In 2005, Amazon entered into a CSA with AEHT, which wanted to be a qualified cost-sharing agreement (QCSA) under Regs. by. 1.482-7 (a) (1). The agreement required AEHT to prepay “buy-in” to compensate Amazon for the value of intangible assets that were to be transferred to AEHT. In a series of transactions in 2005 and 2006, Amazon transferred three groups of intangible assets to AEHT: (1) the software and other technologies needed to operate Amazon`s European websites, fulfillment centers and related business activities (website technology); (2) the marketing of intangible assets, including trademarks, trade names and domain names relevant to the European business (marketing of intangible assets); and (3) customer lists and other information about Amazon`s European customer base (customer information). In addition to the buy-in payment, the agreement required AEHT to pay an annual shared fee to compensate Amazon for the current IDCs, as these IDCs benefited AEHT. The Tax Court found that the IS`s conclusion that the IRS, using a discount cash flow (DCF) method, was the value of a buy-in for the Cost-Sharing Agreement (CSA) for Amazon .com transfer of the right to use certain existing intangible assets in Europe to its Luxembourg subsidiary was arbitrary, whimsical and inappropriate. In addition, the IRS abused its discretion to find that 100% of the costs accumulated at one of Amazon`s cost points were intangible development costs (IDCs) to be taken into account when calculating cost-share. The typical assets transferred with the company are: in order to remedy the shortcomings of the Safe Harbor Agreement, Privacy Shield has proposed a series of improved safeguards and security measures for European data.
They called on U.S. companies to adopt data protection policies with specific obligations to guarantee individual rights. The U.S. government has also provided new assurances and dispute resolution mechanisms for Europeans. The ECJ felt that all of this was not enough. We recently approached Amazon to specifically request bank transfers and if possible. In response, we received a resounding “yes” with instructions to do so. The case was “Data Protection Commissioner against Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems”. Schrems is an Austrian data protection lawyer who has sued Facebook several times and argued that his personal data is vulnerable to state surveillance if it is transferred to Facebook`s US servers.
Why it`s important to us. Any US company that does business with EU citizens must respect the RGPD in the way it collects and processes user data. But that`s not enough; That is probably the case — without any major changes in the United States.