CCA 200913056: A routine tested party's arm's-length range could include losses

Number
200913056
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Intercompany Pricing
Code sections
§ 482
Ruling dated
February 23, 2009
Publicly released
March 27, 2009

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel clarified transfer-pricing analysis during an economic downturn. Characterizing a tested party as a routine distributor or contract manufacturer did not prevent the arm's-length range from including negative profitability. A different issue arose if a party previously characterized as virtually risk-free was reclassified as routine or high-risk during the downturn to produce a loss-inclusive range. That change might be unacceptable and required analysis of the specific facts and circumstances. Counsel emphasized that this special recharacterization problem was distinct from an ordinary routine distributor or contract manufacturer earning a loss.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could an arm's-length transfer-pricing range include negative profitability for a routine distributor or contract manufacturer during a downturn?
  • Outcome: Advice given: yes, although changing a previously risk-free entity's characterization to reach that result required separate factual scrutiny.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 482.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-223100-09 Number: 200913056
Release Date: 3/27/2009
Office: -------------------
UILC: 482.03-02

From: ------------------
Sent: [Monday, February 23, 2009 10:09 AM]
To: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Cc:
Subject: ------ View on Down Economy ----------

[On February 5th we had joint -------USCA training on dealing with transfer pricing issues when there is a down economy.

I want to clarify that the ------ Program takes the position that the characterization of a tested party as a "routine distributor" or "contract manufacturer" does not preclude an arm's-length range that includes negative profitability.

There was a comment during the discussions that if a tested party had, prior to the economic downturn, been characterized as being virtually risk free then a change in the characterization of such an entity to a routine entity or high risk entity during the economic downturn might not be acceptable if that results in an arm's-length range that includes negative profitability. This represents a special case for which we will need to consider the specific facts and circumstances. But this type of case is distinguishable from the "routine distributor" or "contract manufacturer" case mentioned above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace