130 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded Intellectual Propertyfunction of intercompany pricing, but, rather, of its own cost of services, operatingexpenses, and revenues received from third parties. As such, USS’ services fees arenot properly subject to analysis under IRC Section 482.Consequently, the resale price method can be applied to establish USS’ arm’slength gross margin on the resale of ETC system elements to those tolling authoritiesthat purchase equipment outright. This gross margin, in turn, implies a certaintransfer price. The resale price method cannot be used to establish USS’ arm’slength gross margin on transactions where it retains ownership of ETC system elements.However, FP should charge the same transfer price regardless of whetherUSS resells the ETC system elements or retains ownership thereof, because FP’scontributions are the same in both instances.We establish USS’ arm’s length gross margin on the sale of ETC system componentsand equipment to certain toll authorities by reference to the gross marginsearned by functionally comparable wholesale distributors. More particularly, weapply the resale price method in the following steps: Step 1: Adjust USS’ bundled pricing of systems and services (on transactionswith toll authorities that purchase equipment outright) to net out the followingelements: (i) embedded site analysis and construction costs, (ii) embedded programimplementation services fees, and (iii) the value of components that USSsources locally and adds to the systems prior to resale. Step 2: Develop a sample of third parties that distribute broadly similar equipmentand perform the same range of selling, marketing and other distributionfunctions that USS performs in connection with equipment sales. Step 3: Compute the arm’s length range of resale margins reported by the samplecompanies. Step 4: Apply the median arm’s length resale margin to USS’ unbundled sellingprice of equipment and infrastructure assets. Step 5: Determine the implied arm’s length transfer price for tangible property,payable by USS to FP.We develop a sample of functionally comparable U.S. wholesale distributors bymeans of several Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code- and keyword-basedsearches of publicly held U.S. companies. Our searches are summarized below. All firms included in SIC Code 504 (Professional and Commercial Equipmentand Supplies—Wholesale Trade); All firms with the terms “wholesale distributor” and “government” in their Form10-K filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission; All firms with the terms “wholesale distributor” and “toll collection” in theirForm 10-K filings; All firms with the terms “wholesale distributor” and “infrastructure equipment”in their Form 10-K filings; All firms with the terms “wholesale distributor” and “ETC” in their Form 10-Kfilings; All firms with the term “systems installation” in their Form 10-K filings;
9.3 Analysis Under Existing Regime 131 All firms with the terms “resell” and “equipment” in their Form 10-K filings;and, All firms with the terms “transportation” and “distribute” in their Form 10-Kfilings.We reviewed descriptions of business for all companies identified through thesesearches to ascertain which firms are functionally comparable to USS. We initiallyeliminated from our sample those firms that (a) were in a start-up mode, (b) engagedin activities unrelated to the wholesale distribution of equipment used in commercialapplications, or (c) reported losses in sequential years, were in receivership orotherwise evidenced significant financial difficulties.After this first “cut,” wholesale distributors of large-scale IT products remainedin our sample, among others. However, upon calculating resale margins for thesecompanies, it became apparent that distributors of commercial computer productsutilized a much more expansive definition of above-the-line costs than distributorsof other types of commercial and industrial equipment, and generally reported verymeager gross margins (in the range of 5%–10%). Hence, in our second round ofeliminations, we excluded distributors of commercial computer products.Our final sample consists of 18 firms, all of which are in the business of sourcingequipment and parts from independent suppliers for resale to commercial, industrialand governmental end-users. In all cases, these firms also supply consumablesor render ongoing maintenance or other services. Most of the sample companiesseparately report revenues, above-the-line costs and gross profits on (a) the sale ofequipment, and (b) the sale of consumables, the provision of maintenance and otherservices and/or equipment rentals. Because our objective is to establish USS’ arm’slength gross margin only on the distribution of equipment, we do not include thesample companies’ consumables revenues, services fees or rental income and costsin their resale margins. The resellers included in our sample reported gross marginson the sale of equipment ranging from 28.5% to 44.8% in 2007, 29.5% to 39.0% in2006, and 30.7% to 36.9% in 2005. The median gross margin amounted to 34.8% in2007, 34.5% in 2006 and 34.7% in 2005. Hence, USS should earn a gross margin of34%–35% on the resale of equipment, and retain all associated services fee income.To further confirm the reasonableness of these results, we also reference the pricingprovisions contained in an arm’s length distribution agreement between ImageSensing Systems, Inc. and Wireless Technologies, Inc., dated January 1, 2001. 2Wireless Technologies, Inc. is in the business of designing and manufacturing videocamera systems and wireless video, audio and data communications equipment2 We identified one additional arm’s length distribution agreement, between GVI Security Solutionsand Samsung Electronics, granting the former exclusive rights to sell, market, lease, licenseand distribute Samsung security products throughout North, Central and South America. Whilethe agreement is attached to GVI Security Solutions’ Form SB-2 (No. 33-11321), filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, the document stipulates only that prices will be “establishedby mutual agreement.” Hence, it contains insufficient data to use in establishing arm’s length resalemargins on USS’ sale of equipment.