Royalty rate benchmarking helper
Test a royalty rate against observed agreements and against licensee profit.
Open itThe allocation key decides who pays what, and three defensible keys can produce three very different charges. This runs headcount, revenue and assets across the same pool at once, so you can see the spread before you commit to one.
The costs of the services actually provided, excluding shareholder activities and duplicated work.
The return on the service provider’s own costs. Low-value-adding services are often charged at a modest fixed mark-up; benchmark yours.
Total charge including the mark-up
—
Widest gap between keys, for one entity —
Most management fee disputes are lost on the pool rather than the key. Costs of activities a shareholder performs for its own benefit — preparing consolidated accounts, meeting the parent's listing obligations, financing the acquisition of a subsidiary — are not services to the subsidiary and do not belong in the pool at all. Nor does work that duplicates something the recipient already does for itself.
Once the pool is clean, the key has to reflect the expected benefit. Headcount suits people-related services such as payroll, human resources and internal training. Revenue suits commercial and marketing support. Assets suit treasury, insurance and property services. A single key applied to a mixed pool is the second most common finding after a dirty pool.
The spread column is the point of this tool. Where the three keys land close together, the choice barely matters and any of them is defensible. Where they diverge sharply — typically because one entity is labour-heavy and another is capital-heavy — the key is doing real work, and it needs a reason on paper rather than a convention.
A practical answer for a mixed pool is to split it: allocate the people costs on headcount and the commercial costs on revenue, then add the results. Run this twice on the two sub-pools rather than once on the whole.
Worked example
A 1.2 million pool with a modest mark-up, across four entities. India has by far the largest headcount; the United States has the largest revenue and asset base.
Set every entity’s headcount equal and the headcount column flattens instantly. That is a useful sanity check on whether the key is measuring benefit or just measuring size.
An estimate, not advice. This is an estimate built from what you typed, not advice on your file. Nothing here reads your documents, checks your treaty article or looks at the year you are actually in. Where the number matters, we agree a fixed fee in writing before any work starts.
Any figure prefilled in the panel above is stated with the year it belongs to and can be changed. Rates and thresholds move; a calculator that asks you for the current one stays right, and one that hides a guess does not.
A cross-border return prepared on one side only is usually right in isolation and wrong in combination. The review checks residence, source and relief in that order, and says plainly whether an amendment is worth making.
Read how this one runsEmigrating triggers a deemed disposition of most holdings, which produces tax on gains never realised in cash. The file values the property, identifies what is excluded, and looks at whether security can be posted rather than the tax paid outright.
Read how this one runsCanadian tax-free accounts are not tax-free to a US person, and some of them carry a reporting form of their own. The file is a review of what is held, what each account triggers on the US side, and whether the account is worth keeping once the reporting is priced in.
Read how this one runsUS situs assets sit inside the US estate tax net regardless of where the owner lived, and the exemption available to a non-resident is not the resident one. The file establishes situs asset by asset before any relief is claimed.
Read how this one runsIncome tax relief does not reach a social security charge; only an agreement does, and only against a certificate from the system actually being paid into. Obtaining it is the work, and it is often retrospective.
Read how this one runsFlat withholding applies at source whether or not a return would produce the same figure. The engagement establishes treaty entitlement, files what is needed to claim the reduced rate, and recovers what went out at the domestic rate.
Read how this one runsWhere withholding has already gone out at the full domestic rate, the treaty rate is recovered rather than applied. The file establishes entitlement for each payment, then puts the documentation in place so the following year runs at the correct rate from the start.
Read how this one runsA local file describes the entity's own controlled transactions and ties them to its statutory figures. Where the two do not reconcile, that is what an examiner opens with.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Performance income is taxed where earned — Regulation 105 in Canada, withholding agreements in the U.S. — with special treaty articles overriding the usual rules.
Performance income is taxed where the performance happens, and the deduction is usually taken at source on the gross fee before expenses. Recovering the difference is a filing exercise in the other country, and it only works if the tour, the residency and the withholding certificates were documented while the work was being done.
Test a royalty rate against observed agreements and against licensee profit.
Open itHow this desk handles the work behind the numbers, at a fixed fee agreed before it starts.
Read the pageHow this desk handles the work behind the numbers, at a fixed fee agreed before it starts.
Read the page



Where our partners studied — CPA Canada (In-Depth Tax Program), AICPA, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Malaysian Institute of Accountants.