(function(){'use strict';var g;function h(a){var b=0;return function(){return b<a.length?{done:!

1,value
var k="function"==typeof Object.defineProperties?Object.defineProperty:function(a,b,c){if(a==Array.prot
function aa(a){a=["object"==typeof globalThis&&globalThis,a,"object"==typeof window&&window,"object"==t
b=0;b<a.length;++b){var c=a[b];if(c&&c.Math==Math)return c}throw Error("Cannot find global object");}
var l=aa(this);function m(a,b){if(b)a:{var c=l;a=a.split(".");for(var d=0;d<a.length-1;d++){var e=a[d];
1];d=c[a];b=b(d);b!=d&&null!=b&&k(c,a,{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:b})}}
m("Symbol",function(a){function b(f){if(this instanceof b)throw new TypeError("Symbol is not a construc
function c(f,y){this.g=f;k(this,"description",{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:y})}
if(a)return a;c.prototype.toString=function(){return this.g};
var d="jscomp_symbol_"+(1E9*Math.random()>>>0)+"_",e=0;return b});
m("Symbol.iterator",function(a){if(a)return a;a=Symbol("Symbol.iterator");for(var b="Array Int8Array Ui
Uint32Array Float32Array Float64Array".split(" "),c=0;c<b.length;c++){var d=l[b[c]];"function"===typeof
{configurable:!0,writable:!0,value:function(){return ba(h(this))}})}return a});
function ba(a){a={next:a};a[Symbol.iterator]=function(){return this};
return a}
function n(a){var b="undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.iterator&&a[Symbol.iterator];if(b)return b.call(
Error(String(a)+" is not an iterable or ArrayLike");}
var ca="function"==typeof Object.create?Object.create:function(a){function b(){}
b.prototype=a;return new b},p;
if("function"==typeof Object.setPrototypeOf)p=Object.setPrototypeOf;else{var q;a:{var da={a:!0},r={};tr
{a.__proto__=b;if(a.__proto__!==b)throw new TypeError(a+" is not extensible");return a}:null}var t=p;
m("Object.values",function(a){return a?a:function(b){var c=[],d;for(d in b)Object.prototype.hasOwnPrope
function ea(a,b){a instanceof String&&(a+="");var c=0,d=!1,e={next:function(){if(!d&&c<a.length){var f=
0}}};
e[Symbol.iterator]=function(){return e};
return e}
m("Array.prototype.values",function(a){return a?a:function(){return ea(this,function(b,c){return c})}})

Copyright The Closure Library Authors.

SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
*/
var u=this||self;function v(a){a=a.split(".");for(var b=u,c=0;c<a.length;c++)if(b=b[a[c]],null==b)retur
function w(a,b){a=a.split(".");var c=u;a[0]in c||"undefined"==typeof c.execScript||c.execScript("var "+

BEPS: The Caterpillar Case Study

c[d]&&c[d]!==Object.prototype[d]?c=c[d]:c=c[d]={}:c[d]=b}
;var x,z=v("CLOSURE_FLAGS"),A=z&&z[610401301];x=null!=A?A:!1;var B,C=u.navigator;B=C?C.userAgentData||n
{return(b=b.brand)&&-1!=b.indexOf(a)}):!1:!1}
function E(a){var b;a:{if(b=u.navigator)if(b=b.userAgent)break a;b=""}return-1!=b.indexOf(a)}
April 1, 2019 by transferpricing

The US Senate issues occasionally reports which demonstrate how some U.S. multinational
corporations have employed complex transactions and licensing agreements with offshore
affiliates to exploit tax loopholes, shift taxable income away from the United States to tax
heaven jurisdictions, and indefinitely defer paying their U.S. taxes. A relevant report, issued
in April 2014, focuses on the Caterpillar’s aggressive tax strategy regarding BEPS. Based on
the estimation of the investigators, this strategy resulted in a reduction of the US taxable
income by USD 8 million. The corresponding tax was about USD 2.4 million.

Caterpillar in the US

Caterpillar is the world’s leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment,

diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines, and diesel-electric locomotives.
From a legal and tax perspective, Caterpillar is a multinational corporation with
headquarters in the US. In addition, the majority of the company’s Research and
Development (R&D) activity and information technology planning and development occur
in the United States.

To sell its machines and support the operation of those machines over time, Caterpillar has
an extensive network of independent dealers in the United States and around the world.
Such dealers also offer repair services, providing Caterpillar replacement parts.
Replacement parts also represent a critical aspect of Caterpillar’s profitability since
machines are often sold at low profit margins.

