PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
** **
FORMAL PROTEST
* *
Filed on Behalf of:
Penterra Pharmaceuticals Corp. EIN: 22-3741856 2200 Independence Boulevard Princeton Junction, NJ 08550
Tax Years at Issue: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
Examination Team ID: LB&I-NE-TP-2022-00641
In Response to: Notice of Proposed Adjustment dated October 12, 2023, and 30-Day Letter dated November 8, 2023
Prepared by:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Leonard Cross, Responsible Partner Sylvia Hartwell, Billing Partner Garrett Simmons, Associate Leila Nazari, Associate
C&H Matter Number: 1018-00009
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Penterra Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("PPC" or the "Taxpayer"), by and through its duly authorized representatives at Calderwood & Harkness LLP (IRS Form 2848 filed June 8, 2022), hereby respectfully submits this Formal Protest pursuant to Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Publication 5 and Revenue Procedure 2015-41 in response to the proposed adjustments set forth in the Notice of Proposed Adjustment ("NOPA") issued by the IRS Large Business & International Division ("LB&I") on October 12, 2023, and the 30-Day Letter issued on November 8, 2023, for federal income tax years ended December 31, 2017, December 31, 2018, December 31, 2019, and December 31, 2020 (collectively, the "Years at Issue").
PPC is a Delaware corporation, publicly traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "PPCA," and is headquartered in Princeton Junction, New Jersey. PPC is a specialty pharmaceuticals and biotechnology company focused on therapeutic areas including oncology, immunology, and rare-disease therapeutics. For its fiscal year ending December 31, 2020, PPC reported total net revenues of approximately $6.82 billion. As of December 31, 2020, PPC employed approximately 14,500 individuals globally, including employees of its subsidiaries.
In the NOPA, the IRS has proposed net adjustments totaling $380,400,000 in additional taxable income across the four Years at Issue. These proposed adjustments consist of the following principal components:
(a) Cost-sharing arrangement ("CSA") adjustments in the aggregate amount of $235,010,000, predicated on the IRS's assertion that PPC's Irish subsidiary, Penterra Biopharma International DAC ("PBI"), should have borne a significantly higher share of qualified research and development costs under the parties' cost-sharing arrangement for each of the four Years at Issue;
(b) Royalty rate adjustments in the aggregate amount of $188,040,000, predicated on the IRS's assertion that the royalty rate applicable to PBI's license of certain legacy intellectual property from PPC should be increased from 4.5% to 11.0% of net sales; less
(c) A correlative offset of $42,650,000, which the IRS has allowed to avoid partial double-counting between the CSA and royalty adjustments.
In addition, the IRS has proposed a 20% substantial valuation misstatement penalty under Section 6662(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code" or "IRC"), in the with respect to the proposed transfer pricing adjustments.
PPC respectfully submits that the proposed adjustments are entirely without merit. PPC's transfer pricing methodology for intercompany transactions with PBI — including the cost-sharing ratios under the CSA, the 4.5% royalty rate on legacy intellectual property, and the platform contribution transaction ("PCT") payment of $312,000,000 — fully satisfies the arm's-length standard under IRC § 482 and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. PPC's positions are supported by detailed contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation, by rigorous economic analyses performed by independent experts, and by the extensive factual record developed during the 18-month examination. The IRS's proposed adjustments, by contrast, rest on flawed economic analyses, improper comparable selections, and a fundamental mischaracterization of the functions, assets, and risks borne by PBI.
PPC further submits that the proposed IRC § 6662(e) penalty is inappropriate. PPC maintained contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for all four Years at Issue meeting the requirements of Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6, and PPC acted in good faith and with reasonable cause in adopting its transfer pricing positions based on the advice of qualified tax professionals.
PPC respectfully requests that this Formal Protest be referred to the IRS Office of Appeals in accordance with Revenue Procedure 2015-41, and PPC requests an in-person conference with Appeals at the earliest available date.
Under penalties of perjury, the undersigned declare that the statements of fact contained in this Protest, and in the accompanying exhibits, are true, correct, and complete to the best of the knowledge and belief of the undersigned
II. IDENTIFICATION OF TAXPAYER AND REPRESENTATIVES
A. Taxpayer Information
The taxpayer filing this Formal Protest is:
The principal corporate officers of PPC during the Years at Issue and at present include the following individuals:
• Chief Executive Officer: Catherine Falk
• Chief Financial Officer: Rajesh Iyer
• General Counsel: Deborah Staines
• **Vice President Global Tax:** Marcus Whitfield
Mr. Whitfield, as VP of Global Tax, has served as PPC's primary point of contact with the IRS examination team throughout the course of this examination and has authority to act on behalf of PPC in tax controversy matters. PPC was not a participant in the IRS Compliance Assurance Process ("CAP") for any of the tax years at issue.
B. Authorized Representatives
PPC has duly authorized the following attorneys at Calderwood & Harkness LLP to represent it before the IRS, including the Office of Appeals, in connection with the tax years and issues addressed in this Protest. Authorization was effectuated through IRS Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative) filed on June 8, 2022, covering all four representatives for Tax Years 2017 through 2020.
Leonard Cross — Responsible Partner, Tax Department, Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Mr. Cross has 28 years of experience in transfer pricing controversy and litigation, with particular expertise in pharmaceutical and life sciences transfer pricing matters. He is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia. Mr. Cross is based in the firm's Philadelphia office.
Sylvia Hartwell — Billing Partner, Tax Department, Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Ms. Hartwell has 22 years of experience in federal tax controversy, including extensive experience in transfer pricing disputes before the IRS Office of Appeals and in U.S. Tax Court. She is licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia. Ms. Hartwell is based in the firm's New York office.
Garrett Simmons — Lead Associate, Tax Department, Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Mr. Simmons has 7 years of experience in transfer pricing and international tax matters. He is licensed to practice law in New York. Mr. Simmons is based in the firm's Philadelphia office.
