Transfer Pricing Framework and SAP Scenarios

8/9/2019 Transfer Pricing Framework and SAP Scenarios

1/73

Transfer Pricing

Framework and SAP Scenarios

Advisory

20 March 2014


2/73

2

PwC

20 March 2014Transfer Pricing • Framework and SAP Scenarios

Transfer Pricing

Transfer pricing is becoming ever more important aseven numerous mid sized companies have producingand sales entities across several countries.

The legal requirements for determining transfer pricesare as crucial as is the transparency of profitability forall steps of the value chain.

In addition to legal transfer prices, managementtransfer prices are used to set objectives.


3/73

3

PwC

20 March 2014Transfer Pricing • Framework and SAP Scenarios

What we will Cover in this Session

Outline the legal requirements, the related processesand risks and how to deal with them.

Learn in detail how SAP allows to you to track theprofitability for all steps of the value chain for bothlegal and management transfer prices based on anexample for manufactured goods using the cross-company/cross-plant costing solution.

Compare the features of the solution with the materialledger solution.


4/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Agenda

1 Basic Principles2 Legal Framework

3 Processes

3.1 Business Models

3.2 Price Determination

4 Functional Analysis

5 Risks6 SAP Scenarios for Profit and Cost Reporting

6.1 Legal vs Management Aspects of Transfer Pricing

6.2 Scenario for Cross Plant/Cross Company Costing

6.3 Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger

6.4 Comparison of Methods

Transfer Pricing • Framework and SAP Scenarios


5/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Basic Principles

Section 1

1



6/73

6

PwC

20 March 2014

What is Transfer Pricing all About? Transactions between Affiliated Companies

Only Cross-border transactions between affiliated companies are relevant fortransfer pricing

Difficulty: Transfer of tax relevant profits

The preponderant part of worldwide transactions does not take place with third parties but within the group

Affiliated companies

Company BCompany A

CH AbroadTax relevant profits

IC transactions

2


Section 1 – Basic Principles


7/73

7

PwC

20 March 2014

Basic PrinciplesFacts (1/3)

* EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum)

3



Not all transactions between companies of a group are relevant for transferpricing, only tax relevant cross-border transactions.

For determining transfer prices, local law is decisive. Statements and guidelinesof supra-national organisations (e.g. OECD, EU JTPF*) also play a central role.

The number and complexity of transfer pricing regulations has significantly increased during the last years.

Companies have to be characterised based on their function from a transferpricing point of view. In addition to the function, particularly the risks born andthe commodities used are relevant.

The correct application transfer pricing methods is not sufficient in order to

satisfy the needs of the arm’s length principle. The determined transfer price hasto meet the standards of comparison with transactions with third parties.


8/738

PwC

20 March 2014


4



A comprehensive transfer pricing concept does not only cover cross-border flowsof merchandise, but also has to take into account services, immaterialcommodities and financing.

An optimised transfer pricing concepts does not lead to the fact that all the localprofits can be attributed to a principal, but only the transferable part. A basicprofit has to remain with the de-central companies.

In order to guarantee the fulfilment of the arm`s length principle, not only external transactions between third parties have to be taken into account but alsointernal transactions between the tax payer and third parties.

In Switzerland, a transfer pricing documentation only has to be submitted to thetax authorities on demand.


9/739

PwC

20 March 2014


5



Depending on the individual case, there is the possibility to negotiate a deal onthe acceptance of transfer prices with one or several tax authorities (AdvancePricing Agreements).

Aggravation of regulatory rules and tax audits due to the economic crisis.

Increasing pressure on transfer prices and more restrictive requirementsregarding the application and proof of the arm’s length principle.

Potential increase of so called “uncertain tax positions” due to the abovedescribed tendencies.


10/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Legal Framework

Section 2

6



11/7311

PwC

20 March 2014

OECD Guidelines versus Local LawThese 2 Frameworks are Relevant for Transfer Pricing

7


Section 2 – Legal Framework

• Country specificregulations

• Rules for thedocumentation of functional analyses and benchmarking

• Arm’s length principle• Transfer pricing methods

• Disputes• Burden of proof/Documentation

• Special topics: Intangibleassets, group services etc.

