International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Japan-China supply chain efficiency valuation and transfer pricing

Effective tax rate (ETR) planning is critical for all multinational enterprises. From a business flow standpoint, supply chain efficiency is critical.

chain150.bmp

When ETR planning and supply chain rationalisation are combined, there is a fascinating range of issues under scrutiny by tax authorities in all countries.

Cym Lowell, of McDermott Will & Emery in the US, who will be speaking on the subject in more detail at the International Tax Review and TPWeek Global Transfer Pricing Forum in Singapore on November 28 & 29explains how taxpayers can approach the issue.

Deriving maximum cost efficiency from the supply chain is a critical operational issue for multinational enterprises (MNEs) in many regions.

MNE groups continuously seek to derive maximum cost efficiency from their design, production, distribution, servicing, administrative and other functions.

Because taxation is typically one of a group’s largest costs, supply chain structuring and restructuring processes typically include tax savings as an essential element of the overall process.

Successful supply chain rationalisations inevitably involve a rationalisation of the functions and risks performed by affiliates in the supply chain.

They also involve an increase or decrease in such functions and risks performed in each country, pertinent to the planning in question.

When a function or risk is moved from one affiliate to another, questions regarding valuation of the transferred assets or functions are likely to be raised.

Tax authorities in each country affected by supply chain rationalisation are vigilant in protecting their domestic tax base, and scrutinise transactions to determine whether the functions or risks of domestic companies are restructured in a manner consistent with arm’s-length criteria.

While the specific issues to be addressed depend upon the facts and circumstances of each situation, the illustration below is intended to facilitate a discussion of such points.

Case studyJCo is a Japanese parent of a group of companies engaged in the development, production, distribution and servicing of unique products. Its traditional supply chain process involves unique products being produced entirely in its Chinese factories, then sold to affiliates around the world for distribution and servicing. The competitive situation for unique products is intense, with JCo having many global competitors.

Because China can be a high-cost country, JCo is considering moving production of all component parts of unique products to Southeast Asia countries outside of China. JCo has inquired about the valuation, financial accounting, transfer pricing and potential tax authority controversy matters relating to its evolving plans.

mde-graph.jpg



At the present time, the supply chain process of unique products is as follows, including an overall comparison to JCo’s competitors, which have already undertaken material steps to decentralise their supply chains to drive costs out of their systems and perform critical functions in low-tax countries:

Function

Performed In

Effective Tax Rate (ETR)*

Problem/Opportunity

JCo Current

Design

Japan

41%

High op costs

Procurement/logistics

Japan

41%

High op costs

Parts production

China

25%

Increasing op costs

Final assembly

China

25%

High op costs

Sale to customers

Japan

41% average

High op costs

Central services

Japan

41%

High op costs

Overall:

36%

High op costs, increasing unit cost: 100

Competitors’ Composite

Overall:

22%

Low op costs and ETR

unit cost: 60

Competitive disadvantage

14%

40 per unit

JCo Plan

Design

Japan

41%

High op costs

Procurement/logistics

Singapore

17%

Fair op costs

Parts production

Indonesia/Other

10%

Low op costs

Final production

China

25%

Increasing op costs

Sale to customers

Singapore

17%

Fair op costs

Central services

Singapore

17%

Fair op costs

Overall:

26%

Lower op costs and ETR, more to do

The supply chain restructuring, at a minimum, should reduce the unit cost disadvantage.

In the context of the illustration, the following functions or risks have been transferred:

Procurement

Function/risk from Japan to Singapore

Parts production

Function/risk from China to Indonesia/Other

Final production

Function/risk remain in China

Sales

Function/risk from Japan to Singapore

Central services

Function/risk from Japan to Singapore

Issues to be addressed

· Valuation of the assets (including soft assts), functions, risks or liabilities transferred, which will depend in part on the form of the restructuring transaction, for example, sale, license, assignment, contribution or otherwise (valuations can be important for tax and book purposes) ;

· The financial accounting implications of valuations in all pertinent countries (including impairments or change from domestic to International Financial Reporting Standards)

· Transfer pricing considerations to be received by the transferor entity, or the entity that loses the function/risk in question (the focus of tax authorities is reflected in the OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 amendments for business restructurings and proposed changes relating to intangible transfers) ;

· Documentation;

· Planning;

· Advance resolutions (unilateral or bilateral, advance pricing agreements or otherwise) in Japan, China or other countries;

· Attorney-client privilege;

· Income tax planning;

· Customs, duty or consumption taxes;

· Advance resolution of transfer pricing, income tax or other issues;

· Tax authority examination preparation and handling in each potential country; and

· Dispute resolution via domestic procedures, bilateral competent authority or domestic litigation.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.
Former PwC partner Peter-John Collins has been banned from serving as a tax agent in Australia, while Brazil reports its best-ever year of tax collection on record.
Industry groups are concerned about the shift away from the ALP towards formulary apportionment as part of a common consolidated corporate tax base across the EU.
The former tax official in Italy will take up her post in April.
With marked economic disruption matched by a frenetic rate of regulatory upheaval, ITR partnered with Asia’s leading legal minds to navigate the continent’s growing complexity.
Lawmakers seem more reticent than ever to make ambitious tax proposals since the disastrous ‘mini-budget’ last September, but the country needs serious change.
The panel, the only one dedicated to tax at the World Economic Forum, comprised government ministers and other officials.
Colombian Finance Minister José Antonio Ocampo announced preparations for a Latin American tax summit, while the potentially ‘dangerous’ Inflation Reduction Act has come under fire.
The OECD’s two-pillar solution may increase global tax revenue gains by more than $200 billion a year, but pillar one is the key to such gains due to its fundamental changes to taxing rights.