Norvex Medical Australia: Global Mandate, Local Opportunity, ATO Query
Norvex Medical Australia is the local subsidiary of a German medical technology group: AUD 480 million revenue and 620 staff, split between capital equipment sales, service contracts (41% of revenue but 61% of profit) and consumables.
The parent has moved to a global product-line P&L. From January the Australian managing director loses authority over pricing and product mix, with regional decisions moving to a Singapore hub. The parent sets the transfer price on imported devices on a cost-plus basis, and the Australian Taxation Office has issued a position paper contending the local entity should earn a higher return given it bears installation, clinical training and post-market surveillance risk.
Locally, the MD sees an opening: Australia's aged-care sector is being pushed to digitise medication management, and three hospital groups have asked Norvex for a locally integrated aged-care solution. The parent's global roadmap does not include it until 2028. The two largest private hospital customers now require Scope 3 emissions data and modern slavery assurance in every tender, and both are scored criteria.
1. Where does Norvex Australia sit on the integration–responsiveness grid now, and where should it sit? Make the case for the aged-care investment in terms the parent will accept.
Read the worked answer
Current position: global. Cost-plus transfer pricing, a global product-line P&L and a Singapore hub that removes local pricing authority all push toward high integration and low local responsiveness. The problem is that this posture contradicts where the profit actually is: service is 41% of revenue but 61% of profit, and service profit is generated by local clinical relationships, local field engineers and local regulatory knowledge - none of which a Singapore hub can source centrally.
Target position: transnational, not multidomestic. Do not argue for autonomy. The parent's legitimate fear is fragmentation and duplicated R&D. Argue for a bounded, governed exception.
The case to make, in the parent's language:
- Self-funded. The aged-care solution is funded from the Australian service P&L, not from group R&D, with a defined payback and a stage gate.
- Option value, not local special pleading. Australia's aged-care digitisation is a template for other ageing populations in the group's markets. Frame it as a market experiment that de-risks a 2028 roadmap entry rather than as a request to deviate from it.
- Protects the margin the parent wants. Centralising pricing on a business whose profit is service-derived erodes the return the parent is trying to capture.
Governance: a named sponsor at group level, quarterly stage-gate review, and an explicit agreement that if the template works, the IP and the model transfer to the group - which converts a local initiative into a group asset and removes the fragmentation objection.
2. Advise the CFO on managing the ATO transfer pricing position: what the Australian entity should do, and what it must not do, before responding.
Read the worked answer
Substance of the position. The question is whether cost-plus on imported devices is arm's length given the functions, assets and risks the Australian entity performs and bears. If it genuinely bears product liability exposure, inventory risk, clinical training and post-market surveillance, a routine cost-plus return on a narrow cost base arguably does not reflect that. Australia's transfer pricing rules in Subdivision 815-B of ITAA 1997 apply the arm's length principle, and the ATO can also consider whether the actual arrangement is commercially rational.
Do now: commission a benchmarking study - a transactional net margin approach using comparable medical-device distributors, with the tested party and profit-level indicator stated up front. Quantify the exposure, including shortfall penalties. Consider whether a bilateral APA with Germany is worth pursuing: it buys certainty and removes double taxation, but takes 12 to 18 months and requires the parent's cooperation.
Do not: backdate documentation, adjust prior-year accounts to fit the ATO's position, or let the parent dictate the Australian response. Producing documentation that post-dates the transactions destroys the reasonable-care defence and converts a penalty discussion into a credibility problem.
Governance point the CFO must raise at board level. Australian directors owe duties to the Australian entity, including its tax position, and there is a genuine conflict between group interest and local interest here. Any instruction from the parent on how to respond should be minuted, and the board should record its own independent conclusion.
Extend the scope. The Singapore hub's regional service charge will itself need to be arm's length and will further reduce Australian profit. A joint submission covering both the import price and the hub charge is stronger than defending them one at a time.
3. The private hospital groups now score Scope 3 emissions and modern slavery assurance in tenders. Recommend how the subsidiary should respond, given it cannot change group-level emissions.
Read the worked answer
Wrong instinct: treat this as a group problem and respond with a letter from the parent. Scored criteria are lost by poor responses, not only by poor performance. Many hospital tenders score the quality and verifiability of the response.
What is in local control:
- Product-level lifecycle data - equipment energy consumption, take-back and refurbishment programs. A circular take-back offer directly reduces the customer's Scope 3 footprint and is commercially attractive on its own terms.
- Modern slavery mapping - if consolidated revenue exceeds the Modern Slavery Act 2018 threshold, the group is already a reporting entity. The Australian entity can provide an extract and supplier mapping rather than a promise.
- Transition plan for the local fleet and service network.
What is not in control: group manufacturing emissions. Say so plainly and provide the group's published target and assurance route rather than an implied local commitment.
Greenwashing is the real risk. Overstating sustainability performance can breach the misleading-conduct provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. Every claim in a tender response must be traceable to evidence the customer could audit.
Escalate commercially, not morally. Take the tender scoring criteria and the revenue at risk from the two hospital groups to the parent's sustainability function as a quantified customer requirement, not as an ethical request. Assign named accountability locally and report progress to the Australian board quarterly, because this is now a revenue criterion and belongs in management reporting, not only in a sustainability appendix.