Does legal ownership of intangibles and intellectual properties equate to economic ownership?

SF
Spruson & Ferguson

Contributor

Established in 1887, Spruson & Ferguson is a leading intellectual property (IP) service provider in the Asia-Pacific region, with offices in Australia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. They offer high-quality services to clients and are part of the IPH Limited group, which includes various professional service firms operating under different brands in multiple jurisdictions. Spruson & Ferguson is an incorporated entity owned by IPH Limited, with a strong presence in the industry.
Examination of OECD guidelines related to intangibles & IP, including entitlement of the legal owner to the associated profits.
Australia Intellectual Property

Many multinational groups have a corporate structure that includes an 'IP holding' company located in a no/low tax jurisdiction, such as Singapore or Ireland. This type of arrangement (which is generally based on a suite of legal agreements between the members of the group) often has the IP holding company as the legal owner of the IP, with royalties or licence fees associated with the use of the IP flowing back initially to the IP holding company.

Does this sound familiar?

In this chapter, Glasshouse Advisory examines the new 2017 OECD guidelines related to intangibles and IP, and consider why the legal owner of these assets is not necessarily entitled to the profits associated with the use of the intangible asset or IP.
Click here to access the full article.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More