EXHIBIT E
TO THE FORMAL PROTEST OF PENTERRA PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.
Penalty Protection: Reasonable Cause Defense and Contemporaneous Documentation Under IRC § 6662(e)(3)(B)
Filed December 22, 2023
Prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 1735 Market Street, Suite 3100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, on behalf of Penterra Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("PPC") (EIN: 22-3741856), in connection with IRS Examination LB&I-NE-TP-2022-00641, Tax Years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This Exhibit E is submitted in support of the Formal Protest of Penterra Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("PPC" or "the Taxpayer") and establishes that no accuracy-related penalty should be imposed under Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 6662(e) with respect to the proposed IRC § 482 transfer pricing adjustments totaling $380,400,000 across Tax Years ("TY") 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. PPC submits this exhibit to demonstrate fully and conclusively that it has satisfied every statutory and regulatory prerequisite for penalty abatement and that the imposition of any penalty under the circumstances of this case would be contrary to law.
The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Examination Division, Large Business & International ("LB&I"), Northeast Transfer Pricing Practice Area, has proposed a 20% substantial valuation misstatement penalty under IRC § 6662(e) on the net IRC § 482 allocation set forth in the Revenue Agent's Report ("RAR") and the 30-Day Letter dated October 6, 2023. The proposed penalty applies to the aggregate net section 482 adjustments across all four tax years at issue and amounts to approximately $15,977,000, calculated as the product of $380,400,000 in proposed net section 482 adjustments, multiplied by the applicable corporate income tax rate of 21%, multiplied by the 20% penalty rate prescribed by section 6662(a) and (e). PPC notes that the computation is an approximation because TY 2017 remains subject to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ("TCJA") corporate rate of 35%, such that the precise penalty calculation involves a blended rate analysis across the four tax years. The IRS reserved but did not assert the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty under IRC § 6662(h), and PPC understands that the IRS retains the right to assert the higher penalty in subsequent proceedings. Notwithstanding, PPC contends that no penalty at any level is warranted.
PPC is entitled to complete penalty abatement on two independent grounds, either of which standing alone would be sufficient to eliminate the proposed penalty in its entirety:
First, PPC satisfies the contemporaneous documentation safe harbor under IRC § 6662(e)(3)(B). For each of the four tax years at issue, PPC maintained detailed, professionally prepared contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation that meets or exceeds every requirement set forth in Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6(d). This documentation was prepared by Crestfield & Associates LLP, a nationally recognized accounting and advisory firm, and was completed and placed in PPC's files prior to the filing date (including extensions) of each year's Form 1120. The documentation was produced in full to the IRS in response to Information Document Request ("IDR") No. 4, dated August 1, 2022, and at no time during the examination did the IRS identify any deficiency in the completeness or timeliness of PPC's contemporaneous documentation.
Second, PPC independently satisfies the reasonable cause and good faith defense under IRC § 6664(c). PPC retained multiple highly qualified professionals throughout the relevant period — Crestfield & Associates LLP as its independent auditor and transfer pricing documentation preparer, Calderwood & Harkness LLP as its outside tax counsel, Whitmore Valuation Group LLC as its independent transfer pricing economics firm, and Thornbury & Keogh as Irish tax advisors to PPC's Irish subsidiaries — and relied in good faith on the advice and analyses of each of these professionals in establishing and reporting the transfer pricing positions reflected on its federal income tax returns for TY 2017 through 2020. PPC provided complete and accurate information to each advisor, did not withhold any material facts, and did not override or disregard any professional recommendation.
The sections that follow set forth the applicable legal framework, describe in detail the contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation maintained by PPC for each year at issue, demonstrate PPC's reasonable cause and good faith, respond to the specific penalty assertions contained in the RAR, summarize the documentation produced to the IRS during the examination, and request that IRS Appeals fully abate the proposed penalty.
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. IRC § 6662(e) — Substantial Valuation Misstatement Penalty
Section 6662(a) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a penalty equal to 20% of the portion of any underpayment of tax that is attributable to one or more of the categories of conduct specified in section 6662(b). Among the specified categories, section 6662(b)(3) identifies "any substantial valuation misstatement under chapter 1." Section 6662(e) defines a "substantial valuation misstatement" in the specific context of transfer pricing by reference to net section 482 adjustments.
Under IRC § 6662(e)(1)(B), a substantial valuation misstatement exists where the net section 482 transfer price adjustment for a taxable year exceeds the lesser of $5,000,000 or 10% of the taxpayer's gross receipts. The term "net section 482 transfer price adjustment" is defined in section 6662(e)(3)(A) to include the net increase in taxable income resulting from all section 482 adjustments for the year, reduced by any portion of the adjustment that the taxpayer establishes is attributable to specific enumerated defenses.
For purposes of this analysis, PPC's FY 2020 gross revenue was approximately $6,820,000,000, and the proposed net section 482 adjustment of $380,400,000 across TY 2017 through 2020 substantially exceeds both the $5,000,000 absolute threshold and the 10% gross receipts threshold in each individual year. Accordingly, absent the application of one or more statutory defenses, the penalty thresholds of section 6662(e)(1)(B) would be met with respect to each of the four years at issue. PPC does not dispute that the mechanical thresholds of section 6662(e) are triggered by the proposed adjustment amounts; rather, PPC contends that the penalty is inapplicable by operation of the two statutory defenses discussed below.
It is well established that the section 6662(e) penalty is not a strict-liability penalty and that Congress specifically provided two separate avenues through which a taxpayer may avoid the penalty even where the threshold adjustment amounts are met.
B. IRC § 6662(e)(3)(B) — Contemporaneous Documentation Safe Harbor
Section 6662(e)(3)(B) provides a safe harbor from the substantial valuation misstatement penalty for taxpayers who maintain contemporaneous documentation. Specifically, the statute provides that the net section 482 transfer price adjustment shall be reduced by the portion of the adjustment "with respect to which the taxpayer establishes that the requirements of [the contemporaneous documentation rules] are met."
Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6(d) sets forth the standards for contemporaneous documentation. Under those regulations, documentation is "contemporaneous" if it exists at the time the taxpayer files its return for the taxable year to which the documentation relates, including any extensions of time for filing. Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-6(d)(2)(iii). The documentation must be maintained for each taxable year in which the taxpayer has controlled transactions subject to section 482.
The regulations prescribe specific categories of information that must be included in the taxpayer's contemporaneous documentation. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
(i) a description of the organizational structure of the taxpayer's group, including an overview of the business, organizational chart, and description of entities involved in the controlled transactions;
(ii) a description of the controlled transactions, including the terms and conditions, the property or services transferred, the aggregate monetary value, and the relationship of the transactions to other controlled transactions;
(iii) a description of the functions performed, risks assumed, and assets employed by each party to the controlled transaction;
(iv) a description of the method selected, including an explanation of why the selected method was determined to be the best method under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(c);
(v) a description of the alternative methods that were considered and the reasons for their rejection;
(vi) a description of the controlled transactions, the comparable uncontrolled transactions used, and the economic analyses underlying the comparability determination;
(vii) a description of any relevant data that the taxpayer obtains after the end of the tax year and before filing a return that would assist in determining whether the transfer pricing was arm's length;
(viii) a general index of the principal and background documents, and a description of the record-keeping system used for cataloguing and accessing those documents; and
(ix) any other information, documents, or data that would support the taxpayer's transfer pricing methodology.
The contemporaneous documentation safe harbor is a binary determination: if the taxpayer's documentation meets the regulatory requirements and was in existence at the time the return was filed, the safe harbor applies regardless of whether the IRS ultimately proposes an adjustment to the taxpayer's transfer pricing. In other words, the safe harbor protects taxpayers who have engaged in a good-faith, contemporaneous effort to document and justify their transfer pricing positions, even if the IRS disagrees with the result of that analysis.
C. IRC § 6664(c) — Reasonable Cause and Good Faith Defense
Independently of the contemporaneous documentation safe harbor, section 6664(c)(1) provides that no penalty shall be imposed under section 6662 with respect to any portion of an underpayment if the taxpayer demonstrates that there was "reasonable cause" for the position taken and that the taxpayer acted "in good faith" with respect to the position.
Treasury Regulation § 1.6664-4(b) specifies the factors to be considered in making the reasonable cause and good faith determination. Those factors include:
(i) the nature of the item giving rise to the underpayment;
(ii) the tax treatment of the item on the return;
(iii) the adequacy of the taxpayer's disclosure of the relevant facts, data, and analyses supporting the position;
(iv) the size and sophistication of the taxpayer;
(v) the taxpayer's efforts to determine the proper tax treatment of the item, including the extent to which the taxpayer consulted with and relied upon the advice of qualified tax professionals; and
(vi) the quality and completeness of the taxpayer's documentation.
Reliance on the advice of qualified professionals is among the most significant factors in the reasonable cause analysis. Under established precedent, a taxpayer may satisfy the reasonable cause standard by demonstrating that it relied in good faith on the advice of a competent, independent professional — provided that: (a) the advisor was a competent professional with sufficient expertise to justify reliance; (b) the taxpayer provided the advisor with all necessary and accurate information; and (c) the taxpayer actually relied on the advisor's judgment in determining the position taken on the return. See Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), aff'd, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250–51 (1985).
The reasonable cause defense is applied on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, and the burden of demonstrating reasonable cause rests on the taxpayer. PPC accepts that burden and submits that the evidence set forth in this exhibit satisfies that burden fully and without question.
D. Relevant Case Law and Authority
The intersection of the IRC § 6662(e) penalty and the reasonable cause defense has been addressed in a number of judicial decisions, administrative pronouncements, and scholarly authorities. The following authorities are particularly instructive with respect to the issues presented by PPC's case.
Courts have consistently recognized that the existence of a proposed section 482 adjustment — even a significant one — does not, standing alone, establish a lack of reasonable cause on the part of the taxpayer. Transfer pricing disputes inherently involve matters of economic judgment, including the selection of comparable transactions, the determination of appropriate discount rates, the projection of future revenue, and the weighting of various economic factors. Where reasonable professionals may reach differing conclusions on these matters, a taxpayer who has retained qualified professionals, provided them with complete information, and relied on their advice in good faith has demonstrated reasonable cause regardless of whether the IRS ultimately proposes an adjustment. See, e.g., Tarrant Group v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. 297 (2009) (discussing the inherently judgmental nature of transfer pricing determinations); Harborview Corporation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 323 (2020) (acknowledging the wide range of reasonable outcomes in transfer pricing analyses involving pharmaceutical and medical device intellectual property).
The "reasonable basis" standard, as applied in the transfer pricing context, requires only that the taxpayer have a reasonable basis for its transfer pricing methodology and that the arm's-length result claimed on the return be supported by a defensible economic analysis. The taxpayer need not demonstrate that its position is more likely than not correct; rather, it must demonstrate that its position reflects a genuine, good-faith effort to comply with the arm's-length standard. See Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-6(d)(2)(ii).
In addition to domestic authorities, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations — including both the 2017 and 2022 revisions — serve as persuasive authority on the adequacy of transfer pricing documentation and the standards by which the reasonableness of a taxpayer's transfer pricing methodology should be evaluated. The OECD Guidelines emphasize that transfer pricing documentation should be proportionate to the complexity of the controlled transactions and should demonstrate a genuine effort by the taxpayer to establish arm's-length pricing. Chapter V of the OECD Guidelines specifically addresses documentation requirements and notes that the purpose of documentation is to ensure that taxpayers give appropriate consideration to transfer pricing requirements in establishing prices and other conditions for transactions between associated enterprises, and to provide tax administrations with the information necessary to conduct an informed transfer pricing risk assessment. PPC's contemporaneous documentation, as described in detail in Section III below, fully satisfies these standards.
