26 CFR § 1.482-7A Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a cost sharing arrangement | Code of Federal Regulations | US Law

26 CFR § 1.482-7A

Methods to determine taxable income in connection with a cost sharing arrangement

June 25, 2020

CFR

(a) In general—(1) Scope and application of the rules in this section. A cost sharing arrangement is an agreement under which the parties agree to share the costs of development of one or more intangibles in proportion to their shares of reasonably anticipated benefits from their individual exploitation of the interests in the intangibles assigned to them under the arrangement. A taxpayer may claim that a cost sharing arrangement is a qualified cost sharing arrangement only if the agreement meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. Consistent with the rules of §1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B) (Identifying contractual terms), the district director may apply the rules of this section to any arrangement that in substance constitutes a cost sharing arrangement, notwithstanding a failure to comply with any requirement of this section. A qualified cost sharing arrangement, or an arrangement to which the district director applies the rules of this section, will not be treated as a partnership to which the rules of subchapter K apply. See §301.7701-3(e) of this chapter. Furthermore, a participant that is a foreign corporation or nonresident alien individual will not be treated as engaged in trade or business within the United States solely by reason of its participation in such an arrangement. See generally §1.864-2(a).

(2) Limitation on allocations. The district director shall not make allocations with respect to a qualified cost sharing arrangement except to the extent necessary to make each controlled participant's share of the costs (as determined under paragraph (d) of this section) of intangible development under the qualified cost sharing arrangement equal to its share of reasonably anticipated benefits attributable to such development, under the rules of this section. If a controlled taxpayer acquires an interest in intangible property from another controlled taxpayer (other than in consideration for bearing a share of the costs of the intangible's development), then the district director may make appropriate allocations to reflect an arm's length consideration for the acquisition of the interest in such intangible under the rules of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6. See paragraph (g) of this section. An interest in an intangible includes any commercially transferable interest, the benefits of which are susceptible of valuation. See §1.482-4(b) for the definition of an intangible.

(3) Coordination with §1.482-1. A qualified cost sharing arrangement produces results that are consistent with an arm's length result within the meaning of §1.482-1(b)(1) if, and only if, each controlled participant's share of the costs (as determined under paragraph (d) of this section) of intangible development under the qualified cost sharing arrangement equals its share of reasonably anticipated benefits attributable to such development (as required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section) and all other requirements of this section are satisfied.

(4) Cross references. Paragraph (c) of this section defines participant. Paragraph (d) of this section defines the costs of intangible development. Paragraph (e) of this section defines the anticipated benefits of intangible development. Paragraph (f) of this section provides rules governing cost allocations. Paragraph (g) of this section provides rules governing transfers of intangibles other than in consideration for bearing a share of the costs of the intangible's development. Rules governing the character of payments made pursuant to a qualified cost sharing arrangement are provided in paragraph (h) of this section. Paragraph (i) of this section provides accounting requirements. Paragraph (j) of this section provides administrative requirements. Paragraph (k) of this section provides an effective date. Paragraph (l) provides a transition rule.

(b) Qualified cost sharing arrangement. A qualified cost sharing arrangement must—

(1) Include two or more participants;

(2) Provide a method to calculate each controlled participant's share of intangible development costs, based on factors that can reasonably be expected to reflect that participant's share of anticipated benefits;

(3) Provide for adjustment to the controlled participants' shares of intangible development costs to account for changes in economic conditions, the business operations and practices of the participants, and the ongoing development of intangibles under the arrangement; and

(4) Be recorded in a document that is contemporaneous with the formation (and any revision) of the cost sharing arrangement and that includes—

(i) A list of the arrangement's participants, and any other member of the controlled group that will benefit from the use of intangibles developed under the cost sharing arrangement;

(ii) The information described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section;

(iii) A description of the scope of the research and development to be undertaken, including the intangible or class of intangibles intended to be developed;

(iv) A description of each participant's interest in any covered intangibles. A covered intangible is any intangible property that is developed as a result of the research and development undertaken under the cost sharing arrangement (intangible development area);

(v) The duration of the arrangement; and

(vi) The conditions under which the arrangement may be modified or terminated and the consequences of such modification or termination, such as the interest that each participant will receive in any covered intangibles.

(c) Participant—(1) In general. For purposes of this section, a participant is a controlled taxpayer that meets the requirements of this paragraph (c)(1) (controlled participant) or an uncontrolled taxpayer that is a party to the cost sharing arrangement (uncontrolled participant). See §1.482-1(i)(5) for the definitions of controlled and uncontrolled taxpayers. A controlled taxpayer may be a controlled participant only if it—

(i) Reasonably anticipates that it will derive benefits from the use of covered intangibles;

(ii) Substantially complies with the accounting requirements described in paragraph (i) of this section; and

(iii) Substantially complies with the administrative requirements described in paragraph (j) of this section.

(iv) The following example illustrates paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section:

Example. Foreign Parent (FP) is a foreign corporation engaged in the extraction of a natural resource. FP has a U.S. subsidiary (USS) to which FP sells supplies of this resource for sale in the United States. FP enters into a cost sharing arrangement with USS to develop a new machine to extract the natural resource. The machine uses a new extraction process that will be patented in the United States and in other countries. The cost sharing arrangement provides that USS will receive the rights to use the machine in the extraction of the natural resource in the United States, and FP will receive the rights in the rest of the world. This resource does not, however, exist in the United States. Despite the fact that USS has received the right to use this process in the United States, USS is not a qualified participant because it will not derive a benefit from the use of the intangible developed under the cost sharing arrangement.

(2) Treatment of a controlled taxpayer that is not a controlled participant—(i) In general. If a controlled taxpayer that is not a controlled participant (within the meaning of this paragraph (c)) provides assistance in relation to the research and development undertaken in the intangible development area, it must receive consideration from the controlled participants under the rules of §1.482-4(f)(3)(iii) (Allocations with respect to assistance provided to the owner). For purposes of paragraph (d) of this section, such consideration is treated as an operating expense and each controlled participant must be treated as incurring a share of such consideration equal to its share of reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this section).

(ii) Example. The following example illustrates this paragraph (c)(2):

Example. (i) U.S. Parent (USP), one foreign subsidiary (FS), and a second foreign subsidiary constituting the group's research arm (R + D) enter into a cost sharing agreement to develop manufacturing intangibles for a new product line A. USP and FS are assigned the exclusive rights to exploit the intangibles respectively in the United States and the rest of the world, where each presently manufactures and sells various existing product lines. R + D is not assigned any rights to exploit the intangibles. R + D's activity consists solely in carrying out research for the group. It is reliably projected that the shares of reasonably anticipated benefits of USP and FS will be 662⁄3 % and 331⁄3 , respectively, and the parties' agreement provides that USP and FS will reimburse 662⁄3 % and 331⁄3 %, respectively, of the intangible development costs incurred by R + D with respect to the new intangible.