Leila Nazari — Working Associate, Tax Department, Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Ms. Nazari has 4 years of experience in transfer pricing and tax controversy. She is licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey. Ms. Nazari is based in the firm's Philadelphia office.
All correspondence and communications regarding this Protest should be directed to:
Leonard Cross, Esq. Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 555-4100 Facsimile: (215) 555-4101
Email: lcross@calderwoodharkness.com
Calderwood & Harkness LLP maintains its principal office at 600 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022. The firm's Tax Practice Group lead office, from which this matter is being handled, is located at 1735 Market Street, Suite 3100, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following constitutes PPC's statement of facts relevant to the issues raised in the NOPA and the 30-Day Letter. These facts are supported by the documentary record developed during the examination, the contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation maintained by PPC for each of the Years at Issue, and the declarations and supporting evidence to be provided to the Office of Appeals.
A. PPC's Business and Corporate Structure
PPC is a publicly traded specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and commercializes innovative therapeutics across three primary therapeutic areas: oncology, immunology, and rare-disease therapeutics. PPC has built a diversified portfolio of branded pharmaceutical products that are marketed and sold throughout the world.
PPC's three key products during the Years at Issue were:
• Veritaxol (oncology) — a targeted kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and certain renal cell carcinomas. For fiscal year 2020, Veritaxol generated global net sales of approximately $3.12 billion, of which non-Americas net sales accounted for approximately $1.34 billion (approximately 43% of global Veritaxol revenues).
• Imvara (immunology) — a biologic therapy approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. For fiscal year 2020, Imvara generated global net sales of approximately $1.87 billion, of which non-Americas net sales accounted for approximately $0.79 billion (approximately 42% of global Imvara revenues).
• Cerulon (rare disease) — an enzyme replacement therapy approved for the treatment of a lysosomal storage disorder. For fiscal year 2020, Cerulon generated global net sales of approximately $0.62 billion, of which non-Americas net sales accounted for approximately $0.28 billion (approximately 45% of global Cerulon revenues).
PPC's corporate structure relevant to the intercompany transactions at issue is as follows. PPC, a Delaware corporation, owns 100% of the equity interests in Penterra Holdings Luxembourg S.à r.l. ("PHL"), a private limited liability company organized under the laws of Luxembourg (Luxembourg Registre de Commerce et des Sociétés Number B 168452). PHL, in turn, owns 100% of the equity interests in PBI, a designated activity company organized under the laws of Ireland (Irish Tax Reference Number 3218764T). PHL is treated as a disregarded entity for United States federal income tax purposes and accordingly all transactions between PPC and PBI are treated as direct transactions between PPC and PBI for purposes of IRC § 482 analysis.
PBI owns 100% of the equity interests in Penterra Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. ("PMI"), an Irish limited liability company (Irish Companies Registration Office Number 512347). PMI operates a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility at the Ringaskiddy Industrial Estate, County Cork, Ireland, where it manufactures finished pharmaceutical products for distribution in the non-Americas territory. PMI operates as a contract manufacturer under a cost-plus arrangement with PBI (cost plus an 8% markup). As of December 31, 2020, PMI employed approximately 620 personnel at its Ringaskiddy facility.
A corporate structure chart depicting the ownership relationships among PPC, PHL, PBI, and PMI is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
B. Establishment of PBI and the Cost-Sharing Arrangement
PBI was incorporated on March 15, 2012, as a Designated Activity Company under Irish law, with its registered office located at 4th Floor, Claremont House, Sandyford Business Park, Dublin D18 K7T4, Ireland. PBI was established as PPC's principal entity for the development, regulatory management, and commercialization of PPC's pharmaceutical products outside the Americas (defined as North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, collectively the "Americas Territory," with the balance of worldwide markets constituting the "Non-Americas Territory").
Effective July 1, 2012, PPC and PBI entered into a cost-sharing arrangement (the "CSA") pursuant to Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7. The CSA is a qualified cost-sharing arrangement ("QCSA") under the applicable regulations. Under the CSA, PBI acquired rights to participate in the development and exploitation of PPC's pharmaceutical intellectual property portfolio for the Non-Americas Territory. In exchange for these rights, PBI agreed to make two categories of payments to PPC:
(a) A platform contribution transaction ("PCT") payment: a lump-sum payment of $312,000,000, paid by PBI to PPC on July 1, 2012, representing the arm's-length consideration for PBI's buy-in to pre-existing intellectual property contributed by PPC to the CSA. The pre-existing IP consisted primarily of clinical-stage and approved oncology compounds, including the compound that would become Veritaxol, as well as certain early-stage immunology and rare-disease compounds.
(b) Ongoing cost-sharing payments: periodic payments by PBI to PPC representing PBI's proportionate share of qualified research and development costs incurred under the CSA, determined annually based on each party's share of reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangible development activity, as required by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(d).
Separately, PBI and PPC under which PBI obtained a license to exploit certain pre-2012 vintage compounds developed by PPC for the Non-Americas Territory. Under the Legacy IP License, PBI pays a royalty to PPC at a rate of 4.5% of net sales of licensed legacy products in the Non-Americas Territory. The 4.5% royalty rate was established based on a comparable uncontrolled transaction ("CUT") analysis performed at the time of execution and documented contemporaneously.
A summary of the CSA, including the PCT payment and cost-sharing percentages for the Years at Issue, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
C. CSA Cost-Sharing Percentages (2017–2020)
Under the CSA, PBI's share of qualified research and development costs is determined annually based on the ratio of PBI's projected reasonably anticipated benefits from the intangible development activity to the total projected reasonably anticipated benefits of both CSA participants. The reasonably anticipated benefits are measured using revenue-based projections for the Americas Territory and the Non-Americas Territory, respectively, consistent with the methodology prescribed by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(e).
For each of the four Years at Issue, PBI's cost-sharing percentages and corresponding cost-sharing payments were as follows:
The gradual increase in PBI's cost-sharing percentage over the four-year period reflects the organic growth of PBI's Non-Americas business, including expanding market penetration across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. This trajectory was consistent with PPC's contemporaneous projections and budgets as documented in PPC's annual transfer pricing reports.
D. Legacy IP Royalty Payments (2017–2020)
Under the Legacy IP License, PBI paid royalties to PPC at a rate of 4.5% of net sales of licensed legacy products in the Non-Americas Territory. The royalty payments for the Years at Issue were as follows:
The declining trajectory of legacy product net sales over the 2017–2020 period reflects the natural product lifecycle of the pre-2012 vintage compounds subject to the Legacy IP License. Several of these compounds faced generic competition and loss of marketing exclusivity in various Non-Americas markets during the examination period, contributing to the year-over-year decline in net sales.
E. PBI's Functions, Assets, and Risks
PBI is a substantial operating entity that performs critical functions, maintains significant assets, and bears meaningful risks in connection with the development and commercialization of PPC's pharmaceutical products in the Non-Americas Territory. The following summarizes PBI's functions, assets, and risks during the Years at Issue.
Personnel and Organization. PBI's workforce encompasses the following functional areas: regulatory affairs, medical affairs and clinical operations, commercial strategy and marketing, supply-chain management and logistics, legal and intellectual property, finance and treasury, and human resources. PBI's Managing Director during the Years at Issue was Aidan Naughton, who was based full-time in Dublin and exercised decision-making authority over PBI's commercial operations, personnel matters, and strategic direction.
Office and Facilities. PBI maintains approximately 18,000 square feet of office space at Sandyford Business Park, Dublin D18 K7T4, Ireland. This space houses PBI's management team, operational staff, and supporting functions.
Independent Governance. PBI maintained fully independent corporate governance throughout the Years at Issue. During the four-year period from 2017 through 2020, PBI's board of directors convened a total of 42 meetings in Dublin, Ireland, consisting of regular quarterly meetings and special sessions as warranted by business needs. Board deliberations included review and approval of PBI's annual budgets, commercial strategies, regulatory submissions, pricing decisions, and distribution partner agreements.
Market Risk and Commercial Decision-Making. PBI bore market risk for the Non-Americas Territory and exercised independent judgment in making commercial decisions. Specifically, PBI was responsible for pricing decisions, market entry strategies, and the selection and management of distribution partners across 68 country markets spanning Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. PBI's commercial team developed market-specific strategies tailored to the regulatory, competitive, and reimbursement environments of each country or region.
Regulatory Expenditures. PBI incurred cumulative regulatory expenditures of approximately €47.2 million over the 2017–2020 period in connection with regulatory submissions, marketing authorization applications, label updates, pharmacovigilance activities, and post-marketing commitments across the Non-Americas Territory. These expenditures reflect the substantial and ongoing regulatory burden borne by PBI as the marketing authorization holder or applicant in numerous jurisdictions.
Banking and Treasury. PBI maintained independent banking relationships with Glenmore Bank Ireland plc and conducted its own treasury operations, including cash management, intercompany settlement, and foreign currency hedging appropriate to its Non-Americas business.
Irish Tax Position. During the Years at Issue, PBI claimed the standard Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5% applicable to trading income. Beginning in fiscal year 2016, PBI also claimed the benefits of Ireland's Knowledge Development box regime, which provides an effective tax rate of 6.25% on qualifying income derived from qualifying intellectual property assets.
Personnel Interviews. In connection with Calderwood & Harkness's preparation of this Protest, 12 key PBI employees were interviewed during August and September 2022. These interviews documented the substantive decision-making roles performed by PBI personnel in regulatory affairs, commercial strategy, supply-chain management, medical affairs, and corporate governance. Summaries of these interviews are included among the supporting materials referenced in Exhibit D.
F. PPC's Contemporaneous Transfer Pricing Documentation
PPC maintained contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for all four Years at Issue, prepared in the ordinary course by Crestfield & Associates LLP, an internationally recognized economics consulting firm with extensive experience in pharmaceutical transfer pricing. The documentation was prepared under the supervision of Martin Ogilvy, engagement partner, and Susan Lam, transfer pricing partner, at Crestfield & Associates.
The contemporaneous documentation established the economic analyses supporting (i) the CSA cost-sharing ratios for each year, (ii) the 4.5% royalty rate under the Legacy IP License, and (iii) the $312,000,000 PCT payment made at the inception of the CSA. The documentation was prepared in compliance with the standards set forth in IRC § 6662(e) and Treasury Regulations §§ 1.482-4 and 1.482-7, as well as the documentation requirements of Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6. As discussed further in Section VI below, this contemporaneous documentation provides a complete defense to any penalty asserted under IRC § 6662(e).
G. The IRS Examination
The IRS opened its examination of PPC's federal income tax returns for the Years at Issue on May 16, 2022, via IRS Letter 2205-A issued by the LB&I Northeast Transfer Pricing Practice. The examination was assigned Examination Team ID LB&I-NE-TP-2022-00641.
The IRS examination team consisted of the following individuals:
• Supervisory Revenue Agent (Team Manager): Gerald Meskill
• Lead Revenue Agent: Patricia Dunleavy
• IRS Economist: Dr. Alan Washburne
• IRS Office of Chief Counsel Attorney-Advisor: Franklin Rosario
• IRS Office of Chief Counsel Senior Counsel: Donna Hirabayashi
Over the course of the examination, which spanned from June 2022 through September 2023, the IRS examination team issued a total of 47 Information Document Requests ("IDRs"). PPC responded fully and cooperatively to all 47 IDRs, producing extensive documentation including transfer pricing reports, financial statements, intercompany agreements, board minutes, regulatory submissions, personnel records, and functional analyses. PPC also made PBI personnel available for telephonic and in-person interviews as requested by the examination team.
The NOPA was issued on October 12, 2023, setting forth the proposed adjustments described in Section IV below. The 30-Day Letter was issued on November 8, 2023, providing PPC with the right to file a formal protest and request a conference with the IRS Office of Appeals.
IV. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS BEING PROTESTED
PPC protests each and every proposed adjustment set forth in the NOPA and the 30-Day Letter. The following summarizes the proposed adjustments.
A. CSA Cost-Sharing Ratio Adjustments ($235,010,000)
The IRS proposes to increase PBI's cost-sharing percentage under the CSA by approximately 8 to 12 percentage points for each of the four Years at Issue. The IRS asserts that PPC's contemporaneous projections of reasonably anticipated benefits understated the relative value of U.S.-source intangible development activity, with the result that PBI's share of qualified research and development costs should have been substantially higher. Specifically, the IRS proposes the following adjustments:
The IRS rounds the aggregate CSA adjustment to $235,010,000 as reflected in the NOPA.
PPC disputes these proposed adjustments in their entirety. As set forth in Section V.B below, PPC's cost-sharing percentages were determined in accordance with Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7 based on contemporaneous projections of reasonably anticipated benefits, and the IRS's proposed percentages are predicated on fundamentally flawed economic analysis.
B. Royalty Rate Adjustments ($188,040,000)
The IRS proposes to increase the royalty rate under the Legacy IP License from 4.5% to 11.0% of net sales for the Non-Americas Territory, based on the IRS economist's selection of purportedly comparable uncontrolled transactions. The IRS asserts that the CUT data from third-party pharmaceutical licensing agreements supports a royalty rate of 11.0% for PBI's license of legacy intellectual property. The proposed adjustments are as follows:
The IRS rounds the aggregate royalty adjustment to $188,040,000 as reflected in the NOPA.
PPC disputes these proposed adjustments in their entirety. As set forth in Section V.C below, PPC's 4.5% royalty rate falls squarely within the arm's-length range established by a properly conducted CUT analysis, and the IRS's proposed 11.0% rate is an extreme outlier based on unreliable and non-comparable transactions.
C. Correlative Offset (−$42,650,000)
The IRS has allowed a correlative offset in the amount of $42,650,000 to avoid double-counting between the CSA cost-sharing adjustments and the royalty rate adjustments. PPC acknowledges the necessity of a correlative offset to the extent any adjustment is sustained, but submits that the IRS's $42,650,000 offset is insufficient and that additional correlative and conforming adjustments would be required, as discussed in Section V.I below.
D. Net Proposed Adjustment and Penalty
The net proposed adjustment across the four Years at Issue is calculated as follows:
CSA Cost-Sharing Adjustments: $235,010,000 Royalty Rate Adjustments: $188,040,000 Correlative Offset: ($42,650,000) Net Proposed Adjustment: $380,400,000
In addition, the IRS has proposed a penalty under IRC § 6662(e) for substantial valuation misstatement in the amount of 20% of the underpayment of tax attributable to the proposed transfer pricing adjustments. The IRS computes the proposed penalty as follows: $380,400,000 × 21% 20% penalty rate = approximately $15,977,000.
PPC notes that the IRS's penalty computation applies the 21% post-TCJA corporate rate to the entire adjustment, including the 2017 tax year for which the applicable rate was 35%. PPC reserves the right to contest the IRS's penalty computation methodology in addition to contesting the propriety of the penalty itself.
E. IRS's Ancillary Position: Economic Substance Challenge
In addition to the quantitative adjustments summarized above, the NOPA includes an ancillary assertion by the IRS that PBI lacked sufficient economic substance to justify its role as the intellectual property owner and CSA participant for the Non-Americas Territory. Specifically, the IRS contends that the key Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, and Exploitation ("DEMPE") functions with respect to the pharmaceutical intellectual property at issue remained in the United States and were performed by PPC personnel, such that PBI functioned as no more than a lacking meaningful operational substance.
PPC vigorously disputes this characterization. As in Section V.E below, PBI is a substantial operating entity with 185 employees, independent governance, and extensive operational responsibilities across 68 country markets. The IRS's DEMPE challenge reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of PBI's functions, assets, and risks and is contradicted by the extensive evidentiary record.
V. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. The Arm's-Length Standard Under IRC § 482
Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in any case of two or more organizations, trades, or businesses owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests, to distribute, apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or allowances between or among such organizations, trades, or businesses, if the Secretary determines that such distribution, apportionment, or allocation is necessary in order to prevent evasion of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of any of such organizations, trades, or businesses. IRC § 482.
The governing standard for all allocations under IRC § 482 is the arm's-length standard. Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(b)(1) provides that "[i]n determining the true taxable income of a controlled taxpayer, the standard to be applied in every case is that of a taxpayer dealing at arm's length with an uncontrolled taxpayer." A controlled transaction meets the arm's-length standard if "the results of the transaction are consistent with the results that would have been realized if uncontrolled taxpayers had engaged in the same transaction under the same circumstances (arm's length result)." Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(b)(1).
The arm's-length result is determined under the "best method rule" set forth in Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(c), which provides that the arm's-length result of a controlled transaction must be determined under the method that "provides the most reliable measure of an arm's length result." Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(c)(1). In selecting the best method, relevant factors include the degree of comparability between the controlled transaction and any uncontrolled comparables, and the quality of the data and assumptions used in the analysis. Id.
Importantly, the burden of establishing that a taxpayer's transfer pricing methodology does not produce arm's-length results, and that the IRS's proposed allocation is a more reliable measure of an arm's-length result, rests squarely on the IRS. See Harborview Corporation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. No. 4 (2020) (applying best method analysis and rejecting both parties' proposed methods where neither was found to be the most reliable); Hollowell & Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2017-25 (evaluating the reliability of competing transfer pricing methods for intangible property). The Tax Court has repeatedly emphasized that the IRS may not simply disregard a taxpayer's method without demonstrating that its alternative produces a more reliable arm's-length result. Where the taxpayer's method is reasonable and its results fall within the arm's-length range, the IRS's proposed reallocation must be rejected. See Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. 91 (2015), rev'd on other grounds, 926 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019) (addressing cost-sharing regulations and stock-based compensation in the context of qualified cost-sharing arrangements).
