The Country-by-Country Report will be helpful for high-level transfer pricing risk assessment purposes. It may also be used by tax administrations in evaluating other BEPS related risks and where appropriate for economic and statistical analysis. However, the information in the Country-by-Country Report should not be used as a substitute for a detailed transfer pricing analysis of individual transactions and prices based on a full functional analysis and a full comparability analysis. The information in the Country-by-Country Report on its own does not constitute conclusive evidence that transfer prices are or are not appropriate. It should not be used by tax administrations to propose transfer pricing adjustments based on a global formulary apportionment of income ...

There is a variety of tools and sources of information used for identifying and evaluating transfer pricing risks of taxpayers and transactions, including transfer pricing forms (to be filed with the annual tax return), transfer pricing mandatory questionnaires focusing on particular areas of risk, general transfer pricing documentation requirements identifying the supporting evidence necessary to demonstrate the taxpayer’s compliance with the arm’s length principle, and cooperative discussions between tax administrations and taxpayers. Each of the tools and sources of information appears to respond to the same fundamental observation: there is a need for the tax administration to have ready access to relevant information at an early stage to enable an accurate and informed transfer pricing risk assessment. Assuring that a high quality transfer pricing risk assessment can be carried out efficiently and with the right kinds of reliable information should be one important consideration in designing transfer pricing documentation rules ...

Proper assessment of transfer pricing risk by the tax administration requires access to sufficient, relevant and reliable information at an early stage. While there are many sources of relevant information, transfer pricing documentation is one critical source of such information ...

Effective risk identification and assessment constitute an essential early stage in the process of selecting appropriate cases for transfer pricing audits or enquiries and in focusing such audits on the most important issues. Because tax administrations operate with limited resources, it is important for them to accurately evaluate, at the very outset of a possible audit, whether a taxpayer’s transfer pricing arrangements warrant in-depth review and a commitment of significant tax enforcement resources. Particularly with regard to transfer pricing issues (which generally are complex and fact-intensive), effective risk assessment becomes an essential prerequisite for a focused and resource-efficient audit. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration has developed a number of tools to assist tax administrations in conducting such risk assessments ...

Three objectives of transfer pricing documentation are: to ensure that taxpayers give appropriate consideration to transfer pricing requirements in establishing prices and other conditions for transactions between associated enterprises and in reporting the income derived from such transactions in their tax returns; to provide tax administrations with the information necessary to conduct an informed transfer pricing risk assessment; and to provide tax administrations with useful information to employ in conducting an appropriately thorough audit of the transfer pricing practices of entities subject to tax in their jurisdiction, although it may be necessary to supplement the documentation with additional information as the audit progresses ...

September 8, 2020 the IRS released a new guide to Transfer Pricing Examination Process. The Transfer Pricing Examination Process (TPEP) provides a guide to best practices and processes to assist with the planning, execution, and resolution of transfer pricing examinations consistent with the Large Business & International (LB&I) Examination Process (LEP), Publication 5125. This guide will be shared with taxpayers at the start of a transfer pricing examination, so they understand the process and can work effectively with the examination team. Transfer pricing examinations are factually intensive and require a thorough analysis of functions performed, assets employed, and risks assumed along with an accurate understanding of relevant financial information. They are resource intensive for both the IRS and taxpayers. To ensure resources are applied effectively, LB&I is using data analytics to identify issues for examination that have the most significant risk for non-compliance. In addition, teams should continually assess the merits of issues during an examination. Our goal in a transfer pricing examination is to determine an arm’s length result under the facts and circumstances of the case. Teams should keep an open mind during an examination to new facts as they are identified. Arm’s length results are rarely a precise answer, but instead may be a range of results. If the facts of the case show that the taxpayer’s results fall within an appropriate arm’s length range, then our resources should be applied elsewhere. Likewise, teams should continually assess opportunities for issue resolution with taxpayers during the examination process. The TPEP provides a framework and guide for transfer pricing examinations ...

The draft Guideline provides guidance to entities in applying the arm’s length debt test in Division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 19972 and should be read in conjunction with draft Taxation Ruling TR 2019/D2 Income tax: thin capitalisation – the arm’s length debt test. This Guideline also provides a risk assessment framework that outlines our compliance approach to an application of the arm’s length debt test in certain circumstances that are identified as low risk. The arm’s length debt test is one of the tests available to establish an entity’s maximum allowable debt for thin capitalisation purposes. The test focuses on identifying an amount of debt a notional stand-alone Australian business would reasonably be expected to borrow, and what independent commercial lenders would reasonably be expected to lend on arm’s length terms and conditions. An entity’s debt deductions are reduced to the extent that its adjusted average debt exceeds its maximum allowable debt. The arm’s length debt test may be used to support debt deductions for commercially justifiable levels of debt. In practice, the test is typically only used when an entity is unable to satisfy the safe harbour and worldwide gearing tests (as the compliance burden of applying these tests is generally lower). It is not common for Australian businesses to gear in excess of 60% of their net assets and historically relatively few entities have applied the arm’s length debt test. We consider the choice to apply the arm’s length debt test carries with it the necessity to undertake more rigorous analysis than the safe harbour and worldwide gearing tests. While the arm’s length debt test in some respects draws upon arm’s length concepts that are broadly common to transfer pricing, the test itself is not a transfer pricing analysis, nor does it necessarily proxy an outcome consistent with the arm’s length conditions under Subdivision 815-B. Rather it requires an overlay of factual assumptions that produce a hypothetical entity against which specific factors are to be assessed. This Guideline is limited to providing guidance and a risk assessment framework relating to the application of the arm’s length debt test contained in sections 820-105 and 820-215. It does not set out our approach to reviewing other taxation issues that might arise in relation to debt deductions ...

The report on Transfer Pricing Examination Process (TPEP) provides a framework and guide for transfer pricing examinations. The guide will be updated regularly by the IRS based on feedback from examiners, taxpayers, practitioners and others ...

A new version of the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries is due by 2021. According to the mandate the new manual will make further improvements in usability and practical relevance, updates and improvements to existing text, including on Country Practices (Part D) and will have new content, in particular, on financial transactions; profit splits, centralized procurement functions and comparability issues. A draft paper was published 8 April 2019 containing further guidance on: • Financial Transactions (Attachment A); • Profit Splits (Attachment B); and • Establishing Transfer Pricing Capability, Risk Assessment and Transfer Pricing Audits (Attachment C) ...

The Guideline outlines ATO’s compliance approach to the transfer pricing outcomes associated with the following activities of inbound distributors: distributing goods purchased from related foreign entities for resale, and distributing digital products or services where the intellectual property in those products or services is owned by related foreign entities Such activities, together with any related activities involving the provision of ancillary services, are referred to in this Guideline as ‘inbound distribution arrangements’. This Guideline applies to inbound distribution arrangements of any scale. The framework in the Guideline is used to assess the transfer pricing risk of inbound distribution arrangements and tailor our engagement with you. Where this Guideline applies, we rate the transfer pricing risk of your inbound distribution arrangements having regard to a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. If an inbound distribution arrangements fall outside the low transfer pricing risk category, the transfer pricing outcomes of the arrangements can be expected to be monitor, tested and/or verified. The framework set out in the Guideline can be used to: assess the transfer pricing risk of inbound distribution arrangements understand the compliance approach given the transfer pricing risk profile of the inbound distribution arrangements mitigate the transfer pricing risk of the inbound distribution arrangements Structure of the Guideline The Guideline is structured as follows: the main body sets out general principles relevant to our framework for assessing transfer pricing risk and applying compliance resources to inbound distribution arrangements to which the Guideline applies, and the schedules set out quantitative and qualitative indicators relevant to distributors generally or based on their industry sector, including those that operate in the life science, information and communication technology (ICT) and motor vehicle industries. This Guideline does not provide advice or guidance on the technical interpretation or application of Australia’s transfer pricing rules or other tax provisions ...