(ii) R + D does not qualify as a controlled participant within the meaning of paragraph (c) of this section, because it will not derive any benefits from the use of covered intangibles. Therefore, R + D is treated as a service provider for purposes of this section and must receive arm's length consideration for the assistance it is deemed to provide to USP and FS, under the rules of §1.482-4(f)(3)(iii). Such consideration must be treated as intangible development costs incurred by USP and FS in proportion to their shares of reasonably anticipated benefits (i.e., 662⁄3 % and 331⁄3 %, respectively). R + D will not be considered to bear any share of the intangible development costs under the arrangement.

(3) Treatment of consolidated group. For purposes of this section, all members of the same affiliated group (within the meaning of section 1504(a)) that join in the filing of a consolidated return for the taxable year under section 1501 shall be treated as one taxpayer.

(d) Costs—(1) Intangible development costs. For purposes of this section, a controlled participant's costs of developing intangibles for a taxable year mean all of the costs incurred by that participant related to the intangible development area, plus all of the cost sharing payments it makes to other controlled and uncontrolled participants, minus all of the cost sharing payments it receives from other controlled and uncontrolled participants. Costs incurred related to the intangible development area consist of the following items: operating expenses as defined in §1.482-5(d)(3), other than depreciation or amortization expense, plus (to the extent not included in such operating expenses, as defined in §1.482-5(d)(3)) the charge for the use of any tangible property made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement. If tangible property is made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement by a controlled participant, the determination of the appropriate charge will be governed by the rules of §1.482-2(c) (Use of tangible property). Intangible development costs do not include the consideration for the use of any intangible property made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement. See paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If a particular cost contributes to the intangible development area and other areas or other business activities, the cost must be allocated between the intangible development area and the other areas or business activities on a reasonable basis. In such a case, it is necessary to estimate the total benefits attributable to the cost incurred. The share of such cost allocated to the intangible development area must correspond to covered intangibles' share of the total benefits. Costs that do not contribute to the intangible development area are not taken into account.

(2) Stock-based compensation—(i) In general. For purposes of this section, a controlled participant's operating expenses include all costs attributable to compensation, including stock-based compensation. As used in this section, the term stock-based compensation means any compensation provided by a controlled participant to an employee or independent contractor in the form of equity instruments, options to acquire stock (stock options), or rights with respect to (or determined by reference to) equity instruments or stock options, including but not limited to property to which section 83 applies and stock options to which section 421 applies, regardless of whether ultimately settled in the form of cash, stock, or other property.

(ii) Identification of stock-based compensation related to intangible development. The determination of whether stock-based compensation is related to the intangible development area within the meaning of paragraph (d)(1) of this section is made as of the date that the stock-based compensation is granted. Accordingly, all stock-based compensation that is granted during the term of the qualified cost sharing arrangement and is related at date of grant to the development of intangibles covered by the arrangement is included as an intangible development cost under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. In the case of a repricing or other modification of a stock option, the determination of whether the repricing or other modification constitutes the grant of a new stock option for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(ii) will be made in accordance with the rules of section 424(h) and related regulations.

(iii) Measurement and timing of stock-based compensation expense—(A) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii), the operating expense attributable to stock-based compensation is equal to the amount allowable to the controlled participant as a deduction for Federal income tax purposes with respect to that stock-based compensation (for example, under section 83(h)) and is taken into account as an operating expense under this section for the taxable year for which the deduction is allowable.

(1) Transfers to which section 421 applies. Solely for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A), section 421 does not apply to the transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of an option that meets the requirements of section 422(a) or 423(a).

(2) Deductions of foreign controlled participants. Solely for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A), an amount is treated as an allowable deduction of a controlled participant to the extent that a deduction would be allowable to a United States taxpayer.

(3) Modification of stock option. Solely for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A), if the repricing or other modification of a stock option is determined, under paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, to constitute the grant of a new stock option not related to the development of intangibles, the stock option that is repriced or otherwise modified will be treated as being exercised immediately before the modification, provided that the stock option is then exercisable and the fair market value of the underlying stock then exceeds the price at which the stock option is exercisable. Accordingly, the amount of the deduction that would be allowable (or treated as allowable under this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A)) to the controlled participant upon exercise of the stock option immediately before the modification must be taken into account as an operating expense as of the date of the modification.

(4) Expiration or termination of qualified cost sharing arrangement. Solely for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A), if an item of stock-based compensation related to the development of intangibles is not exercised during the term of a qualified cost sharing arrangement, that item of stock-based compensation will be treated as being exercised immediately before the expiration or termination of the qualified cost sharing arrangement, provided that the stock-based compensation is then exercisable and the fair market value of the underlying stock then exceeds the price at which the stock-based compensation is exercisable. Accordingly, the amount of the deduction that would be allowable (or treated as allowable under this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A)) to the controlled participant upon exercise of the stock-based compensation must be taken into account as an operating expense as of the date of the expiration or termination of the qualified cost sharing arrangement.

(B) Election with respect to options on publicly traded stock—(1) In general. With respect to stock-based compensation in the form of options on publicly traded stock, the controlled participants in a qualified cost sharing arrangement may elect to take into account all operating expenses attributable to those stock options in the same amount, and as of the same time, as the fair value of the stock options reflected as a charge against income in audited financial statements or disclosed in footnotes to such financial statements, provided that such statements are prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles by or on behalf of the company issuing the publicly traded stock.

(2) Publicly traded stock. As used in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B), the term publicly traded stock means stock that is regularly traded on an established United States securities market and is issued by a company whose financial statements are prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles for the taxable year.

(3) Generally accepted accounting principles. For purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B), a financial statement prepared in accordance with a comprehensive body of generally accepted accounting principles other than United States generally accepted accounting principles is considered to be prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles provided that either—

(i) The fair value of the stock options under consideration is reflected in the reconciliation between such other accounting principles and United States generally accepted accounting principles required to be incorporated into the financial statement by the securities laws governing companies whose stock is regularly traded on United States securities markets; or

(ii) In the absence of a reconciliation between such other accounting principles and United States generally accepted accounting principles that reflects the fair value of the stock options under consideration, such other accounting principles require that the fair value of the stock options under consideration be reflected as a charge against income in audited financial statements or disclosed in footnotes to such statements.

(4) Time and manner of making the election. The election described in this paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) is made by an explicit reference to the election in the written cost sharing agreement required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section or in a written amendment to the cost sharing agreement entered into with the consent of the Commissioner pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(C) of this section. In the case of a qualified cost sharing arrangement in existence on August 26, 2003, the election must be made by written amendment to the cost sharing agreement not later than the latest due date (with regard to extensions) of a Federal income tax return of any controlled participant for the first taxable year beginning after August 26, 2003, and the consent of the Commissioner is not required.

