Because cross-border transfer pricing issues implicate the tax base of two jurisdictions, an overly harsh penalty system in one jurisdiction may give taxpayers an incentive to overstate taxable income in that jurisdiction contrary to Article 9. If this happens, the penalty system fails in its primary objective to promote compliance and instead leads to non-compliance of a different sort – non-compliance with the arm’s length principle and under-reporting in the other jurisdiction. Each OECD member country should ensure that its transfer pricing compliance practices are not enforced in a manner inconsistent with the objectives of the OECD Model Tax Convention, avoiding the distortions noted above.
TPG2017 Chapter IV paragraph 4.26
Category: B. Transfer pricing compliance practices, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter IV: Administrative Dispute Resolution | Tag: Penalty/Fine
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.27It is generally regarded by OECD member countries that the fairness of the penalty system should be considered by reference to whether the penalties are proportionate to the offence. This would mean, for example, that the severity of a penalty would be balanced...
- TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.5This section describes three aspects of transfer pricing compliance that should receive special consideration to help tax jurisdictions administer their transfer pricing rules in a manner that is fair to taxpayers and other jurisdictions. While other tax law compliance practices are in common...
- TPG2022 Chapter V paragraph 5.41Documentation-related penalties imposed for failure to comply with transfer pricing documentation requirements or failure to timely submit required information are usually civil (or administrative) monetary penalties. These documentation-related penalties are based on a fixed amount that may be assessed for each document missing...
- TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.26Because cross-border transfer pricing issues implicate the tax base of two jurisdictions, an overly harsh penalty system in one jurisdiction may give taxpayers an incentive to overstate taxable income in that jurisdiction contrary to Article 9. If this happens, the penalty system fails...
- TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.20There are a number of different types of penalties that tax jurisdictions have adopted. Penalties can involve either civil or criminal sanctions – criminal penalties are virtually always reserved for cases of very significant fraud, and they usually carry a very high burden...
- TPG2022 Chapter V paragraph 5.8This compliance objective may be supported in two important ways. First, tax administrations can require that transfer pricing documentation requirements be satisfied on a contemporaneous basis. This would mean that the documentation would be prepared at the time of the transaction, or in...
- TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.28Since penalties are only one of many administrative and procedural aspects of a tax system, it is difficult to conclude whether a particular penalty is fair or not without considering the other aspects of the tax system. Nonetheless, OECD member countries agree that...
- TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.25Improved compliance in the transfer pricing area is of some concern to OECD member countries and the appropriate use of penalties may play a role in addressing this concern. However, owing to the nature of transfer pricing problems, care should be taken to...
- Hungary – Legislation on use of Interquartile Range and MedianAs part of tax legislation recently enacted in Hungary, rules governing the application of statistical tools – arm’s length range and adjustments within the range – will now be governed by law. When determining arm’s length prices based on benchmarks of comparables it...
- OECD releases text of the new MLC to Implement Amount A of Pillar One11 October 2023 the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework has released the text of a new multilateral convention that updates the international tax framework to co-ordinate a reallocation of taxing rights to market jurisdictions, improve tax certainty, and remove digital service taxes. The Multilateral Convention to...
Related Case Law
- Spain vs ICL ESPAÑA, S.A. (Akzo Nobel), March 2018, Audiencia Nacional, Case No 1307/2018 ECLI:ES:AN:2018:1307ICL ESPAÑA, S.A., ICL Packaging Coatings, S.A., were members of the Tax Consolidation Group and obtained extraordinary profits in the financial years 2000, 2001 and 2002. (AKZO NOBEL is the successor of ICL ESPAÑA, as well as of the subsidiary ICL PACKAGING.) On...
- Spain vs Representaciones Creta S.L., October 2018, Tribunal Supremo, Case No 1504/2018, STS 3632/2018 – ECLI:ES:TS:2018:3632Tax penalties/fines had been issued following a transfer pricing adjustments in regards of controlled transactions exempt from Spanish TP documentation requirements. An appeal was filed by the taxpayer claiming to be excluded from the Spanish penalty regime. The appeal was dismissed by the...
- US vs Eaton, Oct. 2019, United States Tax Court, Docket No 5576-12Eaton Corporation is a global manufacturer of electrical and industrial products headquartered in the US.  This case concerning the computation of penalties is related to a previous 2017 dispute concerning the cancellation of two advance pricing agreements (APAs) establishing a transfer pricing methodology (TPM)...
- Germany vs X GmbH & Co. KG, October 2022, European Court of Justice, Case No C-431/21A Regional Tax Court in Germany had requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice on two questions related to German transfer pricing documentation requirements. whether the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) or the freedom to provide services (Article 56...