TPG2017 Chapter VII paragraph 7.9

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

A more complex analysis is necessary where an associated enterprise undertakes activities that relate to more than one member of the group or to the group as a whole. In a narrow range of such cases, an intra-group activity may be performed relating to group members even though those group members do not need the activity (and would not be willing to pay for it were they independent enterprises). Such an activity would be one that a group member (usually the parent company or a regional holding company) performs solely because of its ownership interest in one or more other group members, i.e. in its capacity as shareholder. This type of activity would not be considered to be an intra-group service, and thus would not justify a charge to other group members. Instead, the costs associated with this type of activity should be borne and allocated at the level of the shareholder. This type of activity may be referred to as a “shareholder activity”, distinguishable from the broader term “stewardship activity” used in the 1979 Report. Stewardship activities covered a range of activities by a shareholder that may include the provision of services to other group members, for example services that would be provided by a coordinating centre. These latter types of non-shareholder activities could include detailed planning services for particular operations, emergency management or technical advice (trouble shooting), or in some cases assistance in day-to-day management.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.10The following are examples of costs associated with shareholder activities, under the standard set forth in paragraph 7.6: a) Costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.9A more complex analysis is necessary where an associated enterprise undertakes activities that relate to more than one member of the group or to the group as a whole. In a narrow range of such cases, an intra-group activity may be performed relating...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.56The initial step in applying the simplified approach to low value-adding intra-group services is for the MNE group to calculate, on an annual basis, a pool of all costs incurred by all members of the group in performing each category of low value-adding...
  4. 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...
  5. 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...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.15In considering whether a charge for the provision of services would be made between independent enterprises, it would also be relevant to consider the form that an arm’s length consideration would take had the transaction occurred between independent enterprises dealing at arm’s length....


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. Romania vs A. Romania S.R.L., April 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2644/2021A. Romania S.R.L. had purchased services from A. Nederland BV and A. CZ Holding sro, and the costs of the services had been deducted for tax purposes. At issue was whether these services had actually been provided to the benefit of A. Romania...
  3. Bulgaria vs Central Hydroelectric de Bulgari EOOD, July 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 8331By judgment of 19 January 2021, the Administrative Court upheld an assessment for FY 2012-2017 issued by the tax authorities on the determination of the arm’s length income resulting from related party transactions. The tax assessment resulted from disallowed deductions for Intra group...
  4. Bulgaria vs “B-Production”, August 2017, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 10185“B-Production” is a subsidiary in a US multinational group and engaged in production and sales. “B-Production” pays services fees and royalties to its US parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been reduced which...
  5. Bulgaria vs Montupet, January 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 630Montupet EOOD is a Bulgarian subsidiary in the French Montupet Group which specializes in the production of aluminum components for the automotive industry. In February 2016, the French Group became part of the Canadian LINAMAR Group, which specializes in the manufacture and assembly...