Local regulationsOECD Guidelines


12/7312

PwC

20 March 2014

The Arm’s Length PrincipleOECD Guidelines

OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, paragraph 1.33:

“Application of the arm’s length principle is generally based on a comparisonof the conditions in a controlled transaction with the conditions intransactions between independent enterprises.”

8



Economically relevant characteristics of a comparable situationmust be sufficiently comparable

Target: Application and proof of the arm’s length principle

Comparable means

• that there is no discrepancy significantly influencing therelevant parameters (e.g. price or margin)• that appropriate measures have been taken in order to balance

existing discrepancies


13/7313

PwC

20 March 2014

The Arm’s Length PrincipleOverview Influence Factors

Land A Land B

Company Y Company Z

Company A Company A1

Transactions• Real assets• Intangible assets• Services• Financing

Price?

9



Market price?

• Characteristics• Functional analysis• Contractual conditions• Economic situation

• Business strategies


14/7314

PwC

20 March 2014

The Arm`s Length PrincipleQuestions to be Answered

10



Transactions between legal units (or operating site) of the group?

What is the volume and the type of the transactions?

Does the actual determination of transfer prices lead to a profit allocationaccording to the arm’s length principles?

Which financial data are relevant to judge the transfer prices?


15/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Processes

Section 3

11



16/7316

PwC

20 March 2014

ProcessesRecurring Processes on a Yearly Basis


Section 3 – Processes

12

ManagementOperating Units Value drivers/risks

Definition BusinessModel

BudgetMonitoring/ControllingPrice adaptations

Price Determination

“Core”/local documentationDefence of contracts, etc.

Price Determination


17/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Business Models

Section 3.1

13



18/7318

PwC

20 March 2014

ProcessesBusiness Models (1/2)

14


Section 3.1 – Business Models

Scenario 1

Buys as much merchandiseas is needed or as can be sold with a positive margin

Two parties (third or affiliated) are basically free to determine their way of collaboration within the limits of legal requirements

Possible exchange of merchandise:

Distributionpartner

Entrepreneur

Scenario 2Importer searches for acommodity, buys lot sizes

from the provider and bearsthe sales risk himself

Wholesale

dealer/importerProvider


19/73

19

PwC

20 March 2014

ProcessesBusiness Models (2/2)

15


Section 3.1 – Business Models

There are as many business models as there are companies and relationships between companies.

In order to fully understand the business relationship and the value chain, aFunctional Analysis has to be established.


20/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Price Determination

Section 3.2

16



21/73

21

PwC

20 March 2014

Overview of Methods Defined by the OECDBased on Turnover, Gross Margin and EBIT

Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method

Resale PriceMethod

Cost Plus Method

Profit SplitMethod

Turnover(COGS)

Gross Margin(OPEX)

EBIT

17


Section 3.2 – Price Determination

Comparable Profits Method


22/73

22

PwC

20 March 2014

Comparison with the price of a similar product for a relation between internalpartners (P1) for third parties.

Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP)Preferential Use in Case Comparison Prices Exist

TP: Transfer priceP1: Internal

comparison priceP2: External

comparison price

But:

• Quantity • Market• Point in timemust be comparable!

AA

AB

Client

X

Y

Client

P2: 900P1: 850TP: 800

18




23/73

23

PwC

20 March 2014

Sufficient third party financial information must be available for comparison.

Resale Price Method RPM Applied for Sales Companies if there is no CUP

AA

AB

Client Client

TP: 800

19



Client

XXX

Y Y Y

Client

SP: 1000

Purchasing price from a third party

Sales price to a third party

Comparison gross margin of AB(1000–800 = 200) on products from AA with the gross margin on productscomparable in the widest sense

(e.g. same industry)

or

between independent third parties(value 1–value 2) and also functionaland risk profile comparable with AB.


24/73

24

PwC

20 March 2014

• Basis: full costs of the company

• Appropriate percentage surcharge on effective costs for the margin

• The transfer price equals the total of full costs plus profit margin

Cost Plus Method Primarily Used for Services

20

The percentage surcharge must be in line with the Arm‘sLength principle depending on functions, risks and usedresources



Service used in the context of production, R&D and management fees.


25/73

25

PwC

20 March 2014

Alternatively used to support findings brought up by a different transfer pricing method.

Comparable Profits Method In Case Primary Methods are not Useful or Reliable

21



AA

AB

Client Client

TP: 800

Client

XXX

Y Y Y

Client

Profit margin of comparable companies

Band with e.g.Lower Quartile 3 %Median 6 %Upper Quartile 12 %

Turnover 600’000.–

EBIT 24’000.–

Profit margin 4%

Possible reference figures for the EBIT (depending situation): Turnover, OPEX, assets, equity


26/73

26

PwC

20 March 2014

This method is based on the comparison of divisions within a company.

Transaction Based Profit Method Similar to Comparable Profits Method

22



AA 1

AB 1

Client Client

TP: 800

Client

XXX

Y Y Y

Client

AA 2

AB 2

Client

TP: 500 Profit margin of comparable companies

Band with e.g.Lower Quartile 3 %Median 6 %Upper Quartile 12 %

Turnover 600’000.–

EBIT 24’000.–

Profit margin 4%


27/73

27

PwC

20 March 2014

Profit Split Method Profit is Split Based on Defined Rules

23



Split of the total profit of the value chain

or

of the residual profit (the profit remaining after attributing the routine profit)

of the companies involved in a transaction.

The profit of the involved group companies that has been achieved due to inter-company prices is compared to the profit that would have been made if the total profit was split to each participating individual company based on the individual contribution of the company, using a

functional and risk analysis.


28/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Functional Analysis

Section 4

24



29/73

29

PwC

20 March 2014

Definition of the Functional and Risk AnalysisCriteria for High Quality

25


Section 4 – Functional Analysis

An analysis of economically relevant facts for all transactions examined:

Functions

Risks

Assets (material and immaterial)

The functional and risk analysis is the basis in order to determine the “appropriate(at arm’s length) price for a transaction”

A functional and risk analysis of high quality

Contains the description of transactions to be documented and of the involvedparties

Is supported by facts (e.g. interviews), contracts and financial data


30/73

30

PwC

20 March 2014

Contents of a Functional and Risk AnalysisOverview of Relevant Elements

Elements

26



Risks

Transactions Functions

Companies Activities

Products Contracts/

Conditions

Markets/Competitions

Financial results

Business Processes Organisation/

Persons

Forecast/ BusinessPlans


31/73

31

PwC

20 March 2014

Results of a Functional and Risk AnalysisResults

Results

27



BusinessUnderstanding

Internal ly Comparable Values

Identification of taxpotentials/ risks

Basis for Benchmark Studies

Basis TransferPricing Doc.

Planning Options

CharacterisingGroup Companies

Transfer PricingMethods


32/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Risks

Section 5

28



33/73

33

PwC

20 March 2014

RisksMinimising by Application of Correct Charges

• Significant risk of correction by the tax authorities

• Weakened position againsttax authorities

• Penalties

29


Section 5 – Risks

Charge without effective transaction

Effective transaction without charge

Effective transaction with charge asusually NOT applied to third parties

Effective transaction with charge asusually applied to third parties withoutdocumentation (burden of proof)


34/73

PwC

20 March 2014

SAP Scenarios for Profit and Cost Reporting

Section 6

30



35/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Legal vs Management Aspects of Transfer Pricing

Section 6.1

31



36/73

36

PwC

20 March 2014

Legal vs Management Aspect of Transfer PricingDifferent Price According to Reporting Targets

32


Section 6.1 – Legal vs Management Aspects of Transfer Pricing

Externally oriented view – authoritiesThe aim of legal transfer prices is toallocate profits between legal entities inorder to minimise taxes on a nationaland/or international level.

