SPAIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Carolina del Campo, Joan Hortalà, Jaime Collado and Pablo Álvarez, Cuatrecasas
Conversely, where the tested party exhibits above- routine contributions (eg, sustained local market development without assured reimbursement), a mid- to higher range can be considered, with evidence of incremental functions and risks. 3.5 Comparability Adjustments Comparability must address product/service charac - teristics, functional profiles, contract terms, market conditions and strategy. Where material differences exist and reliable adjustments can be made, adjust - ments are expected to improve reliability. The Region - al Economic-Administrative Court ( Tribunal Económi- co-Administrativo Regional , TEAR) has reiterated that comparability hinges on whether differences affect the tested factor (price or margin) and whether adjust - ments can neutralise them. Adjustments in Practice Working capital adjustments are common in Spain and should tie directly to cash conversion differences (receivables, payables, inventory days) between the tested party and each comparable. The model should specify whether the adjustment applies to the numer - ator (eg, earnings before interest and taxes, or EBIT) or denominator (eg, sales or costs) and avoid dou - ble counting where transfer pricing policies already embed payment term economics. Capacity utilisation adjustments can be persuasive for manufacturers facing temporary underutilisation not expected at steady state. To withstand scrutiny, one should quantify normal capacity with historical and industry references, separate volume‑driven inef - ficiencies from structural issues and document man - agement actions to revert to normal levels. Geographic adjustments require caution: Spain gen - erally expects that markets with materially different competitive intensity, regulatory burdens or cost structures be stratified rather than “adjusted away” unless robust market‑specific evidence supports the transformation. Finally, risk adjustments should follow the OECD’s accurate delineation logic: prove that differences in risk control and financial capacity exist and quantify them through coherent mechanisms (eg, credit‑risk
notching for financial transactions; volatility premia for entrepreneurial distributors), avoiding opaque black‑box models.
4. Intangibles 4.1 Notable Rules
Spain aligns with the OECD’s DEMPE framework. Non-traditional valuation methods are acceptable if assumptions (e.g., growth, discount rates, attrition) are explicit, evidenced, and traceable to budgets and market data. The onus is on robust contemporaneous documentation kept from the end of the voluntary fil - ing period. Documentation to Compile When Valuing Intangibles For development, enhancement, maintenance, pro - tection and exploitation (DEMPE)-aligned outcomes, Spanish inspectors increasingly ask for granular arte - facts that demonstrate real-time control and capabil - ity, not merely job descriptions or organisation charts. Effective files include: • R&D and product roadmap governance minutes showing who sets scope, go/no go and budget pivots; • IP committee materials on protection, maintenance and enforcement; • incentive plans that align key personnel to risk- bearing entities; and • evidence of cross-functional decision rights (tax, legal, commercial) consistent with claimed owner - ship of economically significant intangibles. For valuation, one should transparently bridge the DCF to management plans, show cross-checks (eg, relief from royalty triangulation) and stress test key assumptions (growth, margins, decay, tax amortisa - tion benefits). Where options realistically available could have led to different structures (eg, contract R&D versus buyin), why the chosen path maximises expected value for both parties should be explained.
231 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook