# AeThex IP Management & Governance Framework

## Executive Summary

The AeThex organizational structure implements a centralized IP holding company (IPCo) model where Labs acts as the IP owner, licensing proprietary technology to operational subsidiaries (Corp, Dev-Link) and the Foundation via formal agreements. This framework ensures clean IP ownership, maximizes valuation, manages tax efficiency through transfer pricing, and maintains compliance with related-party transaction rules.

## 1. Labs as IP Holding Company (IPCo)

All core intellectual property developed by Labs is owned by Labs, including:

- Patent portfolios (AI, algorithms, architectures)
- Software copyrights and source code
- Trade secrets and proprietary methodologies
- Trademarks and brand assets

**Benefits:**

- **Clean IP Title**: Consolidated, encumbrance-free IP ownership improves enterprise valuation
- **Protection**: IP separated from operational liabilities (Corp consulting disputes, Dev-Link platform issues)
- **Management**: Centralized IP portfolio administration across subsidiaries
- **Tax Efficiency**: Enables transfer pricing strategies and licensing revenue optimization

## 2. Labs → Corp: Commercial Licensing Agreement

### Commercial Technology License

Corp receives a Commercial License to "make and use" proprietary Lab technologies in commercial service delivery, specifically:

- Advanced AI models for game development optimization
- Custom algorithms for multiplayer architecture
- Tools and frameworks created through R&D

### Mechanics

- **Formal Written Agreement**: Mandatory documentation of rights, restrictions, and payment terms
- **Scope**: Right to integrate Labs IP into consulting deliverables and products for paying clients
- **Exclusivity**: Non-exclusive (Labs may license to Dev-Link or external parties)
- **Term**: Multi-year with renewal options

### Royalty Structure (Transfer Pricing)

Licensing fees from Corp to Labs must comply with the **Arm's Length Principle**—pricing comparable to unrelated companies in similar circumstances.

#### Value-Based Pricing Model

For unique intangibles (advanced AI), cost-plus pricing is insufficient. Instead:

1. **Economic Value Uplift**: Measure how Lab IP enables Corp to charge premium rates

   - Example: If Lab AI enables Corp to charge 30% premium for specialized dev services, royalty should reflect that uplift
   - Comparable: Industry benchmarks for AI licensing typically 15-25% of incremental revenue

2. **Benchmarking**: Document comparable third-party licensing rates for similar technologies

3. **Documentation**: Maintain detailed transfer pricing study with:
   - Functional analysis (what each entity does)
   - Economic analysis (value creation from IP)
   - Comparable pricing analysis
   - Selection of transfer pricing method

### Example Royalty Model

```
Labs AI licensing to Corp:
- 18-22% of gross revenue from projects using Lab IP
- Minimum annual royalty: $500K
- Quarterly true-up reconciliation
- Annually reviewed for market value updates
```

## 3. Labs → Dev-Link: Licensing for Platform Features

Dev-Link platform may license Lab IP for:

- AI-assisted candidate assessment and matching
- Specialized skill evaluation algorithms
- Predictive analytics for placement success

### Licensing Terms

- **Usage-Based**: Royalty per successful placement (SaaS unit economics)
- **Tiered**: Higher rates for higher-volume usage
- **Fair Market Value**: Tied to cost-per-acquisition (CAC) savings to recruiters

Example: If Lab AI reduces CAC by $500 per hire, royalty of $100-150 per placement is defensible.

## 4. Transfer Pricing for Intercompany Services

Beyond IP licensing, subsidiaries share services (HR, payroll, IT, accounting). All must be priced at Arm's Length.

### Routine Service Pricing (Simplified Cost-Based Method)

For routine administrative services, use **Simplified Cost-Based Method (SCM)**:

```
Charge = Actual Costs + Markup (typically 5-15%)
```

**Eligible Services:**

- HR administration, payroll processing
- IT infrastructure and support
- General accounting and bookkeeping
- Legal documentation review

**Requirements:**

- Clearly define which activities qualify
- Meticulously track direct costs
- Document markup selection (compare to similar service providers)
- Revisit annually for continued compliance

### Documentation

Maintain **Intercompany Service Agreement** including:

- Services provided
- Cost allocation methodology
- Markup rationale
- Annual cost reconciliation

## 5. Foundation-Related Transfers (Related-Party Safeguards)

The Foundation may receive services or assets from Corp/Dev-Link. **All must be at Fair Market Value (FMV)** to prevent private inurement and preserve 501(c)(3) status.

### Examples of Related-Party Transactions

1. **Corp provides office space to Foundation**

   - Must charge Fair Market Rent (comparable leases in area)
   - Document: Annual appraisal or comparable rent analysis
   - Forbidden: Below-market lease = private inurement

2. **Corp donates curriculum materials to Foundation**

   - Document as charitable contribution
   - Fair value: Cost of development + reasonable markup
   - Record in Foundation's fund accounting system

3. **Foundation leases servers from Corp**
   - Must charge market-rate cloud infrastructure pricing
   - Forbidden: Cost-based pricing (too favorable to Foundation)
   - Analyze: AWS/GCP pricing for equivalent services

### Conflict of Interest Policy

Foundation must adopt and enforce a Conflict of Interest Policy including:

- Board members declare conflicts with related for-profit entities
- Disclosure of family/business relationships with Corp/Dev-Link executives
- Voting restrictions: Conflicted directors abstain on related-party votes
- Annual certification and review

**Key Rule**: Any director who derives financial benefit from transaction recuses themselves from approval.

## 6. Fair Market Value (FMV) Determination

### Methodology

**For Technology Licensing (Labs IP):**

- Comparable License Analysis (market rates for similar IP)
- Relief-from-Royalty (value of IP to users)
- Residual Profit Split (allocate profit between Lab innovation and operational execution)

**For Services:**

- Comparable Uncontrolled Price (market rates for same services)
- Cost-Plus Analysis (cost + reasonable markup)
- Resale Price Method (if service is resold externally)

### Documentation Requirements

For each significant related-party transaction:

```
- Description of transaction
- FMV determination method used
- Comparable benchmarks cited
- Calculation and rationale
- Supporting documentation (appraisals, market analysis, etc.)
- Board approval and minutes
- Contemporaneous written documentation
```

## 7. Operational Separation Checklist

To maintain liability shields and transfer pricing defensibility:

- [ ] Separate articles of incorporation for each subsidiary
- [ ] Separate corporate bylaws and governance policies
- [ ] Distinct boards of directors (even if overlapping members)
- [ ] Separate bank accounts and financial books
- [ ] No commingling of funds or assets
- [ ] Formal intercompany agreements for all shared resources
- [ ] Separate tax returns filed annually
- [ ] Separate insurance policies and liability coverage
- [ ] Distinct letterhead, business cards, signage
- [ ] Independent accounting and financial reporting
- [ ] Transfer pricing documentation for all intercompany transactions
- [ ] Minutes documenting substantive board decisions
- [ ] No guarantees of sibling subsidiaries' obligations

**Risk**: Failure to maintain separation invites IRS "piercing the corporate veil," exposing parent company to subsidiary liabilities.

## 8. Foundation Governance (501(c)(3) Compliance)

### Fund Accounting

Foundation must use Fund Accounting (unlike for-profit accounting), separating resources into:

**Unrestricted Funds**: Available for any exempt purpose
**Restricted Funds**: Donor-designated (e.g., "for open-source only")

All transfers from Corp must be documented as grants/contributions with restrictions clearly noted.

### Related-Party Transaction Board Approval

Before any Corp transfer to Foundation:

1. Independent majority votes
2. Minority includes conflicted party vote counts documented
3. FMV analysis presented
4. Minutes record rationale and vote
5. Excess Benefit Transaction disclosure if applicable

### Annual Form 990 Reporting

Foundation must file IRS Form 990 disclosing:

- Compensation of officers/directors
- Related-party transactions
- All grants and contributions received
- Fund balances and restrictions

**Public Filing**: These forms are public, subject to IRS scrutiny.

## 9. Benefit Corporation Governance (Parent Level)

Parent company incorporated as Benefit Corporation (not C-Corp) specifically to:

- Balance shareholder profit with stakeholder interests
- Legally protect Foundation funding decisions
- Enable long-term R&D investment (Labs) even during fiscal pressure
- Align investor expectations with dual mission

### Board Duties

Benefit Corporation directors have legal duty to:

1. Consider impact on stakeholders (workers, customers, community)
2. Balance shareholder returns with general public benefit
3. Document consideration of non-shareholder interests in board minutes

This provides legal cover for capital allocation to Foundation or high-burn Labs research.