Legal aspect

Internally oriented view – managementIncentive setting for various entities of anenterprise, legal or non legal, in order toget decisions that maximise the benefit of the entire organisation.

Management aspect

Transfer prices determine the allocation of margins, and thus profits, along the valuechain of an enterprise and across production and sales plants and legal entities

The legal aspect is only relevant when selling across legal entities. Themanagement aspect is also relevant when transferring goods within a legalentity, e.g., across production plants.


37/73

37

PwC

20 March 2014

In order to support decision making in an efficient way:

Cost transparency needs to be given on all steps of the value chain within anenterprise

The structure of the costs (material, personal, overhead, freight, etc.) and the

internal profit must be available for reporting for all production/delivery plantsand legal entities

Example decision making: Set lower internal transfer prices in order to fully usethe capacity of a production plant of a group when the buying entity also has theright to purchase the same product/service from a third party

Management Aspects of Transfer PricingDecision Support from a Business Point of View

33




38/73

38

PwC

20 March 2014

Handling of Transfer Prices in SAP Possible SAP Scenarios

34



SAP offers the possibility to handle and report both legal- and management-oriented transferprices and related margins

The legal view and the management view are available in Product Costing (CO-PC) andProfitability Analysis (CO-PA)

In the FI leading ledger, only the legal view is available.

All company codes and plants must be assigned to the same controlling area!

There are two technical options to handle transfer prices to show the margin across allentities of a group:

Supports management and legal view from a• group perspective

and• a local perspective

Supports the legal view from a• group perspective

and• a local perspective

Cross-company code/cross-plantcosting (without using the materialledger)

Valuation in the material ledger


39/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross Plant/CrossCompany Costing

Section 6.2

35



40/73

40

PwC

20 March 2014

The cross-plant costing/cross-company code without using the material ledger will beshown in the following scenario using legal transfer price only:

A material is produced in plant CH01 of a legal entity, and transferred to plantCH02 of a different legal entity where it is used to manufacture another materialthat will be sold to a third legal entity within the same group

Intercompany profit will be generated in both transfer steps

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingRequired Settings in SAP

36


Section 6.2 – Scenario for Cross Plant/Cross Company Costing


41/73

41

PwC

20 March 2014

The cross-plant costing/cross-company code without using the material ledger will be shown in the following scenario using legal transfer price only:

A material is produced in plant CH01 of a legal entity, and transferred to plantCH02 of a different legal entity where it is used to manufacture another materialthat will be sold to a third legal entity within the same group

Intercompany profit will be generated in both transfer steps

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingThe Scenario will be Shown Based on an Example

38




42/73

42

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingGraphical Overview of the Scenario

= intercompany sale with profit

ProducingLegal Entity 1

ProducingLegal Entity 2

SellingLegal Entity 1

Plant CH01 Plant CH02 Plant CH03

Material 7 Material 7

Material 11 Material 11

Production of material 7 Production of material11, using material 7 Sells material 11 to3rd party

= sale to 3rd party

39




43/73

43

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingStep 1 Transfer Between Producing Legal Entities

Legal entity 1 sells for 1.100,- to legal entity 2. Freight costs of 100.– paid by legal entity 2.

Legal entity 2 uses 1 PC of material 7 to build 1 PC of material 11. Labour costs of 200 .–, overhead of 350 .–

40



Producing Legal Entity 1

Plant CH01

500.–Material

Labour

Overhead

1.000.–

300.–

200.–

Material 7


Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

Material 11

Material 1.200.–

Labour

Overhead

200.–

350.–

1.750.–

Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

100.–

100.–

Assembly

Freight = 100.–IC-Profit = 100.–

Plant CH02

Material 7

IC-Profit

Cost element view

Costcomponent view

Revenue 1.100.–COGS 1.000.–

IC-Profit 100.–


IC-Profit 175.–

500.–

300.–

100.–

100.–

200.–

1.200.–


44/73

44

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingBase Material 7, Sending Plant CH01, Cost Element View

41



Transaction CK11N:

Cost element view


45/73

45

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingBase Material 7, Sending Plant CH01, Cost Component View

42



Transaction CK11N:

Cost component view


46/73

46

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMaterial 7 in Receiving Plant CH02, Cost Element View

43



Cost element view

Cost estimate transferred from plant CH01 – Cost element view including additive costsfor freight and profit – Transaction CK11N:


47/73

47

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMaterial 7 in Receiving Plant CH02, Cost Component View

44



Cost estimate transferred from plant CH01 – Cost component view including additivecosts for freight and profit – Transaction CK11N:

Cost component view


48/73

48

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMaterial 11 in Plant CH02, Cost Element View

45



Assembled using material 7 – Transaction CK11N:

Cost element view


49/73

49

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMaterial 11 in Plant CH02, Cost Component View

46



Assembled using material 7 – Transaction CK11N:

Cost component view


50/73

50

PwC

20 March 2014

The cost estimate of material 7 is transferred from Plant CH01 to Plant CH02

• In order to do this, the special procurement key in the material master of material 7 in the receiving plant needs to indicate that the cost estimate should be transferred from plant CH01

Plant CH01 and plant CH02 belong to different legal entities

The freight and profit will be added to the transferred cost estimate as additive costelements

• In order to have this automated, the dependencies and rules of the freightcalculation need to be defined in customer-specific tables, and an add-onprogram needs to be created reading these tables and updating the additive costs

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingProcurement Key, Freight and Profit

47




51/73

51

PwC

20 March 2014

The cost component view and the cost element view are identical for material 7.They are related to a costing variant.

In plant CH02, material 7 is used to manufacture material 11

Stock value

Plant CH01: Material 7 1.000.–Plant CH02: Material 7 1.200.– Material 11 1.750 .–

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingCosting Views and Stock Values

48




52/73

52

PwC

20 March 2014


Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingStep 2: Transfer Between Plants of Different Legal Entities, with

Profit

Legal entity 2 uses 1 PC of material 7 to build 1 PC of material 11. Labour costs of 200,-, overhead of 350,-

49



Material 11

Material 1.200.–

Labour

Overhead

200.–

1.750.–

Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

100.–

100.–

Plant CH02

Cost element view

Costcomponent view

Selling Legal Entity

Material 11

Material 1.750.–

Freight

IC-Profit

50.–

175.–

1.975.–

Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

275.–

150.–

Plant CH03


Cost element view

Costcomponent view


IC-Profit 175.–

Freight = 5 0.–IC-Profit = 175.–

350.–


53/73

53

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMaterial 11 in Plant CH03, Cost Estimate Transferred from Plant

CH02, Cost Element View

50



Cost element view

Including additive costs for freight and profit -Transaction CK11N:


54/73

54

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMaterial 11 in Plant CH03, Cost Estimate Transferred from Plant

CH02, Cost Component View

51



Cost component view

Including additive costs for freight and profit – Transaction CK11N:


55/73

55

PwC

20 March 2014

The cost estimate of material 11 is transferred fromPlant CH02 to plant CH03

• In order to do this, the special procurement key in the material master of material 11 in the receiving plant needs to indicate that the cost estimate should be transferred from plant CH02

Plant CH02 and plant CH03 belong to different legal entities

The freight and profit will be added to the transferred cost estimate as an additivecost elements

• In order to have this automated, the dependencies and rules of the freightcalculation need to be defined in customer-specific tables, and an add-onprogram needs to be created reading these tables and updating the additive costs

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingProcurement Key, Freight and Profit

52




56/73

56

PwC

20 March 2014

In this case, the cost component view and the cost element view for material 11 aredifferent, as the cost element view treats all components of material 7 as materialcosts

They are related to a costing variant

Stock valuePlant CH01: Material 11 1.750.–Plant CH03: Material 11 1.975.–

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingCosting Views and Stock Values

53




57/73

57

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMixed Costing

Example: 100 PC of 11 costed, based on 50:50 PC procurement ratio from plant X and Y

Material 11Plant X

Plant Y Material 11

Standard cost = 80.–


54



If there are procurement alternatives for a material, such as multiple vendors ordeliveries from multiple production plants, a mixed cost estimate can be created

For this purpose, the mixing ratio has to be defined

The cost estimate based on this information will be transferred to the standard price of the product in the material master

Plant Z


(80.– x 50 PC) + (70.– x 50 PC)

100


58/73

58

PwC

20 March 2014

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingMargin Reporting

Value

fields

Cost. Comp.

view

Material 11 in Plant CH03Material 11 in Plant CH02

55



From a group view, the overall COGS are 1.650.− in plant CH02 / 1.700.− in plant CH03.

From a legal entity point of view, the COGS are 1.750.− in plant CH02 / 1.975 .− in plant CH03.

Material 500.–

Labour

Overhead

500.–

550.–

Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

100.–

100.–

Material 500.–Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

275.–

150.–

The components of the cost component split can be assigned to different value fields in CO-PA

Thus, reporting from the perspective of the plant/company code is possible as well as from agroup view

Value

fields

Cost. Comp.

view

Freight

IC-Profit

COGS

100.–

100.–

1.750.–

Labour

Overhead

500.–

550.–

Freight

IC-Profit

COGS

150.–

275.–

1975.–


59/73

59

PwC

20 March 2014

In addition to the basic costing variant allowing cross-plant/cross-company code transfers, anadditional costing variant can be created on the level of a plant or legal entity, showing only thetotal cost of the material purchased within the group*

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company Costing Authorisation for Different Views

Local costing

variant

Group costing

variant

Material 11 in Plant CH03Material 11 in Plant CH02

56



Via access control, group controllers can, e.g., see both costing variants; local controllers canonly see the additional costing variant

* Freight costs could be shown separately if desired.

Material 1.200.–

Labour

Overhead

200.–

350.–

Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

100.–

100.–

Local costing

variant

Group costing

variantMaterial 1.975.–Material

Labour

Overhead

Freight

IC-Profit

500.–

500.–

550.–

275.–

150.–


60/73

60

PwC

20 March 2014

Cost component views (cost element views same as in group costing)

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingGroup View and Local View

57




61/73

61

PwC

20 March 2014

The cost component view enables the reporting of intercompany margins for all steps of the value chain, i.e., for every plant and every legal entity within the group

• In the example, the profit for the legal view is shown

• It is also possible to show IC profit based on management- determined transfer prices inaddition to the legal view

• This can be done by using an additional cost component for management IC profit

• In the reporting for CO-PA, the cost components can be selected to calculate margins froma local point of view as well as from a group view, based on legal or management margins

In case the single plant or single legal entity should not have the transparency on theintercompany margin and the detailed cost structure of the sending plant, an additionalcosting variant can be created, showing only the total purchasing value in cost estimates

In case of a more complex account determination setup, an alternative cost component splitmight be needed, using the primary cost component split.

Scenario for Cross-Plant/Cross-Company CostingOverview of Functionalities

58




62/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger

Section 6.3

59



63/73

63

PwC

20 March 2014

Using the material ledger, transfer prices can be calculated using either the legal valuation view or the group valuation view, based on either standard costs oractual costs

Both scenarios are based on a cross-company code stock transfer, using valuatedstock in transit and require the activation of business function LOG_MM_SIT

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Standard Costs and Actual Costs

60


Section 6.3 – Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger


64/73

64

PwC

20 March 2014

Overview of the approach using the legal and the group valuation

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Legal Valuation and Group Valuation

61



• Difference between the valuation priceof the sender and the procurement price

(purchase order price) is shown asintercompany profit in the costcomponent view of the actual costcomponent split

• No additional group validation needed.

