142 10 Provision of CDN Services to Third PartieshaveausefullifeofT months, and a value of V s , individual foreign Group memberswould repay the following amount in principal per month:V sT(10.1)Additionally, in month 1, individual foreign Group members would pay an interestcharge equal to V s (i/12), in month 2, V s (T − 1/T )(i/12), and in month t:( )( )T − (t − 1) iV sT 12(10.2)Therefore, the total amount that USP would pay in intercompany fees to individualforeign affiliates over T months (or T/12 years), equal, in turn, to the foreignaffiliates’ interest fees and repayments of principal, is given by:V s + V sT∑( ) i[T − (t − 1)]12t=1(10.3)The monthly equivalent of Equation (10.3) (that is, the amount that USP wouldpay each of its foreign affiliates per month for access rights to their respective infrastructureassets) is given by:V sT + V s( T − (t − 1)T)( ) i12(10.4)The foreign affiliates’ monthly infrastructure-related operating expenses areapproximately equal to the depreciation of servers, V s /T . Therefore, dividing theabove equation by this magnitude (equivalently, multiplying through by T/V s ), weobtain the foreign affiliates’ markup over associated costs in month t:( ) i1 + [T − (t − 1)]12(10.5)For purposes of our transfer pricing analysis, we assume that T is equal to 36months (the period of time over which the Group depreciates its servers). SubstitutingT = 36 and i = 4.46% (the relevant Applicable Federal Rate) into Equation(10.5), we obtain a markup, in month 1, of 1.1338, or 13.38% over depreciationexpenses. The markup in month 12 is equal to 1.0925, or 9.25% over depreciationexpenses. (This figure declines over time because the interest cost componentdiminishes as the principal is repaid.) On average during the first year, USP shouldpay its foreign affiliates a markup of 11.32% over the latter’s depreciation expenses.
10.5 Additional Analysis Under Alternative Regime 143In the second year of the 3-year loan term, USP’s foreign affiliates should receivean average markup of 6.85%, 3 and in the third year, 2.41%. 4 Therefore, averagingover the 3-year period, USP should pay its foreign affiliates a markup overdepreciation expenses of approximately 7.0% per annum. This compensates theforeign affiliates for both their expenditures on capital equipment and their cost ofcapital.10.5 Additional Analysis Under Alternative RegimeBecause USP is the contract party vis-a-vis all domestic and non-domestic contentproviders in this case, and it bears the costs of co-location agreements, 5 peeringarrangements with ISPs, backbone leases, software development, etc., we concludedthat foreign Group members did not possess all of the resources necessary to provideCDN services per se, and, therefore, were simply permitting USP to utilizetheir network assets. However, if (a) foreign Group members were the counterpartieson CDN services contracts with non-U.S. content providers, (b) each foreignentity bore the costs of peering and co-location agreements and backbone leasesin its territory, and (c) all foreign Group members compensated USP for softwaredevelopment services rendered to them, an entirely different methodology would beindicated.Under the existing U.S. transfer pricing regime, a profit split methodology wouldprobably not be warranted, given these postulated facts, because intangible assets (inthe form of proprietary software) are not an overly significant factor in the provisionof CDN services. 6 More generally, U.S. transfer pricing rules provide very limitedguidance as to how a group’s consolidated income should be allocated among taxingjurisdictions when (a) these members cooperatively provide a service to thirdparties, (b) there is limited or no division of labor among group members, and (c)group members do not engage directly in intercompany transactions.However, USP and its foreign affiliates would be excellent candidates for theproposed simplified profit split methodology. Under the modified fact pattern, allGroup members (a) contribute the same tangible and intangible assets; (b) requiresimilar levels of working capital; and, (c) bear the same risks. While the book valueof each entity’s tangible assets would generally differ from their fair market value,the divergence between book and market values would be similar for both USP andits foreign affiliates (provided that they acquired their servers, routers and switchesat approximately the same time and utilized the same depreciation schedule). As3 In month 13, the markup is 8.88%, and in month 24, 4.81%.4 In month 25, the markup is 4.44%, and in month 36, 0.37%.5 Under a co-location agreement, a third party provides space, power and maintenance servicesvis-a-vis servers owned by a CDN services provider or other independent company.6 One could legitimately argue, however, that peering arrangements, an indispensable element ofa CDN network, constitute intangible assets.