Transfer Pricing and AI-Generated Intellectual Property
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the global economy, particularly in the creation of intellectual property (IP). Multinational enterprises increasingly rely on AI systems to develop software, design products, generate content, and even create patentable inventions. While these advances offer unprecedented efficiency and innovation, they introduce complex challenges for transfer pricing. Traditional frameworks assume that IP is created and owned by humans, but AI-generated IP blurs these assumptions, raising critical questions about valuation, ownership, risk allocation, and regulatory compliance.
Understanding AI-Generated Intellectual Property
AI-generated IP refers to intangible assets created by AI systems with minimal human intervention. Examples include autonomously written software code, proprietary algorithms, machine learning models, creative content, and unique datasets or insights produced by AI analytics. Unlike conventional IP, ownership and rights over AI-generated creations are often uncertain, varying by jurisdiction.
Some countries recognize only human authorship, while others are beginning to explore AI-inclusive frameworks. For transfer pricing purposes, this uncertainty complicates the allocation of returns, since it is unclear which entity should be compensated for economic contributions made by AI rather than humans.
Challenges in Transfer Pricing of AI-Generated IP
One of the primary challenges lies in ownership and legal personhood. Since AI cannot legally own IP, rights are typically attributed to the entity that owns the AI system, funds its development, or bears the associated economic risk. This raises complex questions for transfer pricing: should the returns be allocated to the operator of the AI, the funder of its development, or shared among multiple entities? Valuation is another difficult area. AI-generated IP often has uncertain and variable commercial potential, and the incremental contribution of AI versus human input is challenging to quantify. Traditional benchmarking approaches may not suffice, and methods such as the profit split or residual profit allocation may provide a more defensible solution. Risk allocation further complicates the picture. Conventional transfer pricing assigns returns based on functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed, but AI challenges these assumptions. It is unclear whether AI should be treated as a valuable asset or merely a tool, who bears the risk of failure or unpredictable outputs, and how to divide profits between AI systems and human contributors.
Misallocation of these risks can expose multinational enterprises to audits and adjustments.
Emerging Approaches in Transfer Pricing for AI-Generated IP
To address these challenges, multinational enterprises are exploring alternative frameworks. The residual profit split approach has emerged as a practical solution for AI-generated IP with few comparables. It allocates profits after providing routine returns to entities performing standard functions, allowing substantial returns to be assigned to contributors of unique AI value. Some companies are also adopting incremental contribution models that attempt to quantify the value created by AI relative to human contributors, ensuring that profit allocation reflects both operational and economic contributions. Transparent documentation has become critical, including details of AI investment, operating costs, training datasets, and the rationale for allocating profits and risks. Maintaining this level of transparency helps mitigate audit risk and supports defensible transfer pricing positions.
Regulatory Outlook and Future Trends
Currently, OECD transfer pricing guidelines treat AI-generated IP under the same principles as traditional IP, but this guidance is evolving as AI becomes more prevalent. Digital economy tax reforms, including BEPS 2.0 and Pillar One, may indirectly affect AI IP, particularly in highly digitalized value chains. Jurisdictional differences also influence how AI contributions are recognized, creating potential compliance and audit risks for multinational enterprises. Regulators are likely to require increasingly detailed disclosure of AI’s role in value creation, forcing companies to quantify, document, and justify AI-driven contributions in their transfer pricing studies.
Practical Considerations for Multinationals
Multinational enterprises must reassess their transfer pricing policies to reflect AI as a functional contributor in FAR (functions, assets, risks) analyses. Flexible profit allocation strategies, such as residual or contribution-based splits, can help accommodate AI-generated IP’s unique characteristics. Maintaining detailed and robust documentation of AI development, operation, and risk management is essential, as is staying informed about evolving regulatory guidance. Scenario planning can further help companies prepare for audits by modeling alternative profit allocation strategies that account for AI contributions.
Conclusion
AI-generated intellectual property is no longer a futuristic concept but a current reality with profound implications for transfer pricing. Traditional frameworks are being challenged, and multinational enterprises must adapt to allocate profits fairly, document contributions rigorously, and defend transfer pricing positions effectively. By embracing flexible allocation models, quantifying AI contributions, and ensuring transparency, businesses can navigate this emerging frontier successfully. The integration of AI into global IP creation is forcing a rethinking of fundamental transfer pricing assumptions, offering both compliance challenges and strategic opportunities for early adopters in the AI-driven global economy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Is AI-Generated Intellectual Property in Transfer Pricing
+
AI-generated intellectual property refers to intangible assets created mainly by AI systems with limited human input. Examples include algorithms, software code, machine learning models, datasets, analytics outputs, and AI-generated content. In transfer pricing, this type of IP is broadly treated like traditional IP, but attribution of ownership and entitlement to returns is more complex because the “creator” is a non-legal person. Multinational enterprises must therefore focus on who funds, develops, controls, and exploits the AI to determine which entities should earn the associated income.
How Does AI Affect Transfer Pricing of Intellectual Property
+
AI changes transfer pricing by blurring traditional assumptions about human creators and clear legal owners of IP. In many value chains, AI systems, cloud infrastructure, and data now drive a large share of profits. This raises new questions about which entity should earn the IP return: the owner of the AI platform, the entity that funds development, the operator that runs the models, or the local teams that provide data and business know-how. As a result, profit allocation, choice of method, and risk analysis become more sensitive, and simple one-sided benchmarks may no longer reflect the true pattern of value creation.
Who Owns AI-Generated IP for Transfer Pricing Purposes
+
Since AI systems cannot legally own IP, rights are attributed to the human or legal persons behind them. For transfer pricing, this usually means the group entities that fund, develop, control, and exploit the AI and its outputs. In practice, tax authorities look at who performs and controls key DEMPE functions (development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation) for the AI and related assets. If the legal owner does not control these activities or bear the key risks, a significant part of the returns may be reallocated to the entities that actually perform those functions.
How Do You Value AI-Generated IP in Transfer Pricing
+
Valuing AI-generated IP is difficult because it often has scalable, uncertain returns and few reliable comparables. Traditional benchmarking using simple margins may not capture the real value of AI models and data. In practice, multinationals increasingly use methods such as residual profit split, contribution analysis, and scenario-based valuation. These methods allow routine returns for standard functions, then allocate the remaining profit to entities that contribute unique AI-related assets, data, and decision-making capabilities. Clear documentation of the assumptions and value drivers is essential to support these valuations.
What Transfer Pricing Methods Work Best for AI-Generated IP
+
Where AI-generated IP is unique and there are few comparables, profit split methods are often more suitable than traditional one-sided methods. The residual profit split approach is particularly useful: routine returns are first granted to distributors, service providers, or contract developers, and the residual profit is then split between entities that provide unique contributions such as AI platforms, critical datasets, and specialized human expertise. Contribution-based models that estimate the incremental effect of AI versus human activity can also support a defensible allocation of profits in complex digital business models.
What Documentation Is Needed for AI-Related Transfer Pricing
+
For AI-related transfer pricing, companies need to document far more than just legal ownership of IP. Key items include descriptions of AI systems and use cases, who designs and trains the models, who provides and curates data, how development and operating costs are funded, and which entities control key decisions and bear the associated risks. The transfer pricing file should also explain the chosen method, the basis for any profit split or contribution analysis, and any scenario planning performed. Robust, transparent documentation will be critical as tax authorities increasingly focus on AI’s role in value creation and challenge unsupported allocations of digital profits.
To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com
Contact Us
