A. S.R.L. was issued with a notice of additional taxable income based on an audit of the pricing of the company’s controlled transactions. Among other things, the tax authority had found that the company had claimed to have achieved a profitability rate of 10% on the sale of finished products to the related company B., when in fact this was not the case. If the profitability had been 10%, corporate income tax of RON 3,840,000 would have been paid, but A. S.R.L. only paid RON 188,302 in tax. In the assessment, the tax authority had applied the TNMM using the median of the ROTC indicator for comparable independent companies and, on this basis, determined additional income for the period 2012-2016. An appeal was lodged which went to the High Court. Judgement of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal and found largely in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpt (In English) “As stated in Art. 3.43 of the OECD Guidelines the illustrative list of selection criteria presented in the Guidelines is neither limiting nor prescriptive, as long as the whole process of searching for comparables is transparent and verifiable. The transfer pricing file notes that a number of quantitative and qualitative criteria were also applied to the companies initially selected, so that the expert found that the independent companies considered by the complainant company in determining the interquartile range were comparable in terms of the criteria set out in the OECD Guidelines. The High Court finds that the appellant-respondents did not provide a basis for requiring the introduction of the size criterion in the selection of comparable companies. The Appellants’ argument is that the use of a minimum threshold for these criteria (size criteria) would have been relevant in the identification of independent companies for the comparability sample, but they have not indicated what the legal basis is for such an obligation, in order for the Court of Appeal to find a possible misapplication of the law. The algorithm for selecting comparable companies is entirely an economic, factual algorithm which is within the competence of specialists and the soundness of which can be verified only by the court of first instance, and it is not appropriate for the appeal brought on the basis of grounds of appeal to analyse that aspect. The High Court finds that the Court of First Instance did not misapply the law when it found that the independent companies taken into account by the applicant company in determining the interquartile range were comparable in terms of the criteria set out in the OECD Guidelines, and that the fact that the tax authorities had found that the operating income obtained by F. are lower than those of the Appellant was not sufficient to exclude it from the comparability sample, since the tax authorities did not justify the need to introduce a size criterion for maintaining it in the comparability sample for the period 2012-2016. At the same time, however, since the expert’s verification revealed situations in which A. did not fall within the interquartile range calculated for independent companies with the same functional profile, it was necessary to adjust the company’s income, which was such as to render the claim only partially unlawful. As regards the criticism that the tax inspection authorities found that the company claimed to have achieved a 10% profitability rate from the sale of finished products to the affiliated company B., but in reality this profitability rate did not exist in the financial results of the respondent, the first court took into account the fact that, in the light of the provisions of Articles 3.62 and 3.76 of the OECD Guidelines, the expert identified in the transfer pricing file the choice and justification of the transfer pricing calculation method and the data used, which is as follows: “7.3.2 Application of the cost-plus method to the operating profit/net margin method.” Article 3.62 of the 2010 OECD Guidelines states, “In determining this point, if the range contains relatively equal and highly reliable results, it could be argued that any point in the range satisfies the arm’s length principle. Where comparability flaws remain as discussed in paragraph 3.57, it may be appropriate to use measures of central tendency to determine this point (e.g. median, principal or weighted averages, etc., depending on the specific characteristics of the data set), in order to minimise the risk of error due to remaining unknown or unquantifiable comparability flaws.” Art. 3.76 of the OECD Guidelines states, “To obtain a complete understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding an audited transaction, it may generally be useful to examine data from both the year under review and previous years. Analysis of such information could reveal facts that may have influenced (or should have influenced) transfer pricing. For example, the use of prior years’ data will show whether the taxpayer’s reported loss on a transaction is part of a history of losses on similar transactions, the result of certain economic conditions in a prior year that resulted in higher costs in the following year, or a reflection of the fact that a product is at the end of its life cycle. Such an analysis can be particularly useful when applying a transactional projection method. See paragraph 1.72 on the usefulness of multi-yearly data in examining loss statements. Multi-year data can improve understanding of long-term arrangements.” Following the analysis of the transfer pricing file and the chapters of the 2010 OECD Guidelines mentioned above, the expert concludes that the multi-year weighted average of the profit indicator determined in the transfer pricing file over the period 2012-2016 for comparable independent companies is a viable calculation option as set out in the OECD Guidelines, but not fully justifiable in this case. As regards the request to the expert to verify whether, in the light of the OECD Guidelines, the adjustment is made to the multi-year average of the range analysed or to the annual median, it was held that, in view of the provisions of Chapters A.7 ...

The need to adjust comparables and the requirement for accuracy and reliability are pointed out in these Guidelines on several occasions, both for the general application of the arm’s length principle and more specifically in the context of each method. To be comparable means that none of the differences (if any) between the situations being compared could materially affect the condition being examined in the methodology or that reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the effect of any such differences. Whether comparability adjustments should be performed (and if so, what adjustments should be performed) in a particular case is a matter of judgment that should be evaluated in light of the discussion of costs and compliance burden at Section C ...

The process followed to identify potential comparables is one of the most critical aspects of the comparability analysis and it should be transparent, systematic and verifiable. In particular, the choice of selection criteria has a significant influence on the outcome of the analysis and should reflect the most meaningful economic characteristics of the transactions compared. Complete elimination of subjective judgments from the selection of comparables would not be feasible, but much can be done to increase objectivity and ensure transparency in the application of subjective judgments. Ensuring transparency of the process may depend on the extent to which the criteria used to select potential comparables are able to be disclosed and the reasons for excluding some of the potential comparables are able to be explained. Increasing objectivity and ensuring transparency of the process may also depend on the extent to which the person reviewing the process (whether taxpayer or tax administration) has access to information regarding the process followed and to the same sources of data. Issues of documentation of the process of identifying comparables are discussed in Chapter V ...

It would not be appropriate to give systematic preference to one approach over the other because, depending on the circumstances of the case, there could be value in either the “additive” or the “deductive” approach, or in a combination of both. The “additive” and “deductive” approaches are often not used exclusively. In a typical “deductive” approach, in addition to searching public databases it is common to include third parties, for instance known competitors (or third parties that are known to carry out transactions potentially comparable to those of the taxpayer), which may otherwise not be found following a purely deductive approach, e.g. because they are classified under a different industry code. In such cases, the “additive” approach operates as a tool to refine a search that is based on a “deductive” approach ...

One advantage of the “deductive” approach is that it is more reproducible and transparent than the “additive”. It is also easier to verify because the review concentrates on the process and on the relevance of the selection criteria retained. On the other hand, it is acknowledged that the quality of the outcome of a “deductive” approach depends on the quality of the search tools on which it relies (e.g. quality of the database where a database is used and possibility to obtain detailed enough information). This can be a practical limitation in some countries where the reliability and usefulness of databases in comparability analyses are questionable ...

In practice, both quantitative and qualitative criteria are used to include or reject potential comparables. Examples of qualitative criteria are found in product portfolios and business strategies. The most commonly observed quantitative criteria are: Size criteria in terms of Sales, Assets or Number of Employees. The size of the transaction in absolute value or in proportion to the activities of the parties might affect the relative competitive positions of the buyer and seller and therefore comparability. Intangible-related criteria such as ratio of Net Value of Intangibles/Total Net Assets Value, or ratio of Research and Development (R&D)/Sales where available: they may be used for instance to exclude companies with valuable intangibles or significant R&D activities when the tested party does not use valuable intangible assets nor participate in significant R&D activities. Criteria related to the importance of export sales (Foreign Sales/Total Sales), where relevant. Criteria related to inventories in absolute or relative value, where relevant. Other criteria to exclude third parties that are in particular special situations such as start-up companies, bankrupted companies, etc. when such peculiar situations are obviously not appropriate comparisons. The choice and application of selection criteria depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and the above list is neither limitative nor prescriptive ...