As demonstrated below, PPC's transfer pricing methodology for each of the intercompany transactions at issue — the CSA cost-sharing ratios, the legacy IP royalty rate, and the PCT payment — satisfies the arm's-length standard. The IRS's proposed adjustments, by contrast, are based on unreliable analyses that fail to satisfy the best method rule and do not produce more reliable arm's-length results.
B. PPC's CSA Cost-Sharing Ratios Satisfy the Arm's-Length Standard
1. Compliance with Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7
PPC's CSA is a qualified cost-sharing arrangement that fully complies with the requirements of Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7. The CSA involves eligible controlled participants — PPC and PBI, both of which are controlled entities that reasonably anticipate deriving benefits from the intangible development activity covered by the CSA. Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(a)(1). The CSA defines the intangible development activity to include research and development of pharmaceutical compounds in PPC's three core therapeutic areas (oncology, immunology, and rare disease). Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(b).
The cost-sharing percentages borne by each participant are allocated based on each participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits ("RAB") from the intangible development activity, as required by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(e). For the Years at Issue, PBI's share of RAB was determined annually using a revenue-based metric that compared projected non-Americas revenues to total projected worldwide revenues for the products covered by the CSA. This revenue-based RAB metric is explicitly recognized and sanctioned by the regulations as a reliable basis for allocating cost-sharing percentages. See Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(e)(2)(ii) (permitting "division of costs in proportion to each controlled participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits," measured using "units used, produced, or sold, revenues earned, or any other reliable measure").
The resulting cost-sharing percentages for the four Years at Issue — 38.2% for 2017, 39.6% for 2018, 41.1% for 2019, and 42.7% for 2020 — were derived from contemporaneous revenue projections that were developed by PPC's and PBI's respective commercial teams and updated annually. The gradual year-over-year increase in PBI's cost-sharing percentage reflects the steady growth of PBI's Non-Americas business, driven by expanding market penetration, new regulatory approvals in additional countries, and growing demand for PPC's key products in the EMEA and Asia-Pacific regions.
These cost-sharing percentages were determined in the ordinary course of business, documented contemporaneously, and reviewed by PPC's independent transfer pricing advisors at Crestfield & Associates LLP. The CSA cost-sharing ratios for each of the four Years at Issue satisfy the arm's-length standard under IRC § 482 and Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7.
2. Whitmore Valuation Group CPM/TNMM Analysis
In addition to the revenue-based RAB analysis that directly supports the CSA cost-sharing ratios, PPC's expert economists at Whitmore Valuation Group LLC have performed a Comparable Profits Method ("CPM") / Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") analysis to confirm that PBI's overall profitability from its Non-Americas operations is consistent with arm's-length results.
Whitmore Valuation Group was retained under a Kovel arrangement (reference 1018-00009-KV) to provide independent economic analysis in support of PPC's transfer pricing positions. The Whitmore engagement is led by Dr. Helena Vasquez, Managing Director and lead economist, with support from Dr. Rohan Chakrabarti, Senior Economist. Dr. Vasquez has over 20 years of experience in pharmaceutical and life sciences transfer pricing economics, including extensive experience with cost-sharing arrangements and intangible property valuation.
The CPM/TNMM analysis identified a set of 22 comparable uncontrolled companies engaged in pharmaceutical distribution and IP-holding functions with risk profiles and functional characteristics similar to PBI. Using these comparables, Whitmore established an arm's-length interquartile range for operating margins. PBI's actual operating margins for each of the four Years at Issue fell within the interquartile range of the comparable set, confirming that PBI's overall return on its Non-Americas business is consistent with arm's-length results.
A summary of the CPM/TNMM analysis, including the identification and characterization of the 22 comparable companies and the resulting interquartile ranges, is included in Exhibit C.
3. Rebuttal of IRS's Proposed Cost-Sharing Percentages
The IRS's proposed cost-sharing percentages of 48.2% to 53.7% for the four Years at Issue are fundamentally flawed and should be rejected for several independent reasons.
First, the IRS's proposed percentages are based on RAB projections that systematically overstate U.S.-source reasonably anticipated benefits. Dr. Washburne's analysis improperly inflates the U.S. share of projected benefits by assigning disproportionate weight to U.S.-based research and development activity as a value driver, while simultaneously discounting the substantial contributions made by PBI's Non-Americas commercial, regulatory, and market-development operations. The regulations do not support the proposition that RAB must be allocated in proportion to the geographic location of R&D expenditures; rather, RAB is to be allocated based on each participant's share of projected benefits from the exploitation of the resulting intangibles in their respective territories. Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(e).
Second, the IRS's projections fail to account for PBI's significant and growing contribution to Non-Americas market development. During the 2017–2020 period, PBI incurred cumulative regulatory expenditures of €47.2 million on Non-Americas submissions, made independent pricing decisions across 68 country markets, and expanded its workforce from approximately 125 employees in 2017 to 185 employees by the end of 2020. PBI's contributions to market development, regulatory strategy, and commercial operations in the Non-Americas Territory generated substantial incremental revenues that are properly attributable to PBI's share of reasonably anticipated benefits.
Third, the IRS improperly conflates historic IP value — which was already addressed by the $312,000,000 PCT payment made at the inception of the CSA in 2012 — with ongoing cost-sharing percentages for the 2017–2020 period. The PCT was specifically designed to compensate PPC for PBI's buy-in to pre-existing intangible property. Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(g) distinguishes between the PCT (a one-time payment for pre-existing IP) and ongoing cost-sharing payments (allocated annually based on projected RAB). By seeking to embed a portion of the historic IP value into increased cost-sharing percentages for subsequent years, the IRS effectively double-counts the value of pre-existing IP — once through the PCT and again through inflated cost-sharing ratios.