III. PPC'S CONTEMPORANEOUS TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION (TY 2017–2020)
A. Documentation Preparer and Process
PPC's contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for each of TY 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 was prepared by Crestfield & Associates LLP ("Crestfield"), located at 1200 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. Crestfield is a nationally recognized accounting and advisory firm that served as PPC's independent auditor and preparer of consolidated federal income tax returns (Forms 1120) for all years at issue.
Susan Lam, CPA, Transfer Pricing Partner at Crestfield, was directly responsible for overseeing the preparation of PPC's contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation under the penalty-protection standards of IRC § 6662(e) and Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6(d). Ms. Lam has extensive experience in the preparation of transfer pricing documentation for large multinational pharmaceutical companies and has served as the lead transfer pricing professional on PPC's engagement since 2014. Her qualifications include over 20 years of experience in transfer pricing advisory and compliance matters, including the preparation of contemporaneous documentation for numerous Fortune 500 pharmaceutical and life sciences companies.
Martin Ogilvy, CPA, Engagement Partner (Audit), oversaw the broader audit relationship between Crestfield and PPC and coordinated with Ms. Lam's transfer pricing practice to ensure that the transfer pricing documentation was consistent with the financial data reflected in PPC's audited consolidated financial statements and that the positions documented therein were accurately reflected on PPC's Forms 1120 for each year at issue.
The process by which contemporaneous documentation was prepared was rigorous and systematic. For each tax year, the documentation process commenced during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, when Crestfield's transfer pricing team gathered updated financial data, intercompany agreements, operational information, and other relevant inputs from PPC's tax department (led by Marcus Whitfield, VP of Global Tax). Draft documentation was prepared and circulated for review during the first quarter following the close of the fiscal year, and final documentation was reviewed, approved, and placed in PPC's files well in advance of the applicable return filing date, including any extensions of time to file. This process ensured that the documentation satisfied the "contemporaneous" requirement of Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6(d)(2)(iii) in each year.
B. Scope of Documentation — Cost-Sharing Arrangement
A substantial portion of PPC's contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for each year at issue was devoted to the qualified cost-sharing arrangement ("CSA") between PPC and Penterra Biopharma International DAC ("PBI"), an Irish-incorporated Designated Activity Company that serves as PPC's principal operating entity for non-Americas territories. The CSA was made effective as of July 1, 2012, and has been in continuous operation since that date.
The CSA is governed by the provisions of Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7, and PPC's contemporaneous documentation addressed each of the regulatory requirements applicable to qualified cost-sharing arrangements, including the following:
(a) Description of the CSA Structure and Scope. The documentation included a comprehensive description of the CSA structure, including the identity of the participants (PPC and PBI), the scope of the intangible development activity ("IDA") covered by the arrangement, and the division of rights in the developed intangible property. Under the CSA, PBI obtained the right to exploit all cost-shared IP outside the Americas (defined as North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean), while PPC retained all rights within the Americas territory.
(b) Platform Contribution Transaction (PCT) Payment. The documentation described the platform contribution transaction ("PCT") payment of $312,000,000 made by PBI to PPC on July 1, 2012, in connection with the commencement of the CSA. The PCT payment represented compensation for the pre-existing intangible property and other resources that PPC made available to the CSA as of the inception date. The documentation included the valuation analysis supporting the PCT amount, prepared using the income method (Discounted cash flow analysis) at a weighted average cost of capital ("WACC") of 9.8%, and concluded that the $312,000,000 PCT payment was within the arm's-length range.
(c) Reasonably Anticipated Benefits (RAB) Shares. The documentation included a detailed methodology for determining the reasonably anticipated benefits shares of each CSA participant, consistent with Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(e)(1). The RAB shares were determined based on each participant's reasonably anticipated share of the benefits from the exploitation of the cost-shared intangibles, measured by projected revenue attributable to each participant's territory. The annual cost-sharing percentages, reflecting PBI's share of the RAB, were documented as follows:
• TY 2017: 38.2%
• TY 2018: 39.6%
• TY 2019: 41.1%
• TY 2020: 42.7%
The increasing trend in PBI's RAB shares over the period reflects the growing relative importance of non-Americas markets in PPC's overall revenue mix, driven principally by expanding adoption of key products (particularly Veritaxol and Imvara) in European, Asian, and other international markets. This trend was documented contemporaneously and was based on then-current revenue projections and historical revenue data.
(d) Total Qualified R&D Costs. The documentation set forth the total intangible development costs ("Coss") — referred to herein as qualified R&D costs — incurred by the CSA participants in each year, as well as the allocation of those costs between PPC and PBI in accordance with their respective RAB shares. The total qualified R&D costs for each year were as follows:
• TY 2017: $487,300,000
• TY 2018: $523,800,000
• TY 2019: $561,200,000
• TY 2020: $598,400,000
(e) PBI's Cost-Sharing Payments. PBI's annual cost-sharing payments, representing PBI's RAB share of the total qualified R&D costs, were documented as follows:
• TY 2017: $186,150,000 (38.2% × $487,300,000)
• TY 2018: $207,420,000 (39.6% × $523,800,000)
• TY 2019: $230,650,000 (41.1% × $561,200,000)
• TY 2020: $255,520,000 (42.7% × $598,400,000)
(f) Revenue Projections and Allocation Methodology. The documentation included detailed revenue projections for each CSA participant, disaggregated by territory and by product, and described the methodology by which those projections were used to determine the RAB shares. Revenue projections were updated annually based on the most recent available data, including actual revenue performance, updated market-size estimates, anticipated regulatory approvals, and other relevant factors.
(g) Product-Level Revenue Data. The documentation included product-level revenue data for PPC's three principal proprietary products — Veritaxol (an oncology biologic), Imvara (an immunology biologic), and Cerulon (a specialty neurology compound) — across both Americas and non-Americas territories. This data was critical to the determination of RAB shares and was provided in both historical and projected form.
C. Scope of Documentation — Legacy IP Royalty Arrangement
PPC's contemporaneous documentation also covered the intercompany license agreement for legacy compounds — i.e., pre-2012 vintage intangible property that was not contributed to the CSA — pursuant to which PPC licensed certain pharmaceutical intellectual property to PBI for exploitation in non-Americas territories. Under this arrangement, PBI paid PPC a royalty of 4.5% of net sales attributable to the licensed legacy compounds in the non-Americas territory.
