TPG2017 Chapter III paragraph 3.65

Category: A. Performing a comparability analysis, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter III: Comparability Analysis | Tag: , , , , , ,
« | »

Generally speaking, a loss-making uncontrolled transaction should trigger further investigation in order to establish whether or not it can be a comparable. Circumstances in which loss-making transactions/ enterprises should be excluded from the list of comparables include cases where losses do not reflect normal business conditions, and where the losses incurred by third parties reflect a level of risks that is not comparable to the one assumed by the taxpayer in its controlled transactions. Loss-making comparables that satisfy the comparability analysis should not however be rejected on the sole basis that they suffer losses.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.65Generally speaking, a loss-making uncontrolled transaction should trigger further investigation in order to establish whether or not it can be a comparable. Circumstances in which loss-making transactions/ enterprises should be excluded from the list of comparables include cases where losses do not reflect...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.64An independent enterprise would not continue loss-generating activities unless it had reasonable expectations of future profits. See paragraphs 1.149-1.151. Simple or low risk functions in particular are not expected to generate losses for a long period of time. This does not mean however...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.63Extreme results might consist of losses or unusually high profits. Extreme results can affect the financial indicators that are looked at in the chosen method (e.g. the gross margin when applying a resale price, or a net profit indicator when applying a transactional...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.66A similar investigation should be undertaken for potential comparables returning abnormally large profits relative to other potential comparables....
  5. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.62In determining this point, where the range comprises results of relatively equal and high reliability, it could be argued that any point in the range satisfies the arm’s length principle. Where comparability defects remain as discussed at paragraph 3.57, it may be appropriate...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.61If the relevant condition of the controlled transaction (e.g. price or margin) falls outside the arm’s length range asserted by the tax administration, the taxpayer should have the opportunity to present arguments that the conditions of the controlled transaction satisfy the arm’s length...
  1. Spain releases note on arm’s length range and benchmarking.On 25 February 2021, a note was released by the Spanish Tax Agency on number of practical issues relating to application of the arm’s-length range. The note – which is based on the OECD transfer Pricing Guidelines, guidance on benchmark studies issued by...
  2. Italy releases operational instructions on arm’s length range and benchmarking.On 24 May 2022, the Italian Tax Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) released CIRCULAR NO. 16/E containing operational instructions on issues relating to application of the arm’s length range. The circular – which is based on the OECD transfer Pricing Guidelines, guidance on benchmark...

Related Case Law

  1. Germany vs “Clothing Distribution Gmbh”, October 2001, BFH Urt. 17.10.2001, IR 103/00A German GmbH distributed clothing for its Italian parent. The German tax authorities issued a tax assessment based on hidden profit distribution from the German GmbH in favor of its Italien parent as a result of excessive purchase prices, which led to high...
  2. Romania vs “Electrolux” A. SA, November 2020, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 6059/2020In this case, a Romanian manufacturer and distributor (A. SA) in the Electrolux group (C) had been loss making while the group as a whole had been profitable. The tax authorities issued an assessment, where the profit of A. SA had been determined...
  3. Portugal vs “A-Contract Manufacturer LDA”, December 2020, CAAD Tax Arbitration, Case No 808/2019-TA-Contract Manufacturer LDA is an entity residing in Portugal, whose main activity is contract manufacturing of coffee machines and irons, as well as spare parts, tools etc. on behalf of its German parent B A.G. Following an audit, the tax authorities found that...
  4. Spain vs “Benchmark SA”, November 2021, TEAC, Case No Rec. 4881/2019The tax authorities excluded some of the entities selected by the taxpayer in a benchmark study, as it considered that they did not meet the necessary comparability requirements, and also included some of the excluded entities, as it considered that they were comparable....
  5. Italy vs Promgas s.p.a., May 2022, Supreme Court, Cases No 15668/2022Promgas s.p.a. is 50% owned by the Italian company Eni s.p.a. and 50% owned by the Russian company Gazprom Export. It deals with the purchase and sale of natural gas of Russian origin destined for the Italian market. It sells the gas to...