Technology licences, intellectual property and stablecoins
A French company charges a foreign affiliate EUR480,000 a year for access to protocol code, a brand and compliance tools used to operate a stablecoin. The agreement calls the package a “technology licence”. That label does not determine the arm’s length charge. The tax director first needs to identify each right being granted and then establish who actually makes the decisions that maintain and develop those assets.
This article addresses transfer pricing for a licence between associated enterprises. It does not determine whether a stablecoin may be issued in a particular country or how a token should be accounted for. Those questions require separate analyses.
Describe the rights before looking for a rate
A licence may cover source code, APIs, documentation, trademarks, domain names, key-management tools, monitoring engines and operating know-how. For each item, the file should record the term, territory, exclusivity, modification rights, sublicensing rights and update obligations.
This prevents a team from comparing agreements that share a title while granting different economic opportunities. A twelve-month, non-exclusive right to use an API is not comparable with an exclusive territorial licence that includes source-code access, local adaptation and sublicensing.
Chapter VI of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines requires the analysis to identify the intangibles used or transferred, the contracts, the significant risks and the parties performing the relevant functions. It also treats the underlying intangible and a licence to use it as separate intangibles. The agreement is therefore a starting point, rather than the answer.
Connect legal ownership to actual decisions
The company registered as owner of the code or trademark may receive the royalty. It does not necessarily retain the full economic return. Under the OECD guidance, legal ownership alone does not allocate that return. The analysis must consider the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed in developing, enhancing, maintaining, protecting and exploiting the intangible.
For stablecoin infrastructure, the file can track specific decisions: who approves the architecture and releases; who controls security audits; who decides on a patch after an incident; who manages trademark filings; who sets development priorities; who bears the cost of failure; and who can stop or replace a supplier? An entity that merely funds expenditure does not perform the same role as the team directing the programme.
French tax guidance places the functional analysis before the selection of the method and price. It asks the company to identify functions, risks, assets and operating resources, including the licensing or provision of intangibles. For a French company, this work supports the application of Article 57 of the French Tax Code to cross-border dealings between associated enterprises.
A numerical case: separate the licence from services
Assume that the affiliate earns EUR8 million of revenue from the solution. It pays 6% of revenue, or EUR480,000. The French company also provides support and monitoring staff for EUR220,000. The combined charge is EUR700,000.
The calculation EUR8,000,000 × 6% = EUR480,000 confirms that the rate was applied correctly. It does not show that 6% is arm’s length. The file should explain the base, the licensed rights, the comparables and the adjustments. It should also avoid paying twice for the same contribution. If the royalty already covers updates and monitoring, a service charge for the same work creates an overlap that needs investigation.
Conversely, putting every flow into one royalty can conceal distinct services. Day-to-day support, hosting, transaction monitoring and the right to exploit technology may have different cost bases, risks and comparable transactions.
Build the decision file
The BECTRA deliverable is a contract–functions–remuneration matrix. For each right or service, it connects:
• the agreement and relevant clause;
• the entity holding legal title;
• the people making and documenting the important decisions;
• the costs, assets and risks borne;
• the controlled transaction and proposed method; and
• the evidence to retain, including minutes, roadmaps, budgets, audits, incident tickets and IP registrations.
The matrix should make unresolved points visible. If an agreement allocates control to one company while decisions are taken elsewhere, management needs to correct the agreement, the conduct or the remuneration. A royalty benchmark cannot repair that inconsistency.
Select the method after delineating the transaction
A comparable uncontrolled price approach may work where sufficiently similar licences exist and differences in territory, exclusivity, duration and functions can be adjusted reliably. In other cases, integrated contributions or a lack of reliable comparables may require a transactional margin method or a profit split to be considered. The facts drive that choice; there is no standard stablecoin-technology royalty in this article.
Hard-to-value intangibles require particular care over the forecasts and assumptions available when the transaction is agreed. Later results should not be treated mechanically as if they had been certain from the outset, although they may inform an assessment of the ex ante assumptions where the applicable rules permit it.
Conclusion
Before approving a technology royalty, management should be able to answer three questions with evidence: which rights are granted, who controls the functions that create or preserve their value, and which transaction remunerates each contribution? The rate comes afterwards. In this case, the practical decision is to approve the matrix and remove any overlap between the EUR480,000 licence charge and EUR220,000 service fee.
Further reading
Sources
Official sources reviewed on 4 November 2026. The numerical case and matrix are BECTRA analysis.
Comments