## 10. Private Inurement Prevention

### Definition

Private inurement = net earnings of Foundation inure to benefit of any shareholder/individual = immediate loss of 501(c)(3) status.

### High-Risk Transactions

1. **Over-Compensation**: Foundation paying executives above-market salaries = hidden private inurement
2. **Below-Market Services from Foundation**: Foundation providing services to Corp at cost (instead of FMV) = private inurement to Corp
3. **Related-Party Conflicts**: Foundation board dominated by Corp executives with financial interest in transactions

### Controls

- **Independent Board**: Clear majority of unaffiliated directors
- **FMV Documentation**: All transactions with related parties must show FMV (can withstand IRS audit)
- **Excess Benefit Transactions**: Must be prohibited and subject to correction procedures
- **Annual Certification**: Officers certify no private inurement annually
- **Form 990 Schedule**: Disclose all related-party transactions transparently

## 11. Transfer Pricing Documentation Requirements

### When Required

Any payment between related entities (Labs→Corp, Corp→Foundation, etc.) requires documentation.

### Documentation Package

1. **Intercompany Agreement**

   - Parties, services/IP, payment terms, effective date
   - Signed and dated

2. **Transfer Pricing Study**

   - Executive summary
   - Functional analysis (functions, assets, risks of each party)
   - Economic analysis (industry data, market conditions)
   - Comparable price analysis
   - Selection and application of transfer pricing method
   - Sensitivity analysis
   - Conclusion re: Arm's Length pricing

3. **Contemporaneous Documentation**
   - Prepared at time of transaction (or within 60 days of return filing)
   - Supported by benchmarking analysis
   - Updated annually if rates change

**IRS Penalty Risk**: Failure to maintain documentation = 20-40% penalty on underpayment, plus interest and potential accuracy penalties.

## 12. Annual Compliance Checklist

**Each Fiscal Year:**

- [ ] Review intercompany transfer pricing—update for current market rates
- [ ] Verify FMV for all related-party transactions
- [ ] Update transfer pricing study if material changes
- [ ] Confirm operational separation maintained (separate accounts, agreements, etc.)
- [ ] Foundation Form 990 filed on time with related-party disclosures
- [ ] Separate tax returns filed for each subsidiary
- [ ] Conflict of Interest certifications renewed
- [ ] Board minutes document transfer pricing compliance review
- [ ] Fund Accounting records reviewed for restriction compliance
- [ ] Royalty/license payments reconciled and properly documented
- [ ] IP ownership and licensing agreements current

## 13. Key Documents Template Checklist

Maintain and update:

- [ ] **Intercompany Technology License Agreement** (Labs→Corp, Labs→Dev-Link)
- [ ] **Intercompany Service Agreement** (shared services pricing)
- [ ] **Grant Agreement** (Corp→Foundation donations)
- [ ] **Conflict of Interest Policy** (Foundation board)
- [ ] **Related-Party Transaction Policy** (approval procedures)
- [ ] **Transfer Pricing Study** (FMV methodology)
- [ ] **Fund Accounting Manual** (Foundation accounting standards)
- [ ] **Operational Separation Documentation** (evidence of corporate veil maintenance)
- [ ] **Annual Compliance Checklist** (governance review)

## Conclusion

This framework ensures:

1. **IP Protection**: Centralized control and defensive valuation
2. **Tax Compliance**: Arm's Length transfer pricing reduces audit risk
3. **Liability Insulation**: Separate entities prevent cross-contamination
4. **Tax-Exempt Status**: Related-party safeguards preserve Foundation 501(c)(3)
5. **Investor Confidence**: Clear governance and discipline in capital allocation

All executives must understand and comply with these requirements. Non-compliance carries significant IRS penalties, potential loss of tax-exempt status, and personal liability for directors/officers.

---

**Last Updated:** December 2024
**Owner:** General Counsel / Finance
**Review Frequency:** Annual (or upon material change)
**Distribution:** Board of Directors, CFO, Foundation Treasurer, Subsidiary Officers
