TPG2017 Chapter VII paragraph 7.16

Category: B. Main issues, OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2017), TPG2017 Chapter VII: Special Considerations for Intra-Group Services | Tag: , , ,
« | »

Another issue arises with respect to services provided “on call”. The question is whether the availability of such services is itself a separate service for which an arm’s length charge (in addition to any charge for services actually rendered) should be determined. A parent company or one or more group service centres may be on hand to provide services such as financial, managerial, technical, legal or tax advice and assistance to members of the group at any time. In that case, a service may be rendered to associated enterprises by having staff, equipment, etc., available. An intra-group service would exist to the extent that it would be reasonable to expect an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances to incur “standby” charges to ensure the availability of the services when the need for them arises. It is not unknown, for example, for an independent enterprise to pay an annual “retainer” fee to a firm of lawyers to ensure entitlement to legal advice and representation if litigation is brought. Another example is a service contract for priority computer network repair in the event of a breakdown.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.28In identifying arrangements for charging any retainer for the provision of “on call” services (as discussed in paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17), it may be necessary to examine the terms for the actual use of the services since these may include provisions that no...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.17These services may be available on call and they may vary in amount and importance from year to year. It is unlikely that an independent enterprise would incur stand-by charges where the potential need for the service was remote, where the advantage of...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.16Another issue arises with respect to services provided “on call”. The question is whether the availability of such services is itself a separate service for which an arm’s length charge (in addition to any charge for services actually rendered) should be determined. A...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.24In some cases, an indirect-charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value of the services rendered to the various relevant entities cannot be quantified except on an approximate...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.19Once it is determined that an intra-group service has been rendered, it is necessary, as for other types of intra-group transfers, to determine whether the amount of the charge, if any, is in accordance with the arm’s length principle. This means that the...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.18The fact that a payment was made to an associated enterprise for purported services can be useful in determining whether services were in fact provided, but the mere description of a payment as, for example, “management fees” should not be expected to be...


Related Case Law

  1. Peru vs “Copper Corporation S.A.”, July 2011, Tax Tribunal, Case No 12609-8-2011“Copper Corporation S.A.” had deducted intra-group service payments in it’s taxable income. The Peruvian tax authorities determined that the documentation provided by the company did not sufficiently support the actual provision of these services. Hence, tax deductions for the expenses was denied. The...
  2. Peru vs “Airline S.A.”, September 2024, Tax Court, Case No 08970-8-2024The case concerns a number of expenses claimed by “Airline S.A.” as deductible payments for intra-group services, in particular aircraft leasing and related costs, which the company argued should be deductible under the transfer pricing rules. “Airline S.A.” claimed that these costs were...
  3. Peru vs “Airline S.A.”, March 2025, Tax Court, Case No 02374-4-2025“Airline S.A.” claimed various expenses as deductible payments for intra-group services, arguing that these costs were essential and necessary within the corporate group. However, the tax authorities determined that “Airline S.A.” had not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the services were actually...
  4. Peru vs “Metal S.A.”, February 2023, Tax Court, Case No 01428-1-2023Following an audit, the tax authorities found that “Metal S.A.” had not been remunerated at arm’s length for its distribution activities. In addition, the intra-group services received by “Metal S.A.” were considered to be low value-added services for which the margin could not...
  5. Italy vs KAI S.r.l. (Shell Italia Aviazione), March 2026, Supreme Court, Case No 5753/2026KAI S.r.l. (formerly Shell Italia Aviazione s.r.l.) is an Italian company operating in the oil sector, specifically in the marketing of aviation fuel (jet fuel) for the Shell Italia group. It was wholly owned by Shell Italia Holding S.p.A. The dispute concerned the...