly puting and charging certain interpany services, the Guidelines acknowledge that it will often be a practical necessity for multinational groups to adopt an indirect charge method. This involves identifying the costs of providing the services, and these costs make up the “cost pool” to be allocated among the group panies receiving the services. An appropriate allocation key, or set of allocation keys, is then used to allocate the costs of the services between the various recipients of the services, applying a markup to the costs as appropriate. Such indirect charge methods “should be allowable provided sufficient regard has been given to the value of the services to recipients and the extent to which parable services are provided between independent enterprises”8. Where a pany is providing services as part of its main business activity to third parties in addition to other group panies, the indirect charging basis would not be appropriate. A condition of using an indirect charging method would be that the allocation key used to allocate services among group panies is reasonable, considering the type of service and the circumstances of its provision. The cost base should be puted under sound accounting principles, with safeguards against manipulation. The allocation of charges among group panies should bear some relation to the benefit received by each pany that uses the services.Cost Contribution ArrangementsThe Guidelines define a CCA as a framework “agreed among business enterprises to share the costs and risks of developing, producing or obtaining assets, services, or rights, and to determine the nature and extent of the interests of each participant in those assets, services, or rights.”9 A CCA is thus a contractual vehicle in which each participant’s proportionate share of the total contributions should be consistent with the participant’s proportionate share of the overall expected benefits to be received. Each participant in a CCA is entitled to exploit its interest in the CCA separately as an effective owner thereof and not as a licensee, and so should not have to pay a royalty or other consideration. CCAs are most monly seen for research and development of intangible property, but can be formed for other purposes, . other joint funding or sharing of costs and risks, for developing or acquiring property, etc. Another area where a CCA may be appropriate is for obtaining services, such as centralized support and management services, mon advertising campaigns, etc.The Guidelines provide a general set of rules for applying the arm39。s length principle in determining CCA contributions, with the general expectation of mutual benefit being fundamental to a true CCA. In other words, an independent, unrelated pany should be able to expect benefits from such arrangements that are consistent with its contributions. Guidance on determining participants and measuring the amount of each participant’s contribution is provided. The Guidelines then consider how to determine whether the allocation is appropriate and deal with the tax treatment of contributions and balancing payments. The Guidelines state that where a participant’s proportionate share of the overall contributions to a CCA, adjusted for any balancing payments, is not consistent with the participant’s proportionate share of the overall expected benefits to be received under the CCA, a tax administration may adjust the participant’s contribution. If the facts and circumstances indicate that the reality of an arrangement differs from the terms agreed, a tax administration may disregard