HMRC Profit Diversion Compliance Facility Chapter 1 – introduction 1.1 Background Companies should recognise and pay tax on profits where the economic activities to generate those profits are carried out. HMRC has found that some Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) have adopted cross border pricing arrangements which are based on an incorrect fact pattern and/or are not consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Transfer Pricing Guidelines (TPG), as clarified through Actions Points 8-10 of the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. This is for 2 main reasons: Firstly, some have made incorrect assumptions, or not implemented arrangements as originally intended or declared to HMRC, so that there is a divergence between the fact pattern on which the Transfer Pricing (TP) analysis is based, and what is actually happening on the ground. This could be for a variety of reasons, including: insufficient understanding or incorrect/misleading statements on the nature or relative value of functions, assets and risks at the outset businesses change over time so that the functional profile may become different from that originally assumed or intended some businesses undervalue the contributions made by staff in the UK and overvalue the contributions of staff in other tax jurisdictions Secondly, the TP policies are not in accordance with the OECD TPG, for example because of: over reliance on TP policies predicated on contractual assumption of risk and legal ownership of assets, giving insufficient weight to the location of the control functions and/or the contributions to those control functions in relation to the risk and/or the important functions in relation to the assets too heavy a reliance on inappropriate comparables These arrangements often result in a reduction of UK profits, and may involve the diversion of UK profits to an overseas entity where the profits are taxed at lower rates or not at all. In a high proportion of investigations into such arrangements HMRC is finding that the arrangements don’t stand up to scrutiny and significant additional tax is due. The Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) was introduced to encourage MNEs using such arrangements to change their behaviour and pay Corporation Tax on profits in line with economic activity. Many MNEs with arrangements targeted by DPT have changed their TP policy and/or business structure leading to the right amount of UK Corporation Tax being paid, eliminating any potential DPT. 1.2 Co-operative Compliance HMRC prefers MNEs to fully disclose significant tax uncertainties or inaccuracies and to ensure compliance with tax law, and will work co-operatively, proactively and transparently with MNEs to resolve any tax uncertainties and risks. 1.3 Profit Diversion Compliance Facility HMRC is introducing a new Profit Diversion Compliance Facility for MNEs using arrangements targeted by DPT to give them the opportunity to bring their UK tax affairs up to date. HMRC recognises that many MNEs operate TP policies to achieve compliance with the OECD TPG, regularly review and update their policies, and discuss them with HMRC during business risk reviews and at other times. If a MNE is confident that their transfer pricing is up to date and they are paying the right amount of Corporation Tax, then they should not use the new compliance facility. The new facility is designed to encourage MNEs with arrangements that might fall within its scope to review both the design and implementation of their TP policies, change them if appropriate, and use the facility to put forward a report with proposals to pay any additional tax, interest and where applicable, penalties due. This will: enable MNEs to bring their tax affairs up to date openly, efficiently and without investigation by HMRC if a full and accurate disclosure is made give them certainty for the past and a low risk outcome for profit diversion in the future provide an accelerated process, HMRC will aim to respond to the proposal within 3 months of submission allow the MNE to manage its own internal processes around what evidence to gather, who is interviewed, what comparables are used (if any), and how the analysis is presented give unprompted penalty treatment if HMRC has not already started an investigation into profit diversion, 31 December 2019 is an important deadline for registration for some MNEs (see section 3 of chapter 4 of this guidance) This guidance sets out what HMRC would expect to see in such a report. The review of the arrangements should be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the business, the extent of tax at risk, the cause of any inaccuracies and failures to notify, and the proposals. The report should be free standing and self-explanatory. While it will be the responsibility of the MNE to review its arrangements and make a disclosure, HMRC is prepared to meet with MNEs who register to use the facility at the outset of the process to discuss plans for the review and later again before the final report and proposal is submitted, so that the MNE can present its findings and conclusions and hear any comments from HMRC. This work will be a priority for HMRC and a specifically designated, experienced team of specialists will risk assess all reports when received and consider whether the facts described and conclusions reached are soundly based on appropriate evidence, and if the TP policy and methodology adopted is reasonable and consistent with the OECD TPG. HMRC expects to be able to accept most proposals if they take account of this guidance and reflect the principles in it. Even if HMRC cannot accept the proposals as first presented, the report should provide a good basis for quick and efficient resolution, through dialogue, of particular differences of view between HMRC and the MNE. While the facility is aimed at arrangements targeted by DPT, businesses do not need to provide a technical analysis of whether DPT applies if they consider that their proposals eliminate any profit potentially chargeable to DPT. All technical analysis and any payment made can be on a without prejudice basis. HMRC will not regard the making of a proposal as indicating that the MNE thinks DPT could, or should, apply. 1.4 HMRC investigations Tackling profit diversion is a priority for HMRC. HMRC is conducting extensive research and data analysis and has invested in new teams of investigators. Investigations into profit diversion are usually resolved by agreeing transfer pricing adjustments. HMRC has identified a number of MNEs in a variety of business sectors which could be diverting profits, ...