Note that the main activities related to replacement parts take place in the US (Storing
Parts, Managing Parts Inventories, Manufacturing Parts and ordering systems, Transporting
Parts etc). Therefore, thousands of Parts Personnel and Key Parts Personnel reside in the
US.

The substance in Switzerland

Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. (COSA) acted as lead marketing company of the group for the
Europe, Africa and Middle East. COSA’s responsibilities included purchasing machines and
parts from Caterpillar for resale to dealers, developing, maintaining and supporting the
corresponding dealer network. Aside from COSA’s marketing work, Caterpillar had a very
limited presence in Switzerland. In more detail, neither manufacturing plants nor
distribution centers were located there. As for the profit allocation, the marketing
companies’ share was set at about 13% of those non-U.S. parts profits for the period 1992-
1999.

In 1999, COSA and several other Swiss affiliates’ assets and business activities were
consolidated into a new Swiss entity, named Caterpillar SARL (CSARL). Further to
marketing activities, CSARL was designated as Caterpillar’s “global purchaser” of purchased
finished replacement parts (PFRPs), the replacement parts manufactured by third-party
suppliers.

The TP case

The U.S. parent company designated CSARL as the nominal PFRP purchaser for more and
more of its geographical regions. In this context, it executed a series of licensing
agreements with the Swiss affiliate. The licensing agreements generally directed that
between 4% and 6% of the sales of licensed products by CSARL be paid to Caterpillar as a
royalty.

In addition, CSARL entered into a servicing agreement with Caterpillar Inc. to pay
Caterpillar’s costs plus a 5% markup. This consideration was for the U.S. parent to continue
to perform a number of core parts functions, including managing the worldwide parts
inventory, supervising suppliers, forecasting parts demand, supervising parts logistics, and
storing CSARL-owned parts in the United States. It is obvious that CSARL was unable to
perform those parts functions itself, lacking the necessary personnel, infrastructure, and
expertise. Note that the Swiss entity used to employ less than 0.5% of CAT’s 118,500
employees. Therefore, the capacity for managing PFRPs along with marketing activities
and supporting of dealers network was quite limited.

Profit shifting and tax matters

The Swiss tax strategy was designed by PWC and implemented by Caterpillar Inc. By 2008,
approximately 45% of Caterpillar’s consolidated revenues and 43% of its profits had been
shifted to CSARL. In absolute values, U.S. taxable income of more than $8 billion was
shifted offshore to Switzerland within the period 2000 to 2012. As a result, Caterpillar
deferred or avoided paying U.S. taxes totaling about $2.4 billion.

The application of this aggressive tax strategy resulted in a significant tax advantage at a
group level. In more detail, in Switzerland, Caterpillar had negotiated an effective tax rate
of 4% to 6%. This tax rate was significantly lower even than the Swiss federal statutory rate
of 8.5%.

Concluding remarks

This case study reveals that Transfer Pricing (TP) methodology shall not only incorporate
profit margins to review the arm’s length principle. A full TP documentation includes:

A thorough description of the functions performed by each affiliated company. The

interlinkages between activities carried out by various related companies shall be
also taken into account.
An investigation if the associated party has the necessary capacity to undertake the
operations designated by group’s headquarters.
A strong comparability analysis and direct reference to real market circumstances.
This step requires an accurate procedure to determine the comparable uncontrolled
 transactions.

Last but not least, a responsible TP consultant and the competent CFOs of multinational
groups should ask themselves: Would I enter into a specific agreement or carry out such a
transaction with an independent party? Most of the times, subsidiaries shall follow and
apply the group directives. However, the management must be aware of potential tax risks
related to BEPS due to controlled transactions.

Economic and Tax News

BEPS, transfer pricing
Singapore: Where Transfer Pricing has become a transparent area of focus
TP in Financial Arrangement, the case of Chevron

Search …

Recent Posts

The rise of ‘digital nomads’ in Greece

Malta monitoring by the FATF: A yellow flag that could be economically beneficial
A closer look at TP documentation in Cyprus

Cyprus vs Delaware: Is TP the remedy to tax imbalance?

Reviewing exchange of information: The case of Cyprus

Recent Comments
Archives

November 2021

September 2021
April 2021

March 2021
February 2021

January 2021

April 2019
December 2018

November 2018
October 2018

September 2018

June 2018
May 2018

April 2018
February 2018

October 2017

Categories

Economic and Tax News

Regulatory Framework

TP Library

Meta
Log in

Entries feed
Comments feed

WordPress.org

© 2024 TransferPricing • Built with GeneratePress