Tariff rate quota authorisations govern preferential imports of specified New Zealand goods through export certification and electronic customs debiti...
Electronic Continuity Bond Registration replaces manual container permissions, with quarterly reporting and re-export monitoring for duty-free contain...
Delayed transport documents failed to validate intercepted goods, sustaining transit-state penalties where the claimed interstate destination remained...
Functional comparability under the CUP method requires...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unestablished.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Functional comparability under the CUP method requires comparison of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed; third-party guarantee data must be disclosed for effective rebuttal. In the absence of reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions or a proper FAR analysis, the transfer-pricing adjustment for counter-guarantee support was deleted. Lending income could not be equally allocated where the overseas entity funded loans and assumed substantive lending risks, and no reliable comparable or prescribed method disproved the attribution. An arm's length price cannot be determined ad hoc after rejecting TNMM without a comparable or prescribed method. Regional support expenditure was supported by evidence of services, business nexus, costs and allocation; the alternative disallowance was deleted. Mark-to-market loss on stock-in-trade investments was allowable under consistent cost-or-market valuation. Penalty initiation was premature; TDS and tax computation were remitted for verification.
Functional comparability under the CUP method requires comparison of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed; third-party guarantee data must be disclosed for effective rebuttal. In the absence of reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions or a proper FAR analysis, the transfer-pricing adjustment for counter-guarantee support was deleted. Lending income could not be equally allocated where the overseas entity funded loans and assumed substantive lending risks, and no reliable comparable or prescribed method disproved the attribution. An arm's length price cannot be determined ad hoc after rejecting TNMM without a comparable or prescribed method. Regional support expenditure was supported by evidence of services, business nexus, costs and allocation; the alternative disallowance was deleted. Mark-to-market loss on stock-in-trade investments was allowable under consistent cost-or-market valuation. Penalty initiation was premature; TDS and tax computation were remitted for verification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.