(C) Consistency. Generally, all controlled participants in a qualified cost sharing arrangement taking options on publicly traded stock into account under paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section must use that same method of measurement and timing for all options on publicly traded stock with respect to that qualified cost sharing arrangement. Controlled participants may change their method only with the consent of the Commissioner and only with respect to stock options granted during taxable years subsequent to the taxable year in which the Commissioner's consent is obtained. All controlled participants in the qualified cost sharing arrangement must join in requests for the Commissioner's consent under this paragraph. Thus, for example, if the controlled participants make the election described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section upon the formation of the qualified cost sharing arrangement, the election may be revoked only with the consent of the Commissioner, and the consent will apply only to stock options granted in taxable years subsequent to the taxable year in which consent is obtained. Similarly, if controlled participants already have granted stock options that have been or will be taken into account under the general rule of paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, then except in cases specified in the last sentence of paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B)(4) of this section, the controlled participants may make the election described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section only with the consent of the Commissioner, and the consent will apply only to stock options granted in taxable years subsequent to the taxable year in which consent is obtained.

(3) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (d):

Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangement to develop a better mousetrap. USS and FP share the costs of FP's research and development facility that will be exclusively dedicated to this research, the salaries of the researchers, and reasonable overhead costs attributable to the project. They also share the cost of a conference facility that is at the disposal of the senior executive management of each company but does not contribute to the research and development activities in any measurable way. In this case, the cost of the conference facility must be excluded from the amount of intangible development costs.

Example 2. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter into a qualified cost sharing arrangement to develop a new device. USP and FS share the costs of a research and development facility, the salaries of researchers, and reasonable overhead costs attributable to the project. USP also incurs costs related to field testing of the device, but does not include them in the amount of intangible development costs of the cost sharing arrangement. The district director may determine that the field testing costs are intangible development costs that must be shared.

(e) Anticipated benefits—(1) Benefits. Benefits are additional income generated or costs saved by the use of covered intangibles.

(2) Reasonably anticipated benefits. For purposes of this section, a controlled participant's reasonably anticipated benefits are the aggregate benefits that it reasonably anticipates that it will derive from covered intangibles.

(f) Cost allocations—(1) In general. For purposes of determining whether a cost allocation authorized by paragraph (a)(2) of this section is appropriate for a taxable year, a controlled participant's share of intangible development costs for the taxable year under a qualified cost sharing arrangement must be compared to its share of reasonably anticipated benefits under the arrangement. A controlled participant's share of intangible development costs is determined under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. A controlled participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits under the arrangement is determined under paragraph (f)(3) of this section. In determining whether benefits were reasonably anticipated, it may be appropriate to compare actual benefits to anticipated benefits, as described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section.

(2) Share of intangible development costs—(i) In general. A controlled participant's share of intangible development costs for a taxable year is equal to its intangible development costs for the taxable year (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section), divided by the sum of the intangible development costs for the taxable year (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section) of all the controlled participants.

(ii) Example. The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(2):

Example. (i) U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Subsidiary (FS), and Unrelated Third Party (UTP) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new audio technology. In the first year of the arrangement, the controlled participants incur $2,250,000 in the intangible development area, all of which is incurred directly by USP. In the first year, UTP makes a $250,000 cost sharing payment to USP, and FS makes a $800,000 cost sharing payment to USP, under the terms of the arrangement. For that year, the intangible development costs borne by USP are $1,200,000 (its $2,250,000 intangible development costs directly incurred, minus the cost sharing payments it receives of $250,000 from UTP and $800,000 from FS); the intangible development costs borne by FS are $800,000 (its cost sharing payment); and the intangible development costs borne by all of the controlled participants are $2,000,000 (the sum of the intangible development costs borne by USP and FS of $1,200,000 and $800,000, respectively). Thus, for the first year, USP's share of intangible development costs is 60% ($1,200,000 divided by $2,000,000), and FS's share of intangible development costs is 40% ($800,000 divided by $2,000,000).

(ii) For purposes of determining whether a cost allocation authorized by paragraph §1.482-7(a)(2) is appropriate for the first year, the district director must compare USP's and FS's shares of intangible development costs for that year to their shares of reasonably anticipated benefits. See paragraph (f)(3) of this section.

(3) Share of reasonably anticipated benefits—(i) In general. A controlled participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits under a qualified cost sharing arrangement is equal to its reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section), divided by the sum of the reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) of all the controlled participants. The anticipated benefits of an uncontrolled participant will not be included for purposes of determining each controlled participant's share of anticipated benefits. A controlled participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits will be determined using the most reliable estimate of reasonably anticipated benefits. In determining which of two or more available estimates is most reliable, the quality of the data and assumptions used in the analysis must be taken into account, consistent with §1.482-1(c)(2)(ii) (Data and assumptions). Thus, the reliability of an estimate will depend largely on the completeness and accuracy of the data, the soundness of the assumptions, and the relative effects of particular deficiencies in data or assumptions on different estimates. If two estimates are equally reliable, no adjustment should be made based on differences in the results. The following factors will be particularly relevant in determining the reliability of an estimate of anticipated benefits—

(A) The reliability of the basis used for measuring benefits, as described in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section; and

(B) The reliability of the projections used to estimate benefits, as described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section.

(ii) Measure of benefits. In order to estimate a controlled participant's share of anticipated benefits from covered intangibles, the amount of benefits that each of the controlled participants is reasonably anticipated to derive from covered intangibles must be measured on a basis that is consistent for all such participants. See paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E), Example 8, of this section. If a controlled participant transfers covered intangibles to another controlled taxpayer, such participant's benefits from the transferred intangibles must be measured by reference to the transferee's benefits, disregarding any consideration paid by the transferee to the controlled participant (such as a royalty pursuant to a license agreement). Anticipated benefits are measured either on a direct basis, by reference to estimated additional income to be generated or costs to be saved by the use of covered intangibles, or on an indirect basis, by reference to certain measurements that reasonably can be assumed to be related to income generated or costs saved. Such indirect bases of measurement of anticipated benefits are described in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section. A controlled participant's anticipated benefits must be measured on the most reliable basis, whether direct or indirect. In determining which of two bases of measurement of reasonably anticipated benefits is most reliable, the factors set forth in §1.482-1(c)(2)(ii) (Data and assumptions) must be taken into account. It normally will be expected that the basis that provided the most reliable estimate for a particular year will continue to provide the most reliable estimate in subsequent years, absent a material change in the factors that affect the reliability of the estimate. Regardless of whether a direct or indirect basis of measurement is used, adjustments may be required to account for material differences in the activities that controlled participants undertake to exploit their interests in covered intangibles. See Example 6 of paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) of this section.

(iii) Indirect bases for measuring anticipated benefits. Indirect bases for measuring anticipated benefits from participation in a qualified cost sharing arrangement include the following:

(A) Units used, produced or sold. Units of items used, produced or sold by each controlled participant in the business activities in which covered intangibles are exploited may be used as an indirect basis for measuring its anticipated benefits. This basis of measurement will be more reliable to the extent that each controlled participant is expected to have a similar increase in net profit or decrease in net loss attributable to the covered intangibles per unit of the item or items used, produced or sold. This circumstance is most likely to arise when the covered intangibles are exploited by the controlled participants in the use, production or sale of substantially uniform items under similar economic conditions.

(B) Sales. Sales by each controlled participant in the business activities in which covered intangibles are exploited may be used as an indirect basis for measuring its anticipated benefits. This basis of measurement will be more reliable to the extent that each controlled participant is expected to have a similar increase in net profit or decrease in net loss attributable to covered intangibles per dollar of sales. This circumstance is most likely to arise if the costs of exploiting covered intangibles are not substantial relative to the revenues generated, or if the principal effect of using covered intangibles is to increase the controlled participants' revenues (e.g., through a price premium on the products they sell) without affecting their costs substantially. Sales by each controlled participant are unlikely to provide a reliable basis for measuring benefits unless each controlled participant operates at the same market level (e.g., manufacturing, distribution, etc.).

(C) Operating profit. Operating profit of each controlled participant from the activities in which covered intangibles are exploited may be used as an indirect basis for measuring its anticipated benefits. This basis of measurement will be more reliable to the extent that such profit is largely attributable to the use of covered intangibles, or if the share of profits attributable to the use of covered intangibles is expected to be similar for each controlled participant. This circumstance is most likely to arise when covered intangibles are integral to the activity that generates the profit and the activity could not be carried on or would generate little profit without use of those intangibles.

(D) Other bases for measuring anticipated benefits. Other bases for measuring anticipated benefits may, in some circumstances, be appropriate, but only to the extent that there is expected to be a reasonably identifiable relationship between the basis of measurement used and additional income generated or costs saved by the use of covered intangibles. For example, a division of costs based on employee compensation would be considered unreliable unless there were a relationship between the amount of compensation and the expected income of the controlled participants from the use of covered intangibles.

(E) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (f)(3)(iii):

Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) both produce a feedstock for the manufacture of various high-performance plastic products. Producing the feedstock requires large amounts of electricity, which accounts for a significant portion of its production cost. FP and USS enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a new process that will reduce the amount of electricity required to produce a unit of the feedstock. FP and USS currently both incur an electricity cost of X% of its other production costs and rates for each are expected to remain similar in the future. How much the new process, if it is successful, will reduce the amount of electricity required to produce a unit of the feedstock is uncertain, but it will be about the same amount for both companies. Therefore, the cost savings each company is expected to achieve after implementing the new process are similar relative to the total amount of the feedstock produced. Under the cost sharing arrangement FP and USS divide the costs of developing the new process based on the units of the feedstock each is anticipated to produce in the future. In this case, units produced is the most reliable basis for measuring benefits and dividing the intangible development costs because each participant is expected to have a similar decrease in costs per unit of the feedstock produced.

Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that USS pays X% of its other production costs for electricity while FP pays 2X% of its other production costs. In this case, units produced is not the most reliable basis for measuring benefits and dividing the intangible development costs because the participants do not expect to have a similar decrease in costs per unit of the feedstock produced. The district director determines that the most reliable measure of benefit shares may be based on units of the feedstock produced if FP's units are weighted relative to USS's units by a factor of 2. This reflects the fact that FP pays twice as much as USS as a percentage of its other production costs for electricity and, therefore, FP's savings per unit of the feedstock would be twice USS's savings from any new process eventually developed.

Example 3. The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that to supply the particular needs of the U.S. market USS manufactures the feedstock with somewhat different properties than FP's feedstock. This requires USS to employ a somewhat different production process than does FP. Because of this difference, it will be more costly for USS to adopt any new process that may be developed under the cost sharing agreement. In this case, units produced is not the most reliable basis for measuring benefit shares. In order to reliably determine benefit shares, the district director offsets the reasonably anticipated costs of adopting the new process against the reasonably anticipated total savings in electricity costs.

Example 4. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new anesthetic drugs. USP obtains the right to use any resulting patent in the U.S. market, and FS obtains the right to use the patent in the European market. USP and FS divide costs on the basis of anticipated operating profit from each patent under development. USP anticipates that it will receive a much higher profit than FS per unit sold because drug prices are uncontrolled in the U.S., whereas drug prices are regulated in many European countries. In this case, the controlled taxpayers' basis for measuring benefits is the most reliable.

Example 5. (i) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) both manufacture and sell fertilizers. They enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a new pellet form of a common agricultural fertilizer that is currently available only in powder form. Under the cost sharing arrangement, USS obtains the rights to produce and sell the new form of fertilizer for the U.S. market while FP obtains the rights to produce and sell the fertilizer for the rest of the world. The costs of developing the new form of fertilizer are divided on the basis of the anticipated sales of fertilizer in the participants' respective markets.

(ii) If the research and development is successful the pellet form will deliver the fertilizer more efficiently to crops and less fertilizer will be required to achieve the same effect on crop growth. The pellet form of fertilizer can be expected to sell at a price premium over the powder form of fertilizer based on the savings in the amount of fertilizer that needs to be used. If the research and development is successful, the costs of producing pellet fertilizer are expected to be approximately the same as the costs of producing powder fertilizer and the same for both FP and USS. Both FP and USS operate at approximately the same market levels, selling their fertilizers largely to independent distributors.

(iii) In this case, the controlled taxpayers' basis for measuring benefits is the most reliable.

Example 6. The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that FP distributes its fertilizers directly while USS sells to independent distributors. In this case, sales of USS and FP are not the most reliable basis for measuring benefits unless adjustments are made to account for the difference in market levels at which the sales occur.

Example 7. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop materials that will be used to train all new entry-level employees. FP and USS determine that the new materials will save approximately ten hours of training time per employee. Because their entry-level employees are paid on differing wage scales, FP and USS decide that they should not divide costs based on the number of entry-level employees hired by each. Rather, they divide costs based on compensation paid to the entry-level employees hired by each. In this case, the basis used for measuring benefits is the most reliable because there is a direct relationship between compensation paid to new entry-level employees and costs saved by FP and USS from the use of the new training materials.

Example 8. U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Subsidiary 1 (FS1) and Foreign Subsidiary 2 (FS2) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop computer software that each will market and install on customers' computer systems. The participants divide costs on the basis of projected sales by USP, FS1, and FS2 of the software in their respective geographic areas. However, FS1 plans not only to sell but also to license the software to unrelated customers, and FS1's licensing income (which is a percentage of the licensees' sales) is not counted in the projected benefits. In this case, the basis used for measuring the benefits of each participant is not the most reliable because all of the benefits received by participants are not taken into account. In order to reliably determine benefit shares, FS1's projected benefits from licensing must be included in the measurement on a basis that is the same as that used to measure its own and the other participants' projected benefits from sales (e.g., all participants might measure their benefits on the basis of operating profit).

(iv) Projections used to estimate anticipated benefits—(A) In general. The reliability of an estimate of anticipated benefits also depends upon the reliability of projections used in making the estimate. Projections required for this purpose generally include a determination of the time period between the inception of the research and development and the receipt of benefits, a projection of the time over which benefits will be received, and a projection of the benefits anticipated for each year in which it is anticipated that the intangible will generate benefits. A projection of the relevant basis for measuring anticipated benefits may require a projection of the factors that underlie it. For example, a projection of operating profits may require a projection of sales, cost of sales, operating expenses, and other factors that affect operating profits. If it is anticipated that there will be significant variation among controlled participants in the timing of their receipt of benefits, and consequently benefit shares are expected to vary significantly over the years in which benefits will be received, it may be necessary to use the present discounted value of the projected benefits to reliably determine each controlled participant's share of those benefits. If it is not anticipated that benefit shares will significantly change over time, current annual benefit shares may provide a reliable projection of anticipated benefit shares. This circumstance is most likely to occur when the cost sharing arrangement is a long-term arrangement, the arrangement covers a wide variety of intangibles, the composition of the covered intangibles is unlikely to change, the covered intangibles are unlikely to generate unusual profits, and each controlled participant's share of the market is stable.

(B) Unreliable projections. A significant divergence between projected benefit shares and actual benefit shares may indicate that the projections were not reliable. In such a case, the district director may use actual benefits as the most reliable measure of anticipated benefits. If benefits are projected over a period of years, and the projections for initial years of the period prove to be unreliable, this may indicate that the projections for the remaining years of the period are also unreliable and thus should be adjusted. Projections will not be considered unreliable based on a divergence between a controlled participant's projected benefit share and actual benefit share if the amount of such divergence for every controlled participant is less than or equal to 20% of the participant's projected benefit share. Further, the district director will not make an allocation based on such divergence if the difference is due to an extraordinary event, beyond the control of the participants, that could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time that costs were shared. For purposes of this paragraph, all controlled participants that are not U.S. persons will be treated as a single controlled participant. Therefore, an adjustment based on an unreliable projection will be made to the cost shares of foreign controlled participants only if there is a matching adjustment to the cost shares of controlled participants that are U.S. persons. Nothing in this paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(B) will prevent the district director from making an allocation if the taxpayer did not use the most reliable basis for measuring anticipated benefits. For example, if the taxpayer measures anticipated benefits based on units sold, and the district director determines that another basis is more reliable for measuring anticipated benefits, then the fact that actual units sold were within 20% of the projected unit sales will not preclude an allocation under this section.

(C) Foreign-to-foreign adjustments. Notwithstanding the limitations on adjustments provided in paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(B) of this section, adjustments to cost shares based on an unreliable projection also may be made solely among foreign controlled participants if the variation between actual and projected benefits has the effect of substantially reducing U.S. tax.

(D) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (f)(3)(iv):

Example 1. (i) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a new car model. The participants plan to spend four years developing the new model and four years producing and selling the new model. USS and FP project total sales of $4 billion and $2 billion, respectively, over the planned four years of exploitation of the new model. Cost shares are divided for each year based on projected total sales. Therefore, USS bears 662⁄3 % of each year's intangible development costs and FP bears 331⁄3 % of such costs.

(ii) USS typically begins producing and selling new car models a year after FP begins producing and selling new car models. The district director determines that in order to reflect USS's one-year lag in introducing new car models, a more reliable projection of each participant's share of benefits would be based on a projection of all four years of sales for each participant, discounted to present value.

Example 2. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new and improved household cleaning products. Both participants have sold household cleaning products for many years and have stable market shares. The products under development are unlikely to produce unusual profits for either participant. The participants divide costs on the basis of each participant's current sales of household cleaning products. In this case, the participants' future benefit shares are reliably projected by current sales of cleaning products.

Example 3. The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that FS's market share is rapidly expanding because of the business failure of a competitor in its geographic area. The district director determines that the participants' future benefit shares are not reliably projected by current sales of cleaning products and that FS's benefit projections should take into account its growth in sales.

Example 4. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop synthetic fertilizers and insecticides. FP and USS share costs on the basis of each participant's current sales of fertilizers and insecticides. The market shares of the participants have been stable for fertilizers, but FP's market share for insecticides has been expanding. The district director determines that the participants' projections of benefit shares are reliable with regard to fertilizers, but not reliable with regard to insecticides; a more reliable projection of benefit shares would take into account the expanding market share for insecticides.

Example 5. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new food products, dividing costs on the basis of projected sales two years in the future. In year 1, USP and FS project that their sales in year 3 will be equal, and they divide costs accordingly. In year 3, the district director examines the participants' method for dividing costs. USP and FS actually accounted for 42% and 58% of total sales, respectively. The district director agrees that sales two years in the future provide a reliable basis for estimating benefit shares. Because the differences between USP's and FS's actual and projected benefit shares are less than 20% of their projected benefit shares, the projection of future benefits for year 3 is reliable.

Example 6. The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that the in year 3 USP and FS actually accounted for 35% and 65% of total sales, respectively. The divergence between USP's projected and actual benefit shares is greater than 20% of USP's projected benefit share and is not due to an extraordinary event beyond the control of the participants. The district director concludes that the projection of anticipated benefit shares was unreliable, and uses actual benefits as the basis for an adjustment to the cost shares borne by USP and FS.

Example 7. U.S. Parent (USP), a U.S. corporation, and its foreign subsidiary (FS) enter a cost sharing arrangement in year 1. They project that they will begin to receive benefits from covered intangibles in years 4 through 6, and that USP will receive 60% of total benefits and FS 40% of total benefits. In years 4 through 6, USP and FS actually receive 50% each of the total benefits. In evaluating the reliability of the participants' projections, the district director compares these actual benefit shares to the projected benefit shares. Although USP's actual benefit share (50%) is within 20% of its projected benefit share (60%), FS's actual benefit share (50%) is not within 20% of its projected benefit share (40%). Based on this discrepancy, the district director may conclude that the participants' projections were not reliable and may use actual benefit shares as the basis for an adjustment to the cost shares borne by USP and FS.

Example 8. Three controlled taxpayers, USP, FS1 and FS2 enter into a cost sharing arrangement. FS1 and FS2 are foreign. USP is a United States corporation that controls all the stock of FS1 and FS2. The participants project that they will share the total benefits of the covered intangibles in the following percentages: USP 50%; FS1 30%; and FS2 20%. Actual benefit shares are as follows: USP 45%; FS1 25%; and FS2 30%. In evaluating the reliability of the participants' projections, the district director compares these actual benefit shares to the projected benefit shares. For this purpose, FS1 and FS2 are treated as a single participant. The actual benefit share received by USP (45%) is within 20% of its projected benefit share (50%). In addition, the non-US participants' actual benefit share (55%) is also within 20% of their projected benefit share (50%). Therefore, the district director concludes that the participants' projections of future benefits were reliable, despite the fact that FS2's actual benefit share (30%) is not within 20% of its projected benefit share (20%).

Example 9. The facts are the same as in Example 8. In addition, the district director determines that FS2 has significant operating losses and has no earnings and profits, and that FS1 is profitable and has earnings and profits. Based on all the evidence, the district director concludes that the participants arranged that FS1 would bear a larger cost share than appropriate in order to reduce FS1's earnings and profits and thereby reduce inclusions USP otherwise would be deemed to have on account of FS1 under subpart F. Pursuant to §1.482-7 (f)(3)(iv)(C), the district director may make an adjustment solely to the cost shares borne by FS1 and FS2 because FS2's projection of future benefits was unreliable and the variation between actual and projected benefits had the effect of substantially reducing USP's U.S. income tax liability (on account of FS1 subpart F income).

Example 10. (i)(A) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter into a cost sharing arrangement in 1996 to develop a new treatment for baldness. USS's interest in any treatment developed is the right to produce and sell the treatment in the U.S. market while FP retains rights to produce and sell the treatment in the rest of the world. USS and FP measure their anticipated benefits from the cost sharing arrangement based on their respective projected future sales of the baldness treatment. The following sales projections are used:

Sales

[In millions of dollars]

Open Table

Year	USS	FP
1997	5	10
1998	20	20
1999	30	30
2000	40	40
2001	40	40
2002	40	40
2003	40	40
2004	20	20
2005	10	10
2006	5	5

(B) In 1997, the first year of sales, USS is projected to have lower sales than FP due to lags in U.S. regulatory approval for the baldness treatment. In each subsequent year USS and FP are projected to have equal sales. Sales are projected to build over the first three years of the period, level off for several years, and then decline over the final years of the period as new and improved baldness treatments reach the market.

(ii) To account for USS's lag in sales in the first year, the present discounted value of sales over the period is used as the basis for measuring benefits. Based on the risk associated with this venture, a discount rate of 10 percent is selected. The present discounted value of projected sales is determined to be approximately $154.4 million for USS and $158.9 million for FP. On this basis USS and FP are projected to obtain approximately 49.3% and 50.7% of the benefit, respectively, and the costs of developing the baldness treatment are shared accordingly.

(iii)

(A) In the year 2002 the district director examines the cost sharing arrangement. USS and FP have obtained the following sales results through the year 2001:

Sales

[In millions of dollars]

Open Table

Year	USS	FP
1997	0	17
1998	17	35
1999	25	41
2000	38	41
2001	39	41

(B) USS's sales initially grew more slowly than projected while FP's sales grew more quickly. In each of the first three years of the period the share of total sales of at least one of the parties diverged by over 20% from its projected share of sales. However, by the year 2001 both parties' sales had leveled off at approximately their projected values. Taking into account this leveling off of sales and all the facts and circumstances, the district director determines that it is appropriate to use the original projections for the remaining years of sales. Combining the actual results through the year 2001 with the projections for subsequent years, and using a discount rate of 10%, the present discounted value of sales is approximately $141.6 million for USS and $187.3 million for FP. This result implies that USS and FP obtain approximately 43.1% and 56.9%, respectively, of the anticipated benefits from the baldness treatment. Because these benefit shares are within 20% of the benefit shares calculated based on the original sales projections, the district director determines that, based on the difference between actual and projected benefit shares, the original projections were not unreliable. No adjustment is made based on the difference between actual and projected benefit shares.

Example 11. (i) The facts are the same as in Example 10, except that the actual sales results through the year 2001 are as follows:

Sales

[In millions of dollars]

Open Table

Year	USS	FP
1997	0	17
1998	17	35
1999	25	44
2000	34	54
2001	36	55

(ii) Based on the discrepancy between the projections and the actual results and on consideration of all the facts, the district director determines that for the remaining years the following sales projections are more reliable than the original projections:

Sales

[In millions of dollars]

Open Table

Year	USS	FP
2002	36	55
2003	36	55
2004	18	28
2005	9	14
2006	4.5	7

(iii) Combining the actual results through the year 2001 with the projections for subsequent years, and using a discount rate of 10%, the present discounted value of sales is approximately $131.2 million for USS and $229.4 million for FP. This result implies that USS and FP obtain approximately 35.4% and 63.6%, respectively, of the anticipated benefits from the baldness treatment. These benefit shares diverge by greater than 20% from the benefit shares calculated based on the original sales projections, and the district director determines that, based on the difference between actual and projected benefit shares, the original projections were unreliable. The district director adjusts costs shares for each of the taxable years under examination to conform them to the recalculated shares of anticipated benefits.

(4) Timing of allocations. If the district director reallocates costs under the provisions of this paragraph (f), the allocation must be reflected for tax purposes in the year in which the costs were incurred. When a cost sharing payment is owed by one member of a qualified cost sharing arrangement to another member, the district director may make appropriate allocations to reflect an arm's length rate of interest for the time value of money, consistent with the provisions of §1.482-2(a) (Loans or advances).

(g) Allocations of income, deductions or other tax items to reflect transfers of intangibles (buy-in)—(1) In general. A controlled participant that makes intangible property available to a qualified cost sharing arrangement will be treated as having transferred interests in such property to the other controlled participants, and such other controlled participants must make buy-in payments to it, as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If the other controlled participants fail to make such payments, the district director may make appropriate allocations, under the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, to reflect an arm's length consideration for the transferred intangible property. Further, if a group of controlled taxpayers participates in a qualified cost sharing arrangement, any change in the controlled participants' interests in covered intangibles, whether by reason of entry of a new participant or otherwise by reason of transfers (including deemed transfers) of interests among existing participants, is a transfer of intangible property, and the district director may make appropriate allocations, under the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, to reflect an arm's length consideration for the transfer. See paragraphs (g) (3), (4), and (5) of this section. Paragraph (g)(6) of this section provides rules for assigning unassigned interests under a qualified cost sharing arrangement.

(2) Pre-existing intangibles. If a controlled participant makes pre-existing intangible property in which it owns an interest available to other controlled participants for purposes of research in the intangible development area under a qualified cost sharing arrangement, then each such other controlled participant must make a buy-in payment to the owner. The buy-in payment by each such other controlled participant is the arm's length charge for the use of the intangible under the rules of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, multiplied by the controlled participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this section). A controlled participant's payment required under this paragraph (g)(2) is deemed to be reduced to the extent of any payments owed to it under this paragraph (g)(2) from other controlled participants. Each payment received by a payee will be treated as coming pro rata out of payments made by all payors. See paragraph (g)(8), Example 4, of this section. Such payments will be treated as consideration for a transfer of an interest in the intangible property made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement by the payee. Any payment to or from an uncontrolled participant in consideration for intangible property made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement will be shared by the controlled participants in accordance with their shares of reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this section). A controlled participant's payment required under this paragraph (g)(2) is deemed to be reduced by such a share of payments owed from an uncontrolled participant to the same extent as by any payments owed from other controlled participants under this paragraph (g)(2). See paragraph (g)(8), Example 5, of this section.