The documentation addressed compliance with Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4 (transfers of intangible property) and included the following elements:
(a) Description of the Licensed Intangible Property. The documentation identified each of the legacy compounds subject to the intercompany license, including the compound name, therapeutic area, stage of commercialization, applicable patents and regulatory exclusivities, and the territories covered by the license.
(b) Economic Analysis Supporting the 4.5% Royalty Rate. The documentation included a detailed economic analysis supporting the arm's-length character of the 4.5% royalty rate. The analysis was prepared using the comparable uncontrolled transaction ("CUT") method under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4(c), which the documentation identified as the best method under the circumstances.
(c) CUT Analysis with Identified Pharmaceutical License Comparables. The CUT analysis identified a set of comparable uncontrolled pharmaceutical license transactions and analyzed the royalty rates observed in those transactions. The analysis included a screening process for identifying potential comparables, a description of the adjustments made to enhance comparability, and a presentation of the resulting interquartile range.
(d) Annual Royalty Calculations. The documentation set forth the annual royalty payments calculated under the license agreement for each year at issue:
• TY 2017: $36,657,000 (4.5% × $814,600,000 net sales)
• TY 2018: $34,303,500 (4.5% × $762,300,000 net sales)
• TY 2019: $31,131,000 (4.5% × $691,800,000 net sales)
• TY 2020: $28,084,500 (4.5% × $624,100,000 net sales)
The declining trend in legacy royalty payments reflects the natural erosion of the legacy product portfolio as certain compounds approached patent expiry and loss of regulatory exclusivity in non-Americas markets. This trend was documented contemporaneously and was consistent with PPC's overall product lifecycle management strategy.
D. Scope of Documentation — PMI Contract Manufacturing
PPC's contemporaneous documentation further addressed the contract manufacturing arrangement between PBI and Penterra Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. ("PMI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of PBI located at Unit 7, Ringaskiddy Industrial Estate, Co. Cork T12 PX29, Ireland. PMI serves as the principal manufacturing facility for PPC's oncology and immunology biologic products destined for non-Americas markets.
PMI operates under a cost-plus arrangement, pursuant to which PMI is compensated at a markup of 8% above its total costs of manufacturing (cost + 8%). This arrangement reflects PMI's role as a contract manufacturer bearing limited risk and performing routine manufacturing functions under the direction and at the instruction of PBI.
PMI is a substantial manufacturing operation, employing approximately 620 personnel as of the end of 2020, including production, quality control, quality assurance, regulatory compliance, engineering, and administrative staff. PMI's manufacturing capabilities encompass mammalian cell culture biologic manufacturing, fill-finish operations, and packaging and labeling for oncology and immunology products.
The documentation included an economic analysis under the cost-plus method prescribed by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-3(d), which was identified as the best method for testing the arm's-length character of the PMI manufacturing arrangement. The analysis demonstrated that the 8% cost-plus markup was within the arm's-length range when benchmarked against comparable uncontrolled contract manufacturing transactions in the pharmaceutical and biologic manufacturing industry.
E. Scope of Documentation — Entity Classification and Structure
PPC's contemporaneous documentation included a comprehensive description of the corporate organizational structure of the PPC group, reflecting the ownership chain and entity classifications relevant to the controlled transactions at issue. The structure, as documented for each year, was as follows:
• Penterra Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("PPC") — a Delaware corporation and the ultimate parent of the PPC group; publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker: PTRX); headquarters at 200 Innovation Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540.
• Penterra Holdings Luxembourg S.à r.l. ("PHL") — a Luxembourg private limited liability company (société à responsabilité limitée), organized under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and registered at 14 rue Aldringen, L-1118 Luxembourg (Luxembourg RCS Number B 168452). PHL is a wholly owned subsidiary of PPC and is treated as a disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes pursuant to the check-the-box regulations under Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-3.
• Penterra Biopharma International DAC ("PBI") — a Designated Activity Company organized under Irish law, registered at 4th Floor, Claremont House, Sandyford Business Park, Dublin D18 K7T4, Ireland (Irish Tax Reference 3218764T). PBI is a wholly owned subsidiary of PHL and is treated as a controlled foreign corporation ("CFC") for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
• Penterra Manufacturing Ireland Ltd. ("PMI") — a private company limited by shares organized under Irish law, registered at Unit 7, Ringaskiddy Industrial Estate, Co. Cork T12 PX29, Ireland. PMI is a wholly owned subsidiary of PBI.
The documentation reflected the disregarded entity status of PHL, such that for U.S. federal income tax purposes, PBI is treated as owned directly by PPC. This classification is relevant to the application of the Subpart F and GILTI provisions and to the determination of the U.S. tax consequences of the intercompany arrangements. The documentation also noted that PMI is a subsidiary of PBI rather than a direct subsidiary of PPC, which affects the analysis of the contract manufacturing arrangement.
F. Documentation of Transfer Pricing Methods — Best Method Rule Compliance
For each of the four tax years at issue, PPC's contemporaneous documentation included a detailed analysis of the best method rule under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(c) and (d). The best method rule requires taxpayers to select and apply the transfer pricing method that, under the facts and circumstances, provides the most reliable measure of an arm's-length result. The documentation addressed the selection of the best method for each category of controlled transaction, as follows:
(a) CSA Cost-Sharing. The reasonably anticipated benefits ("RAB") methodology was applied to determine the allocation of intangible development costs between PPC and PBI, in accordance with Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7. The documentation explained why this methodology — which is prescribed by the CSA regulations themselves — was the appropriate method for allocating costs under a qualified cost-sharing arrangement. The documentation also addressed the income method (DCF analysis) used to determine the PCT payment at the inception of the CSA.
(b) Legacy IP Royalty. The comparable uncontrolled transaction ("CUT") method under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4(c) was selected as the best method for testing the arm's-length character of the 4.5% royalty rate. The documentation explained why the CUT method was preferred over alternative methods (including the comparable profits method and the profit split method) based on the availability of reliable comparable uncontrolled pharmaceutical license transactions and the degree of comparability between the uncontrolled transactions and the PPC–PBI license.
(c) PMI Manufacturing. The cost-plus method under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-3(d) was selected as the best method for testing the arm's-length character of the cost-plus-8% manufacturing arrangement. The documentation explained that the cost-plus method is the most reliable method where the tested party (PMI) performs routine manufacturing functions, bears limited risk, and does not own significant intangible property.
For each method, the contemporaneous documentation included: identification of the specific method applied; an explanation of why the method was selected as the best method under the facts and circumstances; a description of the data and assumptions used in applying the method; identification of the comparable transactions or comparable companies used; and a presentation of the results of the analysis, including the interquartile range of arm's-length results and the position of the tested transaction within that range.
G. Timely Preparation and Maintenance
PPC's contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation was completed and maintained in PPC's files for each tax year prior to the applicable return filing date, including extensions of time to file, in satisfaction of the timing requirement of Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6(d)(2)(iii). Specifically:
• TY 2017: Contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation was finalized and placed in PPC's files prior to the filing of Form 1120 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2017. PPC's Form 1120 for TY 2017 was filed on extension.
• TY 2018: Contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation was finalized and placed in PPC's files prior to the filing of Form 1120 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2018. PPC's Form 1120 for TY 2018 was filed on extension.
• TY 2019: Contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation was finalized and placed in PPC's files prior to the filing of Form 1120 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2019. PPC's Form 1120 for TY 2019 was filed on extension.
• TY 2020: Contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation was finalized and placed in PPC's files prior to the filing of Form 1120 for the taxable year ending December 31, 2020. PPC's Form 1120 for TY 2020 was filed on extension.
In each case, the documentation was prepared by Crestfield & Associates LLP under the supervision of Susan Lam, CPA, Transfer Pricing Partner, and was reviewed and approved by PPC's tax department. The documentation was maintained in PPC's centralized tax files at PPC's headquarters in Princeton, New Jersey, and was available for inspection at all times following its preparation.
The complete set of contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for all four tax years was produced to the IRS examination team in response to IDR No. 4, dated August 1, 2022, within the timeframe specified in the IDR. At no point during the 16-month examination did the IRS assert or suggest that PPC's contemporaneous documentation was untimely, incomplete, or otherwise deficient in any material respect.
IV. PPC'S REASONABLE CAUSE AND GOOD FAITH
A. Retention of Qualified Professionals
PPC retained and relied upon multiple highly qualified professional advisors in connection with the establishment, maintenance, and reporting of its transfer pricing positions for TY 2017 through 2020. The qualifications, roles, and contributions of each advisor are described below.
1. Crestfield & Associates LLP — Original Transfer Pricing Documentation. Crestfield & Associates LLP is a nationally recognized accounting and advisory firm with an established and deep expertise in transfer pricing analysis, documentation, and compliance. Crestfield has served as PPC's independent auditor since 2010 and has been responsible for the preparation of PPC's consolidated federal income tax returns (Forms 1120) and contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for all years at issue.
Susan Lam, CPA, Transfer Pricing Partner at Crestfield, has extensive and directly relevant experience in the pharmaceutical industry, having served as the lead transfer pricing partner on engagements for numerous major pharmaceutical and life sciences companies. Ms. Lam's qualifications include specialized knowledge of the transfer pricing issues that arise in the context of cost-sharing arrangements, intangible property licensing, and contract manufacturing — precisely the categories of controlled transactions at issue in PPC's case.
PPC provided Crestfield with complete and accurate information regarding all controlled transactions, including intercompany agreements, financial statements, R&D cost pool data, product-level revenue data by territory, operational data for PBI and PMI, and all other facts and data relevant to the preparation of the contemporaneous documentation. PPC's tax department, under the leadership of Marcus Whitfield, VP of Global Tax, served as the principal interface between PPC and Crestfield and was responsible for gathering and transmitting this information.
Crestfield independently analyzed PPC's intercompany arrangements — including the CSA, the legacy IP license, and the PMI manufacturing arrangement — and concluded that each arrangement was consistent with arm's-length standards under IRC § 482 and the applicable Treasury Regulations. Crestfield's conclusions were set forth in the contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation for each year, and PPC relied in good faith on those conclusions in filing its Forms 1120 for TY 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
At no time did PPC direct Crestfield to reach any particular conclusion, request that Crestfield modify its analysis to achieve a predetermined result, or override or disregard any aspect of Crestfield's professional advice.
2. Calderwood & Harkness LLP — Outside Tax Counsel. Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H") was retained by PPC on June 2, 2022, to provide legal counsel and representation in connection with the IRS examination of PPC's transfer pricing positions for TY 2017 through 2020. C&H is an AmLaw 100 law firm with a nationally recognized tax controversy and transfer pricing practice.
The C&H engagement has been led by the following attorneys:
• Leonard Cross, Esq., Responsible Partner. Mr. Cross has 28 years of experience in transfer pricing controversy and international tax matters, with particular emphasis on the pharmaceutical, life sciences, and technology industries. Mr. Cross is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, and has represented numerous large multinational corporations in transfer pricing examinations, IRS Appeals proceedings, and Tax Court litigation.
• Sylvia Hartwell, Esq., Billing Partner. Ms. Hartwell has 22 years of experience in international tax controversy and leads C&H's international tax controversy practice. Ms. Hartwell is licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia, and her practice focuses on cross-border transfer pricing disputes, competent authority proceedings, advance pricing agreements, and related international tax matters.
• Garrett Simmons, Esq., Lead Associate. Mr. Simmons has 7 years of experience and specializes in transfer pricing economic analysis and IRS controversy. Mr. Simmons is licensed to practice law in New York and has served as lead associate on numerous LB&I transfer pricing examinations and Appeals proceedings.
