Transfer Pricing _ Benchmark_ Service provider vs. Manufacturer _

 Q- What is the difference between service provider and manufacturer? If the entity perform engine overhaul activity, should we use service benchmark or manufacturer benchmark for TP purposes?


Difference Between Service Provider and Manufacturer

The core difference lies in the nature of their primary output and the transformation process:

  • Manufacturer:

    • Primary Output: Creates tangible goods or physical products.  
    • Process: Transforms raw materials or components into finished products through processes like fabrication, assembly, chemical processing, etc.  
    • Value: The value is primarily embodied in the physical product itself.
    • Examples: Car maker, electronics producer, furniture builder, chemical plant.
    • Characteristics: Often involves significant investment in plant/machinery, manages inventories of raw materials, work-in-progress, and finished goods.

  • Service Provider:

    • Primary Output: Provides intangible actions, expertise, or access to resources. While tangible goods might be used or consumed during the service (e.g., spare parts, cleaning supplies), the core deliverable is the performance of a task, advice, or an experience.  
    • Process: Applies skills, labor, knowledge, or processes to achieve a specific outcome for the customer, often acting upon something the customer owns or providing expertise.
    • Value: The value lies in the skill, process, outcome, convenience, or expertise provided.
    • Examples: Consulting firm, law firm, cleaning company, repair shop, transportation company, software development (often considered service).  
    • Characteristics: Often more labor/expertise-intensive, may have less physical inventory (or inventory related to facilitating the service, like spare parts), value is often consumed as it's delivered.  

Engine Overhaul Activity for TP Benchmarking

Now, let's consider an engine overhaul:

  1. Nature of the Activity: An engine overhaul involves disassembling an existing engine (often owned by the customer or being refurbished), inspecting, cleaning, repairing, replacing worn or damaged parts, reassembling, and testing it.  
  2. Input/Output: The primary input is a used/malfunctioning engine and spare parts. The primary output is not a new engine manufactured from scratch, but rather the same engine restored to operational condition.
  3. Value Driver: The value lies heavily in the skilled labor, technical expertise, specialized processes, testing procedures, and the replacement parts used to bring the engine back to a specified standard. While parts (tangible goods) are used, the core activity is the act of repair and restoration.

Conclusion for TP Benchmarking:

For Transfer Pricing purposes, an engine overhaul activity is generally characterized as a service, specifically falling under the category of Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO).

Therefore, you should typically use service benchmarks for your TP analysis.

  • Why Service Benchmarks? The functional profile (functions performed, assets used, risks assumed - FAR analysis) aligns more closely with specialized technical service providers or MRO companies rather than manufacturers producing new engines from raw materials. Comparables should ideally be other companies performing similar complex repair, overhaul, or remanufacturing services.
  • Nuance: If the entity performing the overhaul also manufactures a significant portion of the replacement parts it uses in-house (not just purchasing them), there might be an argument for segmenting the activity and potentially using manufacturing benchmarks only for the parts manufacturing component. However, the overall overhaul activity itself, where labor and expertise are applied to restore an existing item, remains predominantly a service.

Recommendation: Focus your benchmarking search on companies classified under service SIC/NAICS codes related to repair and maintenance, particularly MRO for engines, turbines, aircraft, heavy machinery, or similar complex equipment.

Disclaimer: Transfer Pricing analysis is highly fact-specific. This is a general guideline. A detailed Functional Analysis (FAR) is crucial to confirm the characterization and select the most appropriate benchmarks based on the specific functions, assets, and risks of the entity performing the engine overhaul. Consulting with a TP specialist is recommended.


https://spmfg.com/5-reasons-why-its-great-to-work-in-manufacturing/

https://www.oracle.com/il-en/scm/manufacturing/what-is-manufacturing/

https://riseuplabs.com/who-is-considered-a-service-provider/

https://www.resultist.com/blog/growing-profitable-revenue-the-difference-between-manufacturing-and-service-organizations

https://www.customperformancecenter.net/what-does-engine-overhauling-involve


댓글

댓글 쓰기

이 블로그의 인기 게시물

TP_ Benchmark_ Mexico

 S - Changes to the mark-up percentages that are identified in this email based on further work with PWC?  Or, do these percentages still stand?  We expect that this should reconcile to the trial balance. O- The CIP write off and the success fee expense did not move the markup %'s after PwC recommended adjustments. However, there is one small amounts  related to regular fixed asset disposal operation that can slightly reduce the %'s.  S- Do you have the new #s now, or are they still in process?  If still in process, do you have an idea on timing? O- However, to be consistent with prior years where these same fixed assets disposals were not included in the markup % for the TP Study, I have not included them this year for the TP Study either.  I reported yesterday 4.58% for Mfg vs 4.44% that yo can see in the chart S-  Will these totals tie to the financial statements?  Do you expect any other changes at this point?(I would guess you are going ...
자세한 내용 보기

Pillar 2

Concept:  The Pillar 2 rules generally apply to MNEs with consolidated group revenues of €750 million or more in at least two of the preceding four fiscal years.     In essence, Pillar 2 creates a global minimum tax safety net, ensuring that even if an MNE's income is taxed at a low rate in one jurisdiction, other jurisdictions can apply these rules to collect additional tax and bring the overall effective tax rate on that income up to the 15% minimum. This requires complex calculations of effective tax rates on a jurisdictional basis, often differing from traditional financial accounting or local tax calculations   For a branch of a US company in Singapore, Australia, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, and Japan, the applicable description for Pillar 2 related tax returns, based on the provided options and general tax principles, would be as follows: (A) A place of business (including a deemed place of business) situated in a jurisdiction and treated as a permanent es...
자세한 내용 보기

Treaty analysis _ Germany & Thailand _ Technical services rendered by Thailand people in Germany

Q- What is tax implications for technical services performed by Thailand people in Germany? Duration of the work; 2-3 months, US entity is a benefiting entity from this work. US entity and Thailand entity are related parties and Thai company will invoice for their people's work in Germany to the US company.  1. German Withholding Tax (WHT) or Corporate Tax Exposure Even though the Thai company invoices a US entity, German tax authorities may tax the income earned from activities physically performed in Germany. • If the Thai company has a taxable presence (“permanent establishment” or PE) in Germany due to its employees working there for 2–3 months, Germany may tax the income attributable to that PE. • The presence of employees physically performing services in Germany, even temporarily, can trigger a PE under German law if: • There is a fixed place of business (e.g. office, project site); or • The work involves a “service PE”, potentially triggered under Germany–Th...
자세한 내용 보기