For these reasons, PPC's cost-sharing percentages of 38.2% to 42.7% for the Years at Issue are consistent with the arm's-length standard, and the IRS's proposed adjustments of $235,010,000 should be fully reversed.
C. PPC's Legacy IP Royalty Rate (4.5%) Is Within the Arm's-Length Range
1. CUT Analysis Under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4
PPC's 4.5% royalty rate under the Legacy IP License was established based on a CUT analysis performed at the time of execution and was subsequently confirmed in PPC's contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for each of the Years at Issue. The CUT method is the specified method under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4 for evaluating the arm's-length nature of royalty rates in controlled transactions involving intangible property, where sufficiently comparable uncontrolled transactions are available.
These comparables were identified through a comprehensive search of publicly available license agreement databases, SEC filings, and proprietary databases of pharmaceutical licensing transactions. The selected comparables share key characteristics with the Legacy IP License, including: (i) the licensee bore significant commercialization risk and responsibilities; (ii) the licensed IP consisted of approved or late-stage pharmaceutical compounds; (iii) the geographic scope of the licenses was comparable to the Non-Americas Territory; and (iv) the therapeutic areas and market characteristics of the licensed products were reasonably comparable to PBI's legacy product portfolio.
The interquartile range of royalty rates observed in the 14 comparable uncontrolled transactions is 3.1% to 6.8%, with a median of 4.4%. PPC's 4.5% royalty rate The 4.5% rate is therefore a reliable arm's-length royalty rate that satisfies the requirements of IRC § 482 and Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4.
By contrast, the IRS's proposed royalty rate of 11.0% is an extreme outlier that lies more than 4.2 percentage points above the top of the interquartile range. No reliable economic analysis supports a royalty rate of 11.0% for the legacy IP licensed to PBI under the facts and circumstances of this case.
A summary of the CUT analysis, including the identification and characterization of the 14 comparable transactions and the resulting interquartile range, is included in Exhibit C.
2. Flaws in the IRS's CUT Selection
The IRS's proposed 11.0% royalty rate is derived from a CUT analysis prepared by Dr. Washburne that is fatally flawed in several critical respects.
First, the IRS's selected CUTs are not reliably comparable to the Legacy IP License. Dr. Washburne's comparable set includes license agreements involving: (i) compounds at significantly earlier stages of development (pre-clinical and Phase I/II), where the royalty rate reflects the licensee's assumption of substantially greater development risk and cost, as compared to the approved and mature legacy compounds licensed by PBI; (ii) therapeutic areas with fundamentally different market dynamics, pricing environments, and competitive landscapes from those applicable to PBI's legacy product portfolio; (iii) risk profiles that differ materially from PBI's situation, including transactions where the licensor retained significant co-promotion rights or milestone-based pricing adjustments; and (iv) geographic scopes that are either significantly broader or narrower than the Non-Americas Territory, affecting the comparability of the royalty rate.
Second, the IRS failed to make appropriate comparability adjustments as required by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4(c)(2). Where differences exist between the controlled transaction and the uncontrolled comparables that would materially affect the royalty rate, the regulations require that adjustments be made to account for those differences. Dr. Washburne's analysis applies no such adjustments, despite the presence of significant and identifiable differences between the IRS's selected CUTs and the Legacy IP License.
Third, Dr. Washburne's analysis improperly includes license agreements that bundle royalty payments with other forms of consideration, including co-development obligations, milestone payments, technology transfer services, and ongoing technical support. When these additional elements of consideration are embedded in the stated royalty rate, the apparent rate is artificially inflated beyond what would be observed in a straightforward royalty-bearing license of mature pharmaceutical compounds. PPC's Legacy IP License, by contrast, involves a clean royalty payment without bundled services or co-development obligations. Comparing bundled transactions to PPC's unbundled license without adjusting for the additional consideration inherent in the bundled arrangements is a fundamental analytical error that renders the IRS's proposed 11.0% rate unreliable.
For these reasons, PPC's 4.5% royalty rate is within the arm's-length range, and the IRS's proposed royalty rate adjustments of $188,040,000 should be fully reversed.
D. The PCT Payment of $312 Million Is Within the Arm's-Length Range
Although the $312,000,000 PCT payment was made in 2012, outside the four Years at Issue, the IRS has made the PCT valuation a central element of its proposed adjustments. Specifically, the IRS contends that the PCT payment was inadequate and uses its inflated PCT valuation as a basis for supporting higher ongoing cost-sharing ratios for 2017–2020. PPC addresses the PCT valuation here to rebut the IRS's foundational analysis.
1. Income Method / DCF Valuation Under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(g)(4)
Whitmore Valuation Group performed an income-method / Discounted cash flow ("DCF") analysis of the PCT in accordance with Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(g)(4). The income method is the specified method under the regulations for determining the arm's-length consideration for platform contributions in a QCSA.
The Whitmore DCF analysis was based on the following key parameters:
• discount Rate (WACC): 9.8%, reflecting the weighted average cost of capital appropriate for a specialty pharmaceutical company operating in the risk-intensive oncology and immunology therapeutic areas. This WACC incorporates: (i) a cost of equity estimated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model, with an equity beta derived from a set of comparable publicly traded specialty pharmaceutical companies; (ii) a cost of debt reflecting PPC's actual borrowing costs as of mid-2012; (iii) a size premium and company-specific risk premium appropriate for PBI's nascent Non-Americas operations; and (iv) an industry-specific risk premium reflecting the inherent uncertainty associated with pharmaceutical product development and commercialization.
• Revenue Projections: Contemporaneous revenue projections for the Non-Americas Territory, as developed by PPC's commercial team at the time of the CSA execution in mid-2012. These projections reflected the then-current market landscape, competitive dynamics, regulatory timelines, and pricing assumptions for the PPC compounds covered by the CSA.
• Terminal Value: Calculated using a perpetuity growth model with a long-term growth rate consistent with industry norms for mature pharmaceutical products.
The resulting arm's-length range for the PCT payment under the Whitmore DCF analysis is $278,000,000 to $361,000,000. PPC's actual PCT payment of $312,000,000 falls within this range, confirming that the PCT was an arm's-length transaction .
2. Critique of IRS's PCT Valuation
The IRS valued the PCT at $852,000,000 — more than 2.7 times PPC's actual $312,000,000 payment — using an income method with materially different assumptions. The IRS's PCT valuation is unreliable for the following reasons.
First, the IRS's weighted average cost of capital of 7.2% is inappropriately low. A WACC of 7.2% fails to incorporate adequate risk premiums for pharmaceutical development-stage compounds. At the time of the CSA's execution in July 2012, a significant portion of PPC's IP portfolio contributed to the CSA consisted of clinical-stage compounds with meaningful development risk, including the risk of clinical trial failure, regulatory rejection, and commercial underperformance. The IRS's 7.2% WACC ignores well-established industry-specific cost-of-capital data demonstrating that specialty pharmaceutical companies, and particularly those with significant oncology pipeline exposure, command higher risk premiums than the IRS's analysis reflects. Moreover, the IRS's beta sample is unrepresentative, consisting of large diversified pharmaceutical companies rather than specialty pharmaceutical firms with risk profiles comparable to PPC's and PBI's operations.
Second, the IRS's revenue projections were overly optimistic, particularly for Non-Americas territories. The IRS's analysis employs revenue forecasts that substantially exceed the contemporaneous projections available at the time of the CSA execution in 2012. The arm's-length standard requires that the PCT be valued based on the information reasonably available to the parties at the time of the transaction, not with the benefit of hindsight. See Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(g)(4)(vi). The IRS's reliance on ex-post revenue data to retroactively inflate the PCT valuation is inconsistent with this well-established principle.
Third, even though the PCT payment relates to 2012 (outside the examination years), the IRS improperly leverages its inflated PCT revaluation to support higher ongoing cost-sharing ratios for 2017–2020. The regulations draw a clear distinction between the PCT — which compensates the platform contributor for pre-existing IP — and the ongoing cost-sharing payments, which reflect each participant's proportionate share of ongoing intangible development costs based on projected RAB. See Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7(b), (g). By using an inflated PCT valuation as a springboard for increasing cost-sharing percentages in subsequent years, the IRS conflates two distinct regulatory mechanisms and produces a result that double-counts the value of pre-existing IP.
A detailed analysis of the WACC assumptions and the critique of the IRS's discount rate, prepared by Dr. Vasquez, is included among the supporting materials referenced in Exhibit C.
E. PBI Has Sufficient Economic Substance
The IRS's ancillary assertion that PBI lacks sufficient economic substance to justify its role as IP owner and CSA participant is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
1. DEMPE Functions Performed by PBI
PBI performs substantial Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, and Exploitation functions for the Non-Americas Territory. The DEMPE framework, as articulated in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (Chapter VI) and increasingly applied in U.S. transfer pricing analysis, evaluates whether an entity's claimed entitlement to intangible-related returns is supported by the entity's actual contributions to the creation and exploitation of value from intangible property. PBI's contributions to each DEMPE category are as follows:
Development and Enhancement. PBI co-funded research and development through its ongoing cost-sharing payments under the CSA, ranging from $186,150,000 in 2017 to $255,520,000 in 2020. These are not mere passive payments. PBI personnel actively directed Non-Americas clinical trial strategies, contributed to regulatory science decisions, and provided input on the design and conduct of pivotal clinical studies that supported marketing authorization applications in the Non-Americas Territory. PBI's regulatory affairs team worked in close coordination with PPC's U.S.-based R&D organization while exercising independent judgment regarding the regulatory strategy appropriate for Non-Americas markets.
Maintenance. PBI managed ongoing regulatory compliance, post-market surveillance, and pharmacovigilance activities across 68 country markets in the Non-Americas Territory. These activities are critical to the maintenance of marketing authorizations, product labeling, and regulatory goodwill. PBI's cumulative regulatory expenditures of €47.2 million over the 2017–2020 period reflect the magnitude of these maintenance functions. PBI also maintained relationships with regulatory authorities across Europe, Asia-Pacific, and other regions, responding to regulatory inquiries, safety signal assessments, and periodic benefit-risk evaluations.
Protection. PBI managed intellectual property enforcement and licensing in Non-Americas jurisdictions, including monitoring for patent infringement, coordinating with local counsel on IP defense strategies, and managing trademark registrations and renewals. PBI maintained dedicated legal and regulatory resources in Dublin to oversee these protection functions.
Exploitation. PBI made independent pricing, market entry, and distribution partner selection decisions across 68 country markets. PBI's commercial team developed and executed market-specific strategies tailored to the regulatory, competitive, and reimbursement environments of each jurisdiction. PBI managed commercial relationships with distributors, hospital groups, pharmacy chains, and government health authorities throughout the EMEA and Asia-Pacific regions. These exploitation functions are the primary drivers of revenue in the Non-Americas Territory and represent the core of PBI's economic contribution to the value chain.
2. Objective Indicia of Substance
PBI's economic substance is further demonstrated by the following objective indicia, each of which is supported by documentary evidence in the examination record:
• Personnel: PBI employed 185 full-time employees in Dublin by the end of 2020, up from 52 employees at its establishment in 2012. This represents a nearly fourfold increase in headcount, reflecting the genuine growth and operational expansion of PBI's Non-Americas business.
• Office Space: PBI maintained approximately 18,000 square feet of dedicated office space at Sandyford Business Park, Dublin, housing its management team, operational staff, and supporting functions.
• Board Governance: PBI's board of directors held 42 meetings in Dublin during the 2017–2020 period, including regular quarterly meetings and special sessions. Board minutes document substantive deliberations on commercial strategy, budgets, regulatory matters, pricing decisions, and personnel issues.
• Regulatory Expenditures: PBI incurred cumulative regulatory expenditures of €47.2 million on Non-Americas regulatory submissions, pharmacovigilance, and post-marketing activities during the 2017–2020 period.
• Independent Commercial Decision-Making: PBI made independent pricing decisions across 68 country markets in the Non-Americas Territory, with documented evidence of market-specific pricing analyses, competitive assessments, and reimbursement negotiations.
• Independent Banking: PBI maintained banking relationships with Glenmore Bank Ireland plc and conducted independent treasury operations, including cash management, foreign currency hedging, and intercompany settlement.
• Managing Director: Aidan Naughton, PBI's Managing Director, was based full-time in Dublin and exercised decision-making authority over PBI's commercial operations, personnel, and strategic direction.
• Personnel Interviews: 12 key PBI employees were interviewed by Calderwood & Harkness during August and September 2022. These interviews documented the substantive decision-making roles performed by PBI personnel across regulatory affairs, commercial strategy, supply-chain management, medical affairs, and corporate governance functions.
A summary of PBI's economic substance evidence, including employee headcount data, board meeting records, regulatory expenditure summaries, and personnel interview summaries, is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
3. Legal Standard
The economic substance doctrine, as codified at IRC § 7701(o), provides that a transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if (i) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and (ii) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction.
PBI satisfies both prongs of the economic substance doctrine. With respect to the objective economic substance prong, PBI conducts genuine business operations, employs 185 personnel, incurs tens of millions of euros in regulatory expenditures annually, makes independent commercial decisions across 68 country markets, and generates billions of dollars in revenue from the Non-Americas Territory. PBI's establishment and operations have meaningfully changed PPC's economic position by enabling localized decision-making, regulatory compliance, and commercial strategy in the Non-Americas markets.
With respect to the subjective business purpose prong, PBI's establishment served the valid business purpose of localizing PPC's commercial operations for the Non-Americas Territory. Pharmaceutical companies routinely establish regional operating subsidiaries to manage regulatory affairs, commercial strategy, and market-specific operations in diverse geographic regions. The localization of these functions in Ireland — a jurisdiction with a well-established pharmaceutical industry, a highly educated English-speaking workforce, and membership in the European Union — served legitimate and substantial business purposes independent of any tax benefits.
The IRS's DEMPE challenge improperly equates U.S.-based R&D with all value creation, ignoring PBI's critical contributions to commercialization, regulatory management, and market development. The DEMPE framework does not support the proposition that the entity performing the upstream R&D is entitled to all or substantially all of the intangible-related returns; rather, it recognizes that entities performing significant DEMPE functions — including downstream functions such as regulatory management, marketing, and commercialization — are entitled to appropriate returns on their contributions to the value of intangible property. The IRS's reductive approach to DEMPE analysis, which effectively ignores PBI's substantial contributions, is inconsistent with both the Treasury Regulations and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
F. IRC § 367(d) Recharacterization Is Inappropriate
To the extent the IRS's position may be construed as an attempt to recharacterize the CSA as an outbound transfer of intangible property subject to IRC § 367(d), such recharacterization is inappropriate and unsupported by law. Section 367(d) applies to outbound transfers of intangible property by a U.S. person to a foreign corporation in certain transactions described in IRC § 351 or § 361. The CSA between PPC and PBI is not an outbound transfer of intangible property; it is a qualified cost-sharing arrangement expressly contemplated and governed by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7.
The interplay between IRC § 482 and IRC § 367(d) does not support the IRS's position where a QCSA complies with the requirements of Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7. The regulations under § 482 provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating cost-sharing arrangements, including the valuation of platform contribution transactions and the allocation of ongoing cost-sharing payments. Where a CSA satisfies the arm's-length standard under this comprehensive framework, the IRS cannot circumvent the CSA regulations by recharacterizing the arrangement as an outbound transfer subject to § 367(d). To permit such recharacterization would render the CSA regulations meaningless and deprive taxpayers of the ability to rely on regulatory guidance specifically designed to govern their transactions.
G. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines Support PPC's Positions
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations serve as persuasive authority in U.S. transfer pricing disputes. While not binding on U.S. courts, the OECD Guidelines are frequently cited and relied upon by the IRS, taxpayers, and the courts as evidence of the international consensus on the application of the arm's-length principle. See, e.g., Harborview Corporation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. No. 4 (2020) (referencing OECD Guidelines in transfer pricing analysis).
The OECD Guidelines, including the 2017 support PPC's positions on each of the contested issues in this case.
Chapter VI (Intangibles) of the OECD Guidelines, as revised in the 2015 and 2017 editions following the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting ("BEPS") project, establishes the DEMPE framework for analyzing the allocation of returns from intangible property. Consistent with PPC's analysis in Section V.E above, Chapter VI recognizes that entities performing significant DEMPE functions are entitled to appropriate returns on intangible property, and that the allocation of returns should reflect the actual functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed by each entity. The Chapter VI analysis supports PBI's entitlement to returns commensurate with its substantial DEMPE contributions in the Non-Americas Territory.
Chapter VIII (Cost Contribution Arrangements) of the OECD Guidelines addresses the allocation of costs and benefits in cost contribution arrangements, the OECD's equivalent to a cost-sharing arrangement. Chapter VIII supports PPC's methodology for allocating cost-sharing payments based on projected reasonably anticipated benefits, and is consistent with the revenue-based RAB metric used by PPC and PBI.
The OECD Guidelines, taken as a whole, provide additional confirmation that PPC's transfer pricing methodology produces arm's-length results and that the IRS's proposed adjustments are excessive and unsupported.
H. Impact of TCJA on Analysis
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ("TCJA"), enacted on December 22, 2017, significantly altered the U.S. international tax landscape and has direct relevance to the analysis of the IRS's proposed adjustments in this case.