• Leila Nazari, Esq., Working Associate. Ms. Nazari has 4 years of experience and focuses on international tax structuring and controversy support. Ms. Nazari is licensed to practice law in New York and New Jersey.
Following its retention, C&H performed a comprehensive independent review of all transfer pricing positions reported on PPC's Forms 1120 for TY 2017 through 2020. This review encompassed an assessment of the legal and regulatory bases for each position, an evaluation of the economic analyses underlying PPC's transfer pricing methods and results, and a comparison of PPC's positions against applicable case law, IRS guidance, and OECD standards.
C&H's independent legal analysis confirmed the consistency of PPC's transfer pricing positions with the arm's-length standard under IRC § 482 and the applicable Treasury Regulations. Specifically, C&H analyzed and confirmed PPC's compliance with:
(a) the arm's-length standard and best method rule under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(c) and (d);
(b) the qualified cost-sharing arrangement requirements under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7, including the PCT valuation methodology, the RAB share determination, and the cost-pool composition;
(c) the royalty rate methodologies applicable to the legacy IP license under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4, including the selection of the CUT method and the identification and screening of comparable transactions;
(d) the economic substance doctrine as applied to PBI's operations and PPC's intercompany arrangements; and
(e) the contemporaneous documentation requirements under Treasury Regulation § 1.6662-6(d).
C&H's analysis was based on complete and accurate information provided by PPC, including all intercompany agreements, financial data, Crestfield's contemporaneous documentation, PBI and PMI operational records, and all other relevant facts and materials. PPC did not withhold any material information from C&H and did not direct C&H to reach any particular conclusion.
3. Whitmore Valuation Group LLC — Independent Economics Firm. Whitmore Valuation Group LLC ("WVG") was retained under a Kovel arrangement at the direction of Calderwood & Harkness LLP to provide independent economic analyses in connection with the IRS examination and protest proceedings. The Kovel engagement letter was executed on June 20, 2022 (Reference No. 1018-00009-KV), establishing WVG's retention as an agent of C&H for purposes of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. See United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961).
WVG is a leading independent transfer pricing economics firm headquartered at 200 Ashbury Asset Advisors, Suite 700, Boston, MA 02109. The WVG engagement was led by:
• Dr. Helena Vasquez, Ph.D. (Economics), Managing Director. Dr. Vasquez holds a doctorate in economics from a leading research university and has over 18 years of experience in transfer pricing economics, including economic analyses involving pharmaceutical intellectual property, cost-sharing arrangements, and intangible property valuations.
• Dr. Rohan Chakrabarti, Ph.D., Senior Director. Dr. Chakrabarti holds a doctorate in economics and has extensive experience in the application of quantitative economic methods to transfer pricing disputes, including discounted cash flow analyses, royalty rate benchmarking, and comparable company analyses.
WVG billed its services at a blended rate of $650 per hour, and total fees billed through the close of the engagement were $2,146,800. These fees reflect the depth, rigor, and comprehensiveness of WVG's independent economic analyses.
WVG performed the following independent economic analyses, each of which confirmed that PPC's transfer pricing positions are within arm's-length ranges:
(a) CUT Analysis (Legacy IP Royalty Rate). WVG identified 14 comparable uncontrolled pharmaceutical license agreements through a systematic search of public and proprietary databases. After applying appropriate comparability filters — including therapeutic area, stage of development, territory scope, exclusivity, and license duration — WVG determined that the interquartile range of royalty rates in the comparable transactions was 3.1% to 6.8%, with a median of 4.4%. PPC's royalty rate of 4.5% falls squarely within this interquartile range and is virtually at the median of the comparable set, providing strong economic support for the arm's-length character of the rate.
(b) CPM/TNMM Analysis (PBI Operating Margins). WVG tested PBI's operating margins against a benchmarking set of 22 comparable distributors and IP-holding companies using the comparable profits method ("CPM") under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-5 and the transactional net margin method ("TNMM") under the OECD Guidelines. PBI's operating margins fell within the interquartile range of the comparable set in all four years at issue (TY 2017 through 2020), confirming the overall arm's-length character of PBI's profitability.
(c) Income Method / DCF PCT Valuation. WVG performed an independent discounted cash flow ("DCF") analysis of the PCT payment made by PBI at the inception of the CSA, using a WACC of 9.8%. WVG concluded that the arm's-length range for the PCT payment was $278,000,000 to $361,000,000, and that PPC's actual PCT amount of $312,000,000 falls within this range. WVG's WACC of 9.8% was determined based on a detailed analysis of PBI's cost of capital at the inception date, including consideration of market risk premiums, country risk premiums applicable to PBI's non-Americas markets, product-stage risk factors, and other relevant economic parameters. WVG specifically addressed and rejected the IRS's proposed WACC of 7.2%, concluding that the lower rate fails to account adequately for the risk profile of PBI's anticipated revenue streams at the CSA inception date.
PPC provided WVG (through C&H) with complete and accurate data and information, including all financial data, intercompany agreements, product-level revenue data, R&D cost pool details, market analyses, and all other information necessary for WVG to perform its independent economic analyses. WVG's conclusions were reached independently and without any direction from PPC as to the desired outcome.
4. Thornbury & Keogh — Irish Tax Advisors. Thornbury & Keogh ("T&K"), located at 22 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2, D02 YH68, Ireland, served as the Irish tax advisors to PBI and PMI throughout the period at issue. The T&K engagement was led by Ciarán Thornbury, Lead Partner, who has extensive experience in Irish corporate taxation, including the taxation of multinational pharmaceutical operations in Ireland.
T&K provided Irish tax compliance and advisory services to PBI and PMI, including the preparation of Irish corporate tax returns, advisory services with respect to Ireland's Knowledge Development box ("KDB") regime, and coordination with C&H on dual-jurisdiction aspects of the IRS examination. T&K confirmed PBI's compliance with Irish tax law, including:
(a) PBI's claims for the Knowledge Development box at the 6.25% effective rate on qualifying income (applicable from FY 2016 forward), reflecting PBI's performance of qualifying R&D and development activities in Ireland sufficient to support the KDB claim;
(b) PBI's standard trading income taxed at the Irish corporation tax rate of 12.5%; and
(c) PMI's Irish tax compliance, including the reporting of its cost-plus manufacturing income at the standard trading rate.
T&K coordinated with C&H with respect to potential competent authority proceedings under Article 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure) of the U.S.–Ireland Income Tax Convention, in the event that the proposed IRC § 482 adjustments result in double taxation. T&K's Irish coordination fees for the relevant period totaled €312,500 (approximately $341,200 at applicable exchange rates).
B. Quality and Completeness of Information Provided to Advisors
A critical element of the reasonable cause and good faith defense is the quality and completeness of the information provided by the taxpayer to its professional advisors. PPC fully satisfies this requirement.
Throughout the relevant period, PPC — acting through Marcus Whitfield, VP of Global Tax, and his tax department — provided complete and accurate information to all professional advisors retained in connection with PPC's transfer pricing positions. The information provided included, without limitation:
• Complete financial data for PPC, PBI, PMI, and the PPC group, including audited financial statements, management accounts, intercompany settlement records, and bank statements;
• All intercompany agreements, including the CSA agreement, the legacy IP license agreement, the PMI contract manufacturing agreement, and all amendments and supplements thereto;
• Detailed R&D cost pool breakdowns, including identification of all categories of costs included in the qualified cost pool, allocation keys, and supporting documentation for individual cost items;
• Product-level revenue data by territory for Veritaxol, Imvara, Cerulon, and legacy compounds, including historical actuals and forward-looking projections;
• PBI operational data, including headcount by function, office space and facility descriptions, board minutes, organizational charts, regulatory filings, and regulatory expenditure data;
• PMI operational data, including headcount, manufacturing capacity, production volumes, and cost structure; and
• All other facts, documents, and data requested by any advisor in connection with the preparation of transfer pricing documentation, economic analyses, or legal opinions.
No material information was withheld from any advisor, and PPC made its personnel — including Mr. Whitfield, PBI Managing Director Aidan Naughton, and other key executives — available for interviews and consultations as requested by the advisory teams. PPC did not override or disregard any professional advice received from any of the foregoing advisors.
C. Actual Reliance on Professional Advice
The reasonable cause defense requires not only that the taxpayer retained competent advisors and provided them with complete information, but also that the taxpayer actually relied on the advice received. PPC satisfies this requirement.
PPC's transfer pricing positions as reported on its Forms 1120 for TY 2017 through 2020 were based directly on the analysis and conclusions of Crestfield & Associates LLP, as set forth in the contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation prepared by Crestfield for each year. PPC adopted the transfer pricing methods recommended by its qualified advisors — including the RAB methodology for the CSA, the CUT method for the legacy IP royalty, and the cost-plus method for the PMI manufacturing arrangement — and reported the results of those methods on its returns.
Specifically, the CSA cost-sharing ratios (38.2%, 39.6%, 41.1%, and 42.7% for TY 2017 through 2020, respectively), the legacy IP royalty rate of 4.5% of net sales, and the PCT valuation of $312,000,000 were all supported by contemporaneous economic analysis prepared by qualified professionals and were adopted by PPC in reliance on that analysis. PPC did not deviate from its advisors' recommendations in any respect, and PPC's tax returns for all four years at issue reflected the transfer pricing positions recommended by Crestfield.
D. PBI's Economic Substance Supports Good Faith
As further evidence of PPC's good faith in establishing and reporting its transfer pricing positions, PPC established and maintained PBI as a substantive operating entity with genuine business functions, substantial personnel, and meaningful economic activity in Ireland. The economic substance of PBI's operations is directly relevant to the good faith analysis because it demonstrates that PPC's intercompany arrangements were entered into for legitimate business purposes and were not structured solely or primarily to achieve a tax benefit.
The following facts, documented contemporaneously and confirmed during the IRS examination, demonstrate PBI's economic substance:
(a) Personnel and Headcount. PBI maintained a substantial and growing workforce throughout the period at issue. PBI's headcount grew from 52 employees at its establishment in 2012 to 185 employees by the end of 2020. PBI's employees included professionals in regulatory affairs, medical affairs, commercial strategy, supply chain management, market access, pharmacovigilance, and general administration. PBI's employee base represents a genuine operational capability, not merely a nominal presence.
(b) Office Space and Facilities. PBI maintained approximately 18,000 square feet of office space at Claremont House, Sandyford Business Park, Dublin D18 K7T4, Ireland. This office space served as PBI's principal place of business and was adequate for PBI's operational needs.
(c) Management and Governance. PBI was led by Aidan Naughton, Managing Director, who was resident in Ireland and who exercised day-to-day management authority over PBI's operations. PBI held 42 board meetings in Dublin during the period TY 2017 through 2020, consisting of regular quarterly meetings and additional special sessions as warranted by business developments. Board meeting minutes were maintained contemporaneously and were produced to the IRS during the examination.
(d) Regulatory Expenditures. PBI incurred cumulative regulatory expenditures of approximately €47,200,000 across 68 non-Americas country markets during TY 2017 through 2020. These expenditures included costs associated with obtaining and maintaining marketing authorizations, conducting post-marketing surveillance studies, responding to regulatory inquiries, and fulfilling pharmacovigilance obligations.
(e) Independent Business Decisions. PBI made independent pricing decisions for non-Americas markets, selected and managed distribution partners and agents in various countries, negotiated and executed commercial agreements, and bore market risk with respect to the commercialization of products in its territories.
(f) Banking Operations. PBI maintained independent banking operations with Glenmore Bank Ireland plc, including operating accounts, treasury accounts, and cash management facilities separate from PPC's U.S. banking arrangements.
(g) DEMPE Functions. PBI performed meaningful Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, and Exploitation ("DEMPE") functions relevant to the exploitation of intellectual property in non-Americas territories. These functions included oversight of clinical development programs for non-Americas regulatory submissions, enhancement of product labeling and marketing materials for local markets, maintenance of regulatory approvals, management of patent protection and enforcement in non-Americas jurisdictions, and active commercial exploitation of products through PBI's commercial organization.