The Australian Taxation Office has issued new guidance for multinational groups using offshore marketing- and procurment hubs for tax avoidance purposes. The guidance adresses tax schemes where MNEs uses offshore hubs to shift profits and thereby avoid Australian taxes. Offshore hub arrangements are catagorised by the ATO as white, green, blue, yellow, amber, or red – based on the risk assesment for tax purposes of the transfer pricing setup. The new guidance is a result of recent Australian investigations and hearings into tax avoidance schemes used by Multinational Groups. Tax avoidance in Australia Australian Senate Hearings into Tax Avoidance The overall framework for Australian risk assessment for tax purposes of MNE’s offshore marketing- and procurement hubs is shown below: ...

The Handbook on Effective Tax Risk Assessment explores how information contained in CbC reports can be used for risk assessment and which types of tax risk indicators that may be identified using the information contained in CbC Reports. In chapter 4 some of the main tax risk indicators that may be identified using CbC Reports are described: The footprint of a group in a particular jurisdiction A group’s activities in a jurisdiction are limited to those that pose less risk There is a high value or high proportion of related party revenues in a particular jurisdiction The results in a jurisdiction deviate from potential comparable The results in a jurisdiction do not reflect market trends There are jurisdictions with significant profits but little substantial activity There are jurisdictions with significant profits but low levels of tax accrued There are jurisdictions with significant activities but low levels of profit (or losses) A group has activities in jurisdictions which pose a BEPS risk A group has mobile activities located in jurisdictions where the group pays a lower rate or level of tax There have been changes in a group’s structure, including the location of assets Intellectual property (IP) is separated from related activities within a group A group has marketing entities located in jurisdictions outside its key markets A group has procurement entities located in jurisdictions outside its key manufacturing locations Income tax paid is consistently lower than income tax accrued A group includes dual resident entities A group includes entities with no tax residence A group discloses stateless revenues Information in a group’s CbC Report does not correspond with information previously provided by a constituent entity According to the OECD, combiantions of thise 19 indicators can provide a general overview of the main tax risks of a MNE Group ...

The Practical Compliance Guideline (Guideline) from the ATO outlines the compliance approach to the taxation outcomes associated with a ‘financing arrangement’, as defined in section 995-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), or a related transaction or contract, entered into with a cross border related party. Such an arrangement, transaction or contract is referred to in this Guideline as a ‘related party financing arrangement’. This Guideline does not cover financing arrangements characterised as equity in accordance with Division 974 of the ITAA 1997. The framework in these Guideline and the accompanying schedules are used to assess risk and tailor engagement according to the features of the related party financing arrangement, the profile of the parties to the related party financing arrangement and the choices and behaviours of the group. The tax risk associated with the related party financing arrangement is assessed having regard to a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators. If the related party financing arrangement is rated as low risk, then the Commissioner will generally not apply compliance resources to review the taxation outcomes other than to fact check the appropriate risk rating. If the related party financing arrangement falls outside the low risk category, the Commissioner will monitor, test and/or verify the taxation outcomes. The higher the risk rating, the more likely the arrangements will be reviewed as a matter of priority. The framework set out in this Guideline can be applied to: (a) assess the tax risk of your related party financing arrangement (b) understand the compliance approach we are likely to adopt given the risk profile of your related party financing arrangement (c) work with us to mitigate the transfer pricing risk in relation to your related party financing arrangement and be confident you have reduced your risk exposure, and (d) understand the type of analysis and evidence we would require when assessing the risk outcomes of your related party financing arrangements ...

There is a variety of tools and sources of information used for identifying and evaluating transfer pricing risks of taxpayers and transactions, including transfer pricing forms (to be filed with the annual tax return), transfer pricing mandatory questionnaires focusing on particular areas of risk, general transfer pricing documentation requirements identifying the supporting evidence necessary to demonstrate the taxpayer’s compliance with the arm’s length principle, and cooperative discussions between tax administrations and taxpayers. Each of the tools and sources of information appears to respond to the same fundamental observation: there is a need for the tax administration to have ready access to relevant information at an early stage to enable an accurate and informed transfer pricing risk assessment. Assuring that a high quality transfer pricing risk assessment can be carried out efficiently and with the right kinds of reliable information should be one important consideration in designing transfer pricing documentation rules ...

