PERU Law and Practice Contributed by: Tania Quispe, Martín Ramos, Raquel Cabrera and Ramzi Benzaquen, +Value
4. Intangibles 4.1 Notable Rules
this range and, as a result, a lower income tax is determined in the country for the respective fiscal year, the market value will be the median of that range. The range will be calculated using the interquartile method. Lastly, in the application of the CUPM, if the transactions exhibit a high level of comparability, the range will establish the minimum value at the lowest of the prices or consideration amounts of the comparable operations and the maximum value at the highest of these. For this purpose, the prices or consideration amounts of the com - parable transactions are considered to have a high level of comparability if the coefficient of the variation applied to the values of the comparable The ITLR establish that it is possible to eliminate differences (through reasonable adjustments) between the transactions being compared or between the characteristics of the parties con - ducting them or the functions they perform. To achieve this, consideration must be given, among others, to the following elements, as applicable: • payment terms; • quantity negotiated; • advertising and publicity; • intermediary costs; • packaging; • freight; • insurance; and • physical and content nature. transactions does not exceed 3%. 3.5 Comparability Adjustments
The ITL has not established any notable rules relating to the transfer pricing of intangible assets; however, the Peruvian regulations rely on the OECD Guidelines and the Final Report of Actions 8-10 of the BEPS Plan as sources of interpretation for the treatment of such opera - tions. Notwithstanding the above, the Regulations stipulate that in order to conduct a proper com - parability analysis, certain criteria reflecting the economic reality must be considered. Therefore, in the case of transactions related to the transfer or use of intangible assets, factors such as the contractual typology of the intangible, identifica - tion and characteristics, duration, degree of pro - tection, and expected benefits of its use should be taken into account. Additionally, concerning the application of the most appropriate valuation method, the Regula - tions provide guidelines for determining transfer prices associated with intangible assets. • Regarding the application of the CUPM, it is indicated that it is not suitable for transac - tions involving the definitive transfer or use of significant intangible assets, nor when the involved intangible products or assets are not comparable in nature or quality. • Additionally, with regard to the RPSM, it is underscored as an approach for transactions within closely integrated intercompany opera - tions, particularly when significant intangible assets are present, rendering segregation impractical and imprecise.
297 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook