Canada: Case Comment: GlaxoSmithKline Inc. (FCA) - Elusive Valuations of Bundled Transactions: Defining a Standard of Reasonableness in Transfer Pricing

Last Updated: August 6 2010
Article by Colleen McMullin

Most Read Contributor in Canada, October 2018


The task of making valuations for transfer pricing involving bundled transactions has always been a daunting one. Placing dollar figures on exchanges between related companies for transactions incorporating a combination of goods, services, and intangibles is a considerable challenge for even the most well-versed tax practitioners.

Adding to the difficulty of making accurate assessments of these transactions is the unavailability of appropriate comparators. Often, due to the uniqueness and the exclusive nature of the combination being exchanged between non-arm's length companies (especially in the case of intellectual property rights), finding the "fair market value" may be impossible to do with any precision.

In the Federal Court of Appeal's recent decision, GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen1, light was shed on the standard of reasonableness to be applied to such transfer pricing cases. The Court acknowledged that determinations of what is "reasonable" cannot be reduced to mechanized, formulaic assessments. The real-world business circumstances in which corporations operate should not be divorced from evaluations of whether or not the transfer prices paid were reasonable. To allow otherwise would be to condone a specious appraisal of fair market value in lieu of a genuine acknowledgement of the conditions under which multinational entities do business.


Transfer pricing is defined as "the price that a member of a multinational group charges a foreign related party for goods, services and/or intangibles."2 With increasing globalization, the Canada Revenue Agency (the "CRA"), along with taxing authorities in other countries, has grown concerned by the potential for members of multinational entities ("MNEs") to erode the tax base by transferring profits to jurisdictions with lower tax rates, or to entities that have previously suffered losses.3

In an effort to combat these downward forces on the tax base, government authorities in Canada have established transfer pricing regulations that seek to ensure transfer pricing is not used as a mechanism for tax avoidance by MNEs. Where the CRA determines that a company has priced an inter-company transaction artificially low or high, it can reassess the transaction and in some instances impose a penalty equal to 10% of the transfer pricing adjustment.4

In order to decrease the potential for CRA scrutiny, the prices paid for goods, services and intangible assets, exchanged between related entities, should accurately reflect arm's length standards.5 Difficulty arises in making determinations of what price would prevail in the market in situations where the goods, services, or assets being exchanged are not made available to independent third parties. A further complication is that transfer pricing often involves "bundled transactions", scenarios in which a number of transactions for an assortment of goods, services, and intangibles are combined.6

In GlaxoSmithKline Inc., the issue under appeal involved the reasonableness of a transfer pricing arrangement for such a bundled transaction in the context of the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, the court had to determine the legal standard mandated by the former section 69(2) of the Income Tax Act ("ITA"), and delineate the factors that are properly included in an inquiry into what was "reasonable in the circumstances."7


GlaxoSmithKline Inc. ("Glaxo Canada") was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Glaxo Group, which was itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Glaxo Holdings plc. Both parent companies were United Kingdom corporations. Glaxo Holdings was "the ultimate parent of the Glaxo Group of companies ('Glaxo World companies')," which "discovered, developed, manufactured and distributed a number of branded pharmaceutical products."8

During the time material to the appeal, Glaxo Canada sold Zantac, a patented and trade-marked drug prescribed to treat stomach ulcers, in Canada. The active ingredient in Zantac, ranitidine, as well as the Zantac trade-mark, were owned by Glaxo Group, but were licensed to Glaxo Canada for their domestic use.9

The manufacturing of ranitidine was handled by two foreign companies within the Glaxo World companies and sold to Adechsa SA ("Adechsa"), a Swiss resident Glaxo World clearing company. The Swiss company in turn sold it to Glaxo Canada for an amount between $1512 and $1651 per kilogram.10 The transfer price paid by Glaxo Canada was determined according to the "resale-price method". According to this system of pricing, Glaxo World and its distributors agreed that a gross margin of 60 percent would be retained by the distributors, and the ranitidine would be priced accordingly. The starting point for determining the price the distributor would pay was the in-market price for the finished ranitidine product. The lower court used a simplified example to demonstrate this mechanism of price setting: "if the ranitidine product was sold for $10 in Italy, the transfer price would be $4; if the ranitidine product was sold for $20 in France, the transfer price would be $8."11

Elements of the Appeal

At the crux of the appeal were two contractual agreements. The first was a Supply Agreement between Glaxo Canada and Adechsa for the purchase of ranitidine. The second was a License Agreement between Glaxo Canada and the Glaxo Group. Pursuant to the latter agreement, Glaxo Canada paid a 6% royalty on its net sales of Zantac and other drugs in exchange for the following from the Glaxo Group:

  1. the right to manufacture, use and sell products;
  2. the right to the use of the trademarks owned by Glaxo Group, including Zantac;
  3. the right to receive technical assistance for its secondary manufacturing requirements;
  4. the use of the registration materials prepared by Glaxo Group, to be adapted to the Canadian Environment and submitted to the Health Protection Branch ("HPB");
  5. access to new products, including line extensions;
  6. access to improvement in drugs;
  7. the right to have a Glaxo World company sell [it] any raw materials;
  8. marketing support; and
  9. indemnification against damages arising from patent infringement actions.12

The Objection of the Minister

At all times relevant to the appeal, two Canadian generic pharmaceutical companies, Apotex Inc. and Novophram Ltd., purchased their rantidine from arm's length suppliers for an amount between $194 and $304 per kilogram. These prices were, at minimum, $1208 per kilo lower than the rantidine bought by Glaxo Canada from Adechsa.13 The CRA reassessed Glaxo Canada for the taxation years 1990 through 1993 on the basis that it had overpaid Adechsa for the purchase of the drug.14 Under subsection 69(2) of the ITA, the Minister of National Revenue increased Glaxo Canada's income by the difference between the price paid by the generic companies for their ranitidine and that paid by Glaxo Canada for its ranitidine. Further, the Minister asserted Part XIII of the Act against Glaxo Canada for its failure to withhold tax on dividends deemed to be paid to a non-resident shareholder pursuant to subsections 56(2), 212(2) and 214(3) of the ITA.15

The results of the Part XIII assessment hinged on the findings of the assessment under subsection 69(2), namely, "whether the prices paid by Glaxo Canada to Adechsa for ranitidine would have been reasonable in the circumstances if Glaxo Canada and Adechsa had been dealing at arm's length."16 The wording of that subsection follows:

69. (2)  Where a taxpayer has paid or agreed to pay to a non-resident person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm's length as price, rental, royalty or other payment for or for the use or reproduction of any amount greater than the amount (in this subsection referred to as "the reasonable amount") that would have been reasonable in the circumstances if the non-resident person and the taxpayer had been dealing at arm's length, the reasonable amount shall, for the purpose of computing the taxpayer's income under this Part, be deemed to have been the amount that was paid or is payable therefor.17

[Emphasis added]

If it was found that Glaxo Canada did pay a reasonable amount in the circumstances, then the grounds for assessing the withholding tax would fail as the provisions deeming the payment of a dividend would cease to apply.

Position of The Crown

The Crown asserted that the only agreement that should be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the transfer price was the Supply Agreement – the License Agreement, in its opinion, should be ignored. If accepted, this would effectively shut the door on any effort by Glaxo Canada to rely upon the goodwill value of the Zantac trademarks or the regulatory approval and marketing assistance received from Glaxo World as justification for the price disparity between the amount it paid for rantidine versus the amount paid by the generic companies. This is so because all intangibles were dealt with in the License Agreement. If it were excluded from an assessment of the reasonableness of the transfer price, all benefits conferred therein to Glaxo Canada would not be considered.

