‘Amount B doesn’t take disputes off the table’: TP Forum

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

‘Amount B doesn’t take disputes off the table’: TP Forum

robin hart tp forum us 2024
Robin Hart, principal at Charles River Associates, pictured at ITR's 2024 US Transfer Pricing Forum

Amount B was top of the agenda at ITR’s US Transfer Pricing Forum 2024, while there were also heated discussions on the US’s potential adoption of pillar two

The OECD’s amount B proposal to streamline the arm’s-length principle is “not outrageous” but will not universally take disputes off the table, a major industry forum heard last week.

Robin Hart, California-based principal at consulting firm Charles River Associates, was speaking at ITR’s US Transfer Pricing Forum 2024 on Thursday, September 26.

He was part of a panel discussion titled ‘The latest insights on the industry impact of pillar one – amount B’.

Hart said that the prescribed arm’s-length percentages in amount B, which vary between 1.5% and 5.5% return on sales for distributors on a range of transactions, “are not outrageous”.

“The upper and lower quartiles broadly fit with most transactions,” he added.

However, Hart said that the tested party analysis within amount B, which requires the distributor to be the tested party, leads to “areas of subjectivity”.

“Is it enough to push an entity outside the scope of amount B?”, he questioned.

Hart also queried amount B’s capacity to avoid transfer pricing (TP) disputes.

“Amount B does not universally take disputes off the table. If one country has not adopted amount B, the arm’s-length principle under normal TP rules takes precedence.”

Pillar two push

Another panel discussed whether the US would implement pillar two, a subject of much debate in recent months.

Jon Lamphier, vice president for tax at New York-based company Steel Partner Holdings, shared his in-house perspective on preparing for pillar two regardless of the US’s potential adoption.

“We are a domestic company so you may wonder why I am at a TP conference!”, he said.

“But like all businesses, we are becoming increasingly global. We had to do a lot of work to figure out our effective tax rate in multiple jurisdictions and get external advisers in to confirm that we met the requirements for the transitional safe harbour.”

Despite putting in this effort, Lamphier reported that companies can never be too sure of their pillar two obligations.

“We’ve got to that stage of comfort, but then everything changes the next day. Either the pillar two rules change or the business fact pattern changes,” he said.

Lamphier also discussed the difficulty of getting the attention of his business colleagues when it comes to pillar two.

“From a board perspective, [pillar two] has ranged from a standing agenda item to something less frequent. I always push to make sure I get some time with the board to let them know what’s going on in the world of tax.

“I have to make sure that my CFO’s eyes don’t glaze over every day when I talk about pillar two,” he said.

The panellists then speculated on the future of pillar two in the US.

John Kelleher, US-based tax partner at international firm Crowe, said that without knowing what the US, China and India will do, it’s hard to predict what the impact of pillar two will be on US companies.

Lamphier concluded: “The most likely outcome of the upcoming [US] election is a divided Congress, and compromise is hard to come by these days. I wouldn’t bet on it [pillar two].”

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The global tax and accounting firm has appointed two experienced TP advisers from a New Jersey-based boutique
A lack of commitment from major jurisdictions and the associated compliance burden are obstacles facing the OECD initiative
Richard Gregg is no longer fit and proper to be a tax agent, said the TPB; in other news, MHA completed its acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Recent Indian case law emphasises the importance of economic substance over mere legal form in evaluating tax implications, say authors from Khaitan & Co
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Three tax experts dissect the impact of a 30% tariff that has shaken up trade relations between South Africa and the US
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Americas Tax Awards
As we move into an era of ‘substance over form’, determining the fundamental nature of a particular instrument is key when evaluating the tax implications of selling hybrid securities
It stands in stark contrast to a mere 1% increase in firmwide revenue since last year
It follows a court case concerning a Freedom of Information request lodged by the founder of a software company
Gift this article