For example, assume that geographic comparability is deemed as the most relevant comparability factor given the nature of the effects of COVID-19 in a particular market. In these circumstances, in order to obtain reliable data from a particular market it may potentially be necessary to relax other comparability criteria, and then refine the sample ...

The COVID-19 pandemic has created economic conditions that often differ from those of previous years. In these circumstances, where a taxpayer rolls forward an existing set of comparables to cover FY2020, it may be necessary to review the suitability of these existing comparables and potentially in some cases, it may be useful to revise the set, based on updated search criteria ...

The need to adjust comparables and the requirement for accuracy and reliability are pointed out in these Guidelines on several occasions, both for the general application of the arm’s length principle and more specifically in the context of each method. To be comparable means that none of the differences (if any) between the situations being compared could materially affect the condition being examined in the methodology or that reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the effect of any such differences. Whether comparability adjustments should be performed (and if so, what adjustments should be performed) in a particular case is a matter of judgment that should be evaluated in light of the discussion of costs and compliance burden at Section C ...

The process followed to identify potential comparables is one of the most critical aspects of the comparability analysis and it should be transparent, systematic and verifiable. In particular, the choice of selection criteria has a significant influence on the outcome of the analysis and should reflect the most meaningful economic characteristics of the transactions compared. Complete elimination of subjective judgments from the selection of comparables would not be feasible, but much can be done to increase objectivity and ensure transparency in the application of subjective judgments. Ensuring transparency of the process may depend on the extent to which the criteria used to select potential comparables are able to be disclosed and the reasons for excluding some of the potential comparables are able to be explained. Increasing objectivity and ensuring transparency of the process may also depend on the extent to which the person reviewing the process (whether taxpayer or tax administration) has access to information regarding the process followed and to the same sources of data. Issues of documentation of the process of identifying comparables are discussed in Chapter V ...

It would not be appropriate to give systematic preference to one approach over the other because, depending on the circumstances of the case, there could be value in either the “additive” or the “deductive” approach, or in a combination of both. The “additive” and “deductive” approaches are often not used exclusively. In a typical “deductive” approach, in addition to searching public databases it is common to include third parties, for instance known competitors (or third parties that are known to carry out transactions potentially comparable to those of the taxpayer), which may otherwise not be found following a purely deductive approach, e.g. because they are classified under a different industry code. In such cases, the “additive” approach operates as a tool to refine a search that is based on a “deductive” approach ...

One advantage of the “deductive” approach is that it is more reproducible and transparent than the “additive”. It is also easier to verify because the review concentrates on the process and on the relevance of the selection criteria retained. On the other hand, it is acknowledged that the quality of the outcome of a “deductive” approach depends on the quality of the search tools on which it relies (e.g. quality of the database where a database is used and possibility to obtain detailed enough information). This can be a practical limitation in some countries where the reliability and usefulness of databases in comparability analyses are questionable ...

In practice, both quantitative and qualitative criteria are used to include or reject potential comparables. Examples of qualitative criteria are found in product portfolios and business strategies. The most commonly observed quantitative criteria are: Size criteria in terms of Sales, Assets or Number of Employees. The size of the transaction in absolute value or in proportion to the activities of the parties might affect the relative competitive positions of the buyer and seller and therefore comparability. Intangible-related criteria such as ratio of Net Value of Intangibles/Total Net Assets Value, or ratio of Research and Development (R&D)/Sales where available: they may be used for instance to exclude companies with valuable intangibles or significant R&D activities when the tested party does not use valuable intangible assets nor participate in significant R&D activities. Criteria related to the importance of export sales (Foreign Sales/Total Sales), where relevant. Criteria related to inventories in absolute or relative value, where relevant. Other criteria to exclude third parties that are in particular special situations such as start-up companies, bankrupted companies, etc. when such peculiar situations are obviously not appropriate comparisons. The choice and application of selection criteria depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and the above list is neither limitative nor prescriptive ...