(3) New controlled participant. If a new controlled participant enters a qualified cost sharing arrangement and acquires any interest in the covered intangibles, then the new participant must pay an arm's length consideration, under the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, for such interest to each controlled participant from whom such interest was acquired.

(4) Controlled participant relinquishes interests. A controlled participant in a qualified cost sharing arrangement may be deemed to have acquired an interest in one or more covered intangibles if another controlled participant transfers, abandons, or otherwise relinquishes an interest under the arrangement, to the benefit of the first participant. If such a relinquishment occurs, the participant relinquishing the interest must receive an arm's length consideration, under the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, for its interest. If the controlled participant that has relinquished its interest subsequently uses that interest, then that participant must pay an arm's length consideration, under the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, to the controlled participant that acquired the interest.

(5) Conduct inconsistent with the terms of a cost sharing arrangement. If, after any cost allocations authorized by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a controlled participant bears costs of intangible development that over a period of years are consistently and materially greater or lesser than its share of reasonably anticipated benefits, then the district director may conclude that the economic substance of the arrangement between the controlled participants is inconsistent with the terms of the cost sharing arrangement. In such a case, the district director may disregard such terms and impute an agreement consistent with the controlled participants' course of conduct, under which a controlled participant that bore a disproportionately greater share of costs received additional interests in covered intangibles. See §1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B) (Identifying contractual terms) and §1.482- 4(f)(3)(ii) (Identification of owner). Accordingly, that participant must receive an arm's length payment from any controlled participant whose share of the intangible development costs is less than its share of reasonably anticipated benefits over time, under the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6.

(6) Failure to assign interests under a qualified cost sharing arrangement. If a qualified cost sharing arrangement fails to assign an interest in a covered intangible, then each controlled participant will be deemed to hold a share in such interest equal to its share of the costs of developing such intangible. For this purpose, if cost shares have varied materially over the period during which such intangible was developed, then the costs of developing the intangible must be measured by their present discounted value as of the date when the first such costs were incurred.

(7) Form of consideration. The consideration for an acquisition described in this paragraph (g) may take any of the following forms:

(i) Lump sum payments. For the treatment of lump sum payments, see §1.482-4(f)(5) (Lump sum payments);

(ii) Installment payments. Installment payments spread over the period of use of the intangible by the transferee, with interest calculated in accordance with §1.482-2(a) (Loans or advances); and

(iii) Royalties. Royalties or other payments contingent on the use of the intangible by the transferee.

(8) Examples. The following examples illustrate allocations described in this paragraph (g):

Example 1. In year one, four members of a controlled group enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a commercially feasible process for capturing energy from nuclear fusion. Based on a reliable projection of their future benefits, each cost sharing participant bears an equal share of the costs. The cost of developing intangibles for each participant with respect to the project is approximately $1 million per year. In year ten, a fifth member of the controlled group joins the cost sharing group and agrees to bear one-fifth of the future costs in exchange for part of the fourth member's territory reasonably anticipated to yield benefits amounting to one-fifth of the total benefits. The fair market value of intangible property within the arrangement at the time the fifth company joins the arrangement is $45 million. The new member must pay one-fifth of that amount (that is, $9 million total) to the fourth member from whom it acquired its interest in covered intangibles.

Example 2. U.S. Subsidiary (USS), Foreign Subsidiary (FS) and Foreign Parent (FP) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new products within the Group X product line. USS manufactures and sells Group X products in North America, FS manufactures and sells Group X products in South America, and FP manufactures and sells Group X products in the rest of the world. USS, FS and FP project that each will manufacture and sell a third of the Group X products under development, and they share costs on the basis of projected sales of manufactured products. When the new Group X products are developed, however, USS ceases to manufacture Group X products, and FP sells its Group X products to USS for resale in the North American market. USS earns a return on its resale activity that is appropriate given its function as a distributor, but does not earn a return attributable to exploiting covered intangibles. The district director determines that USS's share of the costs (one-third) was greater than its share of reasonably anticipated benefits (zero) and that it has transferred an interest in the intangibles for which it should receive a payment from FP, whose share of the intangible development costs (one-third) was less than its share of reasonably anticipated benefits over time (two-thirds). An allocation is made under §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6 from FP to USS to recognize USS' one-third interest in the intangibles. No allocation is made from FS to USS because FS did not exploit USS's interest in covered intangibles.

Example 3. U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Subsidiary 1 (FS1), and Foreign Subsidiary 2 (FS2) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a cure for the common cold. Costs are shared USP-50%, FS1-40% and FS2-10% on the basis of projected units of cold medicine to be produced by each. After ten years of research and development, FS1 withdraws from the arrangement, transferring its interests in the intangibles under development to USP in exchange for a lump sum payment of $10 million. The district director may review this lump sum payment, under the provisions of §1.482-4(f)(5), to ensure that the amount is commensurate with the income attributable to the intangibles.

Example 4. (i) Four members A, B, C, and D of a controlled group form a cost sharing arrangement to develop the next generation technology for their business. Based on a reliable projection of their future benefits, the participants agree to bear shares of the costs incurred during the term of the agreement in the following percentages: A 40%; B 15%; C 25%; and D 20%. The arm's length charges, under the rules of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, for the use of the existing intangible property they respectively make available to the cost sharing arrangement are in the following amounts for the taxable year: A 80X; B 40X; C 30X; and D 30X. The provisional (before offsets) and final buy-in payments/receipts among A, B, C, and D are shown in the table as follows:

[All amounts stated in X's]

Open Table

	A	B	C	D
Payments	<40>	<21>	<37.5>	<30>
Receipts	48	34	22.5	24
Final	8	13	<15>	<6>

(ii) The first row/first column shows A's provisional buy-in payment equal to the product of 100X (sum of 40X, 30X, and 30X) and A's share of anticipated benefits of 40%. The second row/first column shows A's provisional buy-in receipts equal to the sum of the products of 80X and B's, C's, and D's anticipated benefits shares (15%, 25%, and 20%, respectively). The other entries in the first two rows of the table are similarly computed. The last row shows the final buy-in receipts/payments after offsets. Thus, for the taxable year, A and B are treated as receiving the 8X and 13X, respectively, pro rata out of payments by C and D of 15X and 6X, respectively.