This substantive operational presence confirms PPC's good faith in treating PBI as a legitimate participant in the CSA and as a bona fide licensee of legacy IP. PBI was not a shell entity or a conduit; it was a genuine operating company with real employees, real functions, and real risks — exactly the type of entity that Congress intended to recognize as a valid counterparty to arm's-length intercompany transactions under IRC § 482.
V. SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO IRS PENALTY ASSERTIONS
A. The Proposed Adjustment Does Not Demonstrate Lack of Reasonable Cause
PPC acknowledges that the IRS has proposed substantial IRC § 482 adjustments for TY 2017 through 2020. However, the existence of a proposed adjustment — even a large one — does not, standing alone, establish that PPC lacked reasonable cause for the positions reported on its returns. This principle is well established in the case law and in the regulatory framework governing transfer pricing penalties.
The IRS's proposed $380,400,000 in net adjustments across TY 2017 through 2020 comprises the following components:
• CSA cost-sharing adjustment: $235,010,000
• Royalty rate adjustment: $188,040,000
• Less: correlative offset: ($42,650,000)
• Net section 482 adjustment: $380,400,000
Each of these proposed adjustments reflects a disagreement between PPC and the IRS over the application of arm's-length methodology to PPC's controlled transactions — not the absence of a methodology. PPC did not ignore the transfer pricing rules, fail to apply a recognized method, or adopt a position unsupported by any economic analysis. To the contrary, PPC applied recognized transfer pricing methods, selected on the basis of the best method rule, and supported by comprehensive contemporaneous documentation and independent economic analyses. The IRS's disagreement with PPC's results does not transform PPC's positions into unreasonable ones.
With respect to the legacy IP royalty rate, the IRS has proposed a royalty rate of 11.0% in place of PPC's 4.5% rate. The IRS's proposed rate is based on a different set of selected comparable uncontrolled transactions than those identified by PPC's independent economist, Whitmore Valuation Group. Notably, the IRS's proposed 11.0% rate falls outside the interquartile range of 3.1% to 6.8% identified by WVG based on 14 comparable uncontrolled pharmaceutical license agreements. This fact demonstrates that the dispute between PPC and the IRS is fundamentally about the selection and weighting of comparable transactions — a quintessentially judgmental exercise on which reasonable professionals may (and frequently do) disagree. The existence of this disagreement does not demonstrate that PPC's rate was unreasonable; if anything, the fact that PPC's 4.5% rate falls within the interquartile range of a robustly constructed comparable set, while the IRS's proposed 11.0% rate does not, supports the conclusion that PPC's position was the more reasonable one.
With respect to the CSA cost-sharing adjustments, the IRS has proposed increased cost-sharing percentages for PBI ranging from 48.2% to 53.7% (compared to PPC's reported percentages of 38.2% to 42.7%). The differences arise from the IRS's use of different revenue projections and benefit allocation methodologies in determining the RAB shares. These are fundamentally technical disputes involving the exercise of economic judgment — the projection of future revenues across different geographic territories, the selection of appropriate growth rates, and the allocation of anticipated benefits among CSA participants. PPC's RAB share determinations were prepared by qualified professionals, were based on contemporaneous revenue data and projections, and were documented in detail. The IRS's disagreement with PPC's projections and methodology does not establish bad faith.
With respect to the PCT valuation, the IRS has proposed a PCT payment of $852,000,000, compared to PPC's actual payment of $312,000,000. The gap between these two amounts — approximately $540,000,000 — is attributable primarily to two factors: (1) a difference in discount rates (the IRS used a WACC of 7.2% while PPC used 9.8%); and (2) differences in revenue projections for PBI's non-Americas territory. Both of these factors are classic areas of judgment in valuation analysis in which reasonable professionals regularly reach materially different conclusions. Discount rate determination involves the assessment of risk premiums, market conditions, and entity-specific factors on which there is no single "correct" answer. Similarly, revenue projections inherently involve assumptions about future market conditions, product adoption rates, competitive dynamics, and regulatory developments that are subject to legitimate differences of opinion. PPC's PCT valuation was performed using widely accepted DCF methodology, applied a WACC that was determined through a rigorous analysis of PBI's risk profile, and was supported by independent economic analysis. The fact that the IRS's economist arrived at a different WACC and different revenue projections does not demonstrate that PPC's analysis was unreasonable.
B. PPC's Methods Were Reasonable and Consistent with Regulatory Standards
PPC's transfer pricing methods were selected and applied in accordance with the regulatory framework governing intercompany transactions under IRC § 482, and each method was supported by a contemporaneous best method rule analysis under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(c) and (d).
For the legacy IP royalty, PPC selected and applied the CUT method under Treasury Regulation § 1.482-4(c). The CUT method is the most direct method for testing the arm's-length character of a royalty rate when reliable uncontrolled comparables are available, and its selection is consistent with the best method rule's preference for methods that provide the most direct and reliable measure of an arm's-length result. PPC's CUT analysis identified 14 comparable uncontrolled pharmaceutical license agreements, and PPC's 4.5% royalty rate is near the median (4.4%) of the interquartile range derived from those comparables. This result provides compelling evidence that PPC's royalty rate is within the arm's-length range.
For the CSA cost-sharing, PPC applied the reasonably anticipated benefits methodology as prescribed by Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7(e). This is the methodology specified by the regulations for allocating costs under a qualified cost-sharing arrangement, and PPC's application of this methodology was consistent with regulatory requirements and supported by detailed revenue projections and benefit allocation analyses.
For the PCT payment, PPC's $312,000,000 amount is within the arm's-length range of $278,000,000 to $361,000,000 determined by Whitmore Valuation Group's independent DCF analysis at a WACC of 9.8%. The fact that the PCT payment falls well within a range determined by independent economic analysis, using a WACC supported by detailed risk analysis, demonstrates the reasonableness of PPC's posi