The Crown further alleged that even if the License Agreement and the Supply Agreement were taken together, Glaxo Canada failed to prove that a party transacting at arm's length would have paid the same amount for the right to sell Zantac in Canada.18

Position of Glaxo Canada

Glaxo Canada argued that an inquiry under subsection 69(2) requires a trier of fact "to assess whether any reasonable business person, standing in [Glaxo Canada]'s shoes but dealing at arm's length with Adechsa, would have paid the amount paid by [Glaxo Canada]."19 Glaxo Canada insisted that the determination is more involved than simply declaring any price above that of fair market value to be "unreasonable". It demands an analysis of the business circumstances surrounding the transaction.20

As Glaxo Canada asserted, and the Court ultimately agreed, to ignore the License Agreement would be to create "a fictitious business world where a purchaser is able to purchase ranitidine at a price which does not take into account the circumstances which make it possible for that purchaser to obtain the rights to make and sell Zantac."21 As no arm's length party could sell Zantac-branded products without the existence of a License Agreement, it would be improper to exclude it from an analysis of what was "reasonable in the circumstances".22

Decision of the Court

The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the contention that the License Agreement should be ignored. It decided that a determination of whether or not the purchase price of the ranitidine was reasonable would need to factor in all relevant circumstances which an arm's length purchaser would have had to consider. In coming to this conclusion, the Court relied on the test enunciated in Gabco Limited v. Minister of National Revenue:23

It is not a question of the Minister or this Court substituting its judgment for what is a reasonable amount to pay, but rather a case of the Minister or the Court coming to the conclusion that no reasonable business man would have contracted to pay such an amount having only the business considerations of the appellant in mind.

[Emphasis added]

The Court correctly emphasized that "the test mandated by subsection 69(2) does not operate regardless of the real business world in which the parties to the transaction participate."24

Even if Glaxo Canada and Adechsa had been transacting at arm's length, the Court outlined a number of crucial "circumstances" that would have existed regardless of the parties' relation to each other. These circumstances "arose from the market power attaching to Glaxo Group's ownership of the intellectual property associated with ranitidine, the Zantac trademark, and the other products covered by its License Agreement with Glaxo Canada."25 Any arm's length party would have consequently had to consider the contents of the License Agreement in deciding whether or not to pay the price asked for by Adechsa for the sale of Zantac ranitidine.


The Federal Court of Appeal accepted that there is no magic formula in determining whether or not a transfer price paid between related entities is reasonable. The totality of circumstances that would factor into any purchaser's decision must be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn; to accept less would be to turn a blind eye to the real-world circumstances in which such contracts are made. In the case of Glaxo Canada, it obtained the active ingredient ranitidine in conjunction with a license for various rights to Glaxo products including the right to sell Zantac branded products. In the Courts view the value of the license should not be considered seperately from the cost of the ranitidine. The Court acknowledged that significant brand power existed in the trademarked drug and, as a result, could afford the Glaxo Group a great deal of latitude in its transfer pricing demands. The favourable bargaining position of the Glaxo Group existed because of its ownership of the intangibles contained under the License Agreement. This was so regardless of whether it was transacting with a subsidiary or an arm's length party.


1. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. Canada 2010 FCA 201.

2. Dale Hill & Mark Kirkey, "Recent Developments in Trasfer Pricing" (2005) Gowlings Knowledge Centre at 1.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Dale C. Hill & Jamal Hejazi, "Transfer Pricing and the Pharmaceutical Industry: 2006 in Review" (2007) Gowlings Knoweldge Centre at 10.

6. Supra note 2 at 4.

7. Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.).

8. Supra note 1 at para. 7.

9. Ibid. at para. 9.

10. Ibid. at para. 1.

11. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 324 at para. 47.

12. Supra note 1 at para. 16.

13. Ibid. at para. 1.

14. Ibid. at para. 17.

15. Ibid. at para. 2.

16. Ibid. at para. 23.

17. Supra note 7 at s. 69(2).

18. Supra note 1 at para. 47 and para. 51.

19. Ibid. at para. 40.

20. Ibid. at para. 41.

21. Ibid. at para. 78.

22. Ibid.  at para. 42.

23. Gabco Limited v. Minister of National Revenue (1968), 68 D.T.C. 5210 (Ex.Cr.) at 5216.

24. Supra note 1 at para. 74.

25. Ibid. at para. 80.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions