View Single Post
Old 05-23-2016, 08:32 AM   #18
Froide
Wizard
Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Froide ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Froide's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,898
Karma: 9851695
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Noo Yawk
Device: Samsung Galaxy and Windows devices. RIP: Palm & Nook devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres View Post
Self-dealing can be legal in cases were the units charge each other fair market rates, say for translation rights. It is not legal when used to artificially lower royalties (Harlequin case).
It is legal but politically charged to do it for tax minimization (done by practically all manufacturing multinationals, especially car companies).
Regarding the first - LEGALLY PERMITTED transfer pricing - scenario - yes, I'm well aware of this (and even provided oversight for transfer pricing among the various ventures, at a regulated firm I once worked at). It does happen in manufacturing multinationals and in automotive firms (as you pointed out), as well in all vertically integrated, and even horizontally integrated, firms, whether they operated domestically or internationally.

Regarding the second - SEEMINGLY SHADY- scenario - I reiterate my earlier statement, because the self-dealing in this case appears underhanded and may be similar to that in the Harlequin case.

Last edited by Froide; 05-23-2016 at 08:39 AM.
Froide is offline   Reply With Quote