Proper assessment of transfer pricing risk by the tax administration requires access to sufficient, relevant and reliable information at an early stage. While there are many sources of relevant information, transfer pricing documentation is one critical source of such information ...

Effective risk identification and assessment constitute an essential early stage in the process of selecting appropriate cases for transfer pricing audits or enquiries and in focusing such audits on the most important issues. Because tax administrations operate with limited resources, it is important for them to accurately evaluate, at the very outset of a possible audit, whether a taxpayer’s transfer pricing arrangements warrant in-depth review and a commitment of significant tax enforcement resources. Particularly with regard to transfer pricing issues (which generally are complex and fact-intensive), effective risk assessment becomes an essential prerequisite for a focused and resource-efficient audit. The OECD Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment is a useful tool to consider in conducting such risk assessments ...

Three objectives of transfer pricing documentation are: to ensure that taxpayers give appropriate consideration to transfer pricing requirements in establishing prices and other conditions for transactions between associated enterprises and in reporting the income derived from such transactions in their tax returns; to provide tax administrations with the information necessary to conduct an informed transfer pricing risk assessment; and to provide tax administrations with useful information to employ in conducting an appropriately thorough audit of the transfer pricing practices of entities subject to tax in their jurisdiction, although it may be necessary to supplement the documentation with additional information as the audit progresses ...

The Practical Compliance Guideline (Guideline) sets out the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) compliance approach to transfer pricing issues related to the location and relocation of certain business activities and operating risks into a centralised operating model. The type of activities commonly centralised include marketing, sales and distribution functions although centralised operating models are not necessarily limited to these functions. For the purposes of this Guideline, these centralised operating models are referred to as ‘hubs’. The ATO understands that the overall structure of hubs, the transactions that flow in and out and the diversity and sophistication of a hub’s dealings contribute to increased complexity and higher costs for tax compliance. The Guideline is designed to help manage the compliance risk and therefore the compliance costs associated with your hub. The framework set out in the Guideline can be used to: (a) assess the compliance risk of the transfer pricing outcomes of hubs in accordance with the ATO’s risk framework (b) understand the compliance approach that the ATO will likely adopt having regard to the risk profile of hubs (c) mitigate the transfer pricing risk in relation to hubs , and (d) understand the type of analysis and evidence the ATO would require when testing the outcomes of hubs. the ATO’s  engagement will be tailored having regard to the specific hub’s risk rating. If a hub is assessed as being in the low risk zone it can be expected that the ATO will not generally apply compliance resources to test and assess the transfer pricing outcomes. If a hub falls outside the low risk zone, It can be expected that the ATO will monitor, test and/or verify the transfer pricing outcomes. Hubs with a high risk rating will be reviewed as a matter of priority. There is no presumption that because a hub is outside the low risk zone that the transfer pricing outcomes are incorrect, rather it means that the ATO considers a risk and therefore the ATO may conduct further compliance activity to test the outcomes of the hub. The transfer pricing methods used in the risk framework in the Guideline are for risk assessment purposes only. Consistent with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2010 (OECD guidelines), when pricing an arrangements the transfer pricing methodology (or combination of methodologies) that is most appropriate and reliable for your circumstances should be used. The Guideline is structured as follows: (a) Part A sets out the general indicators and principles of the hub risk framework. These principles are relevant to all types of offshore hubs and apply to both outbound and inbound goods and commodity flows (b) Part B provides guidance to assist you when preparing your transfer pricing analysis if you are outside the green zone, and (c) Schedules attached to this Guideline set out specific indicators relevant to particular types of hubs ...

The 2013 Draft Handbook on Transfer Pricing Risk Assessment is a detailed, practical resource that countries can follow in developing their own risk assessment approaches. The handbook supplements useful materials already available with respect to transfer pricing risk assessment. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration published a report entitled “Dealing Effectively with the Challenges of Transfer Pricing” in January 2012. One chapter of that report also addresses transfer pricing risk assessment ...