Legal valuation

• Separate valuation and currency profilein addition to the legal valuation,

showing the inter-company profit• Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)scenario between the sender and receivercompany code for sending invoices

Group valuation

The calculation is based on the actual price of the sender using Business Add-In (BadI)Control of Cross-Company Code Transfers (CKML_CROSS_COMPANY), the usage of theactual price can be suppressed and the standard price can be used instead.


65/73

65

PwC

20 March 2014

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Prerequisites for Using the Material Ledger

Legal valuation

62



Activate actual costing with actual cost componentsplit

A new cost component needs to be created for the costcomponent structure in use to store the delta profitfor group costing

Group valuation

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) scenario betweenthe sender and receiver company code for sendinginvoices

Separate valuation and currency profile


66/73

66

PwC

20 March 2014

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Features of the Material Ledger

Legal valuation

63



Take into account freight costs for intercompany profit

Actual cost component split passed to receiving legalentity

Group valuation

Roll-up of multi-level valuation differences from thesender to the receiver

Reporting of variances according to responsibility of each legal entity


67/73

67

PwC

20 March 2014

Business Add-In (BadI) Control of Cross-Company Code Transfers(CKML_CROSS_COMPANY) offers several enhancement options to adapt the SAPstandard functionality

The most important features relevant for intercompany profit calculation andreporting:

• Cost component split can also be transferred in the legal view

• Intercompany profit is based on standard costs of the sender instead of actualcosts

• Define intercompany profit calculation based on a customer-specific algorithm

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Enhancements of the Material Ledger

64




68/73

68

PwC

20 March 2014

The material ledger also offers the possibility of a third valuation view, the profitcenter view

In the profit center valuation view, cross-company code transfer processes are notmapped multilevel

This means for cross-company code profit centers that no price differences arerolled up and no cost component split is passed on

Moreover, with cross-profit center transactions, no intercompany profit everappears in the profit center valuation view

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Profit Center View

65




69/73

69

PwC

20 March 2014

Material ledger offers the option to show intercompany profits both from a legaland a management perspective

However, for each of the views, a separate valuation view and costing variant arenecessary

The configuration is more complex than the cost component- based solution, which can deal with both views using a single costing variant

The material ledger should be the preferred solution when actual costs are relevantand when the company code currency and the controlling area currency are notsufficient

Transfer Pricing Using the Material Ledger Summary

66




70/73

PwC

20 March 2014

Comparison of Methods

Section 6.4

67



71/73

71

PwC

20 March 2014

Comparison of MethodsCross-Plant/Cross-Company Costing versus Material Ledger

64



Cross-company/cross-plant costing

• Enhancement needed forIC profit and freight

• No third currency, only company code and

controlling area currency

• Lower implementationeffort

• Easy config and handling

• Full transparency on

margins legal andmanagement oriented

• Plant and legal entity

• Actual costs possible as well as standard costs

• BAdI for adaptations available

• Variance roll-up possible

• Freight costs are not integrated, enhancement

• Config and handling of high complexity

• Profit only when transferring between legal entities, not between plants of the same legal entity

• No management oriented view • Only legal oriented

Material ledgerLegal view

Material ledgerGroup view


72/73

72

PwC

20 March 2014

The choice of the appropriate method to calculate and report transfer prices –using the material ledger legal and/or group view or not using the material ledger– depends on how the responsibility is divided within a group and which decisionauthorization is granted to the plants and/or legal entities

Furthermore, it depends on whether standard costs should be used to determine

the intercompany/inter-plant profit, or actual costs, which currencies are relevantand only if legal or internal transfer prices should be used

Hence, a decision on the detailed setup for an enterprise depends on legalrequirements as well as on the business requirements of the group and the singleentities

Comparison of MethodsDecision on Choice of Method

69


Section 6.4 – Comparison of Methods


73/73

Questions?

Questions and Contact

Section 6.4 – Comparison of Methods

How to contact me:

Robert Kremlacsek [email protected]

Transfer Pricing Framework and SAP Scenarios

Documents