Example 5. A and B, two members of a controlled group form a cost sharing arrangement with an unrelated third party C to develop a new technology useable in their respective businesses. Based on a reliable projection of their future benefits, A and B agree to bear shares of 60% and 40%, respectively, of the costs incurred during the term of the agreement. A also makes available its existing technology for purposes of the research to be undertaken. The arm's length charge, under the rules of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, for the use of the existing technology is 100X for the taxable year. Under its agreement with A and B, C must make a specified cost sharing payment as well as a payment of 50X for the taxable year on account of the pre- existing intangible property made available to the cost sharing arrangement. B's provisional buy-in payment (before offsets) to A for the taxable year is 40X (the product of 100X and B's anticipated benefits share of 40%). C's payment of 50X is shared provisionally between A and B in accordance with their shares of reasonably anticipated benefits, 30X (50X times 60%) to A and 20X (50X times 40%) to B. B's final buy-in payment (after offsets) is 20X (40X less 20X). A is treated as receiving the 70X total provisional payments (40X plus 30X) pro rata out of the final payments by B and C of 20X and 50X, respectively.

(h) Character of payments made pursuant to a qualified cost sharing arrangement—(1) In general. Payments made pursuant to a qualified cost sharing arrangement (other than payments described in paragraph (g) of this section) generally will be considered costs of developing intangibles of the payor and reimbursements of the same kind of costs of developing intangibles of the payee. For purposes of this paragraph (h), a controlled participant's payment required under a qualified cost sharing arrangement is deemed to be reduced to the extent of any payments owed to it under the arrangement from other controlled or uncontrolled participants. Each payment received by a payee will be treated as coming pro rata out of payments made by all payors. Such payments will be applied pro rata against deductions for the taxable year that the payee is allowed in connection with the qualified cost sharing arrangement. Payments received in excess of such deductions will be treated as in consideration for use of the tangible property made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement by the payee. For purposes of the research credit determined under section 41, cost sharing payments among controlled participants will be treated as provided for intra-group transactions in §1.41-6(e). Any payment made or received by a taxpayer pursuant to an arrangement that the district director determines not to be a qualified cost sharing arrangement, or a payment made or received pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, will be subject to the provisions of §§1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6. Any payment that in substance constitutes a cost sharing payment will be treated as such for purposes of this section, regardless of its characterization under foreign law.

(2) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (h):

Example 1. U.S. Parent (USP) and its wholly owned Foreign Subsidiary (FS) form a cost sharing arrangement to develop a miniature widget, the Small R. Based on a reliable projection of their future benefits, USP agrees to bear 40% and FS to bear 60% of the costs incurred during the term of the agreement. The principal costs in the intangible development area are operating expenses incurred by FS in Country Z of 100X annually, and operating expenses incurred by USP in the United States also of 100X annually. Of the total costs of 200X, USP's share is 80X and FS's share is 120X, so that FS must make a payment to USP of 20X. This payment will be treated as a reimbursement of 20X of USP's operating expenses in the United States. Accordingly, USP's Form 1120 will reflect an 80X deduction on account of activities performed in the United States for purposes of allocation and apportionment of the deduction to source. The Form 5471 for FS will reflect a 100X deduction on account of activities performed in Country Z, and a 20X deduction on account of activities performed in the United States.

Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the 100X of costs borne by USP consist of 5X of operating expenses incurred by USP in the United States and 95X of fair market value rental cost for a facility in the United States. The depreciation deduction attributable to the U.S. facility is 7X. The 20X net payment by FS to USP will first be applied in reduction pro rata of the 5X deduction for operating expenses and the 7X depreciation deduction attributable to the U.S. facility. The 8X remainder will be treated as rent for the U.S. facility.

(i) Accounting requirements. The accounting requirements of this paragraph are that the controlled participants in a qualified cost sharing arrangement must use a consistent method of accounting to measure costs and benefits, and must translate foreign currencies on a consistent basis.

(j) Administrative requirements—(1) In general. The administrative requirements of this paragraph consist of the documentation requirements of paragraph (j)(2) of this section and the reporting requirements of paragraph (j)(3) of this section.

(2) Documentation—(i) Requirements. A controlled participant must maintain sufficient documentation to establish that the requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(1) of this section have been met, as well as the additional documentation specified in this paragraph (j)(2)(i), and must provide any such documentation to the Internal Revenue Service within 30 days of a request (unless an extension is granted by the district director). Documents necessary to establish the following must also be maintained—

(A) The total amount of costs incurred pursuant to the arrangement;

(B) The costs borne by each controlled participant;

(C) A description of the method used to determine each controlled participant's share of the intangible development costs, including the projections used to estimate benefits, and an explanation of why that method was selected;

(D) The accounting method used to determine the costs and benefits of the intangible development (including the method used to translate foreign currencies), and, to the extent that the method materially differs from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an explanation of such material differences;

(E) Prior research, if any, undertaken in the intangible development area, any tangible or intangible property made available for use in the arrangement, by each controlled participant, and any information used to establish the value of pre-existing and covered intangibles; and

(F) The amount taken into account as operating expenses attributable to stock-based compensation, including the method of measurement and timing used with respect to that amount as well as the data, as of date of grant, used to identify stock-based compensation related to the development of covered intangibles.

(ii) Coordination with penalty regulation. The documents described in paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this section will satisfy the principal documents requirement under §1.6662-6(d)(2)(iii)(B) with respect to a qualified cost sharing arrangement.

(3) Reporting requirements. A controlled participant must attach to its U.S. income tax return a statement indicating that it is a participant in a qualified cost sharing arrangement, and listing the other controlled participants in the arrangement. A controlled participant that is not required to file a U.S. income tax return must ensure that such a statement is attached to Schedule M of any Form 5471 or to any Form 5472 filed with respect to that participant.

(k) Effective date. This section applies for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1996. However, paragraphs (a)(3), (d)(2) and (j)(2)(i)(F) of this section apply for stock-based compensation granted in taxable years beginning on or after August 26, 2003.

(l) Transition rule. A cost sharing arrangement will be considered a qualified cost sharing arrangement, within the meaning of this section, if, prior to January 1, 1996, the arrangement was a bona fide cost sharing arrangement under the provisions of §1.482-7T (as contained in the 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 1995), but only if the arrangement is amended, if necessary, to conform with the provisions of this section by December 31, 1996.

[T.D. 8632, 60 FR 65557, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by T.D. 8670, 61 FR 21956, May 13, 1996; 61 FR 33656, June 28, 1996; T.D. 8930, 66 FR 295, Jan. 3, 2001; T.D. 9088, 68 FR 51177, Aug. 26, 2003; 69 FR 13473, Mar. 23, 2004. Redesignated by T.D. 9441, 74 FR 352, Jan. 5, 2009]

Tried the LawStack mobile app?

Join thousands and try LawStack mobile for FREE today.

Carry the law offline, wherever you go.
Download CFR, USC, rules, and state law to your mobile device.