In a transfer pricing case between the Peruvian tax authorities (SUNAT) and Repsol Comercializadora de Gas S.A. where the tax court had previously decided in favor of Repsol, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the tax court and established the following rules as binding precedent of mandatory compliance: “3.47.1. In order to determine whether, within an administrative procedure of partial or definitive audit referring to transfer pricing, the guarantee of reasonable time has been violated, the following must be analyzed and evaluated: (i) that the partial or definitive audit carried out by the tax administration is referred to the application of transfer pricing rules; (ii) that it involves companies linked to or through countries or territories of low or no taxation; (iii) the complexity to obtain the information and if the same is located in other territorial areas; (iv) the conduct of the taxpayer in the delivery of information and/or the requested extensions; (v) the conduct of the administration; and (vi) the evaluation as a whole of the above-mentioned factors. 3.47.2. In the partial and/or definitive audit in which the transfer pricing rules are applied, the suspension of the audit period regulated by numeral 6 of article 62-A of the Sole Ordered Text of the Tax Code is applicable, respecting the reasonable term.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

(i) FS is a foreign subsidiary of P, a U.S. corporation. P manufactures and sells household appliances. FS operates as P’s exclusive distributor in Europe. P annually establishes the price for each of its appliances sold to FS as part of its annual budgeting, production allocation and scheduling, and performance evaluation processes. FS’s aggregate gross margin earned in its distribution business is 18%. (ii) ED is an uncontrolled European distributor of competing household appliances. After adjusting for minor differences in the level of inventory, volume of sales, and warranty programs conducted by FS and ED, ED’s aggregate gross margin is also 18%. Thus, the district director may conclude that the aggregate prices charged by P for its appliances sold to FS are arm’s length, without determining whether the budgeting, production, and performance evaluation processes of P are similar to such processes used by ED ...

The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(2)(v) ...

In evaluating whether the result of a controlled transaction is arm’s length, it is not necessary for the district director to determine whether the method or procedure that a controlled taxpayer employs to set the terms for its controlled transactions corresponds to the method or procedure that might have been used by a taxpayer dealing at arm’s length with an uncontrolled taxpayer. Rather, the district director will evaluate the result achieved rather than the method the taxpayer used to determine its prices ...

...

The methods described in §§ 1.482-2 through 1.482-6 are generally stated in terms of individual transactions. However, because a taxpayer may have controlled transactions involving many different products, or many separate transactions involving the same product, it may be impractical to analyze every individual transaction to determine its arm’s length price. In such cases, it is permissible to evaluate the arm’s length results by applying the appropriate methods to the overall results for product lines or other groupings. In addition, the arm’s length results of all related party transactions entered into by a controlled taxpayer may be evaluated by employing sampling and other valid statistical techniques ...

(i) USP, a U.S. corporation, manufactures product Y in the United States and sells it to FSub, which acts as USP’s exclusive distributor of product Y in Country N. The resale price method described in § 1.482-3(c) is used to evaluate whether the transfer price charged by USP to FSub for the 1994 taxable year for product Y was arm’s length. For the period 1992 through 1994, FSub had a gross profit margin for each year of 13%. A, B, C and D are uncontrolled distributors of products that compete directly with product Y in country N. After making appropriate adjustments in accordance with §§ 1.482-1(d)(2) and 1.482-3(c), the gross profit margins for A, B, C, and D are as follows: 1992 1993 1994 Average A 13 3 8 8.00 B 11 13 2 8.67 7C 4 7 13 8.00 7D 7 9 6 7.33 (ii) Applying the provisions of § 1.482-1(e), the district director determines that the arm’s length range of the average gross profit margins is between 7.33 and 8.67. The district director concludes that FSub’s average gross margin of 13% is not within the arm’s length range, despite the fact that C’s gross profit margin for 1994 was also 13%, since the economic conditions that caused S’s result did not have a comparable effect over a comparable period of time on the results of C or the other uncontrolled comparables. In this case, the district director makes an allocation equivalent to adjusting FSub’s gross profit margin for 1994 from 13% to the mean of the uncontrolled comparables’ results for 1994 (7.25%) ...

FP manufactures product X in Country M and sells it to USSub, which distributes X in the United States. USSub realizes losses with respect to the controlled transactions in each of five consecutive taxable years. In each of the five consecutive years a different uncontrolled comparable realized a loss with respect to comparable transactions equal to or greater than USSub’s loss. Pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, the district director examines whether the uncontrolled comparables realized similar losses over a comparable period of time, and finds that each of the five comparables realized losses in only one of the five years, and their average result over the five-year period was a profit. Based on this data, the district director may conclude that the controlled taxpayer’s results are not within the arm’s length range over the five year period, since the economic conditions that resulted in the controlled taxpayer’s loss did not have a comparable effect over a comparable period of time on the uncontrolled comparables ...

(i) FP, a Country X corporation, designs and manufactures machinery in Country X. FP’s costs are incurred in Country X currency. USSub is the exclusive distributor of FP’s machinery in the United States. The price of the machinery sold by FP to USSub is expressed in Country X currency. Thus, USSub bears all of the currency risk associated with fluctuations in the exchange rate between the time the contract is signed and the payment is made. The prices charged by FP to USSub for 1995 are under examination. In that year, the value of the dollar depreciated against the currency of Country X, and as a result, USSub’s gross margin was only 8%. (ii) UD is an uncontrolled distributor of similar machinery that performs distribution functions substantially the same as those performed by USSub, except that UD purchases and resells machinery in transactions where both the purchase and resale prices are denominated in U.S. dollars. Thus, UD had no currency exchange risk. UD’s gross margin in 1995 was 10%. UD’s average gross margin for the period 1990 to 1998 has been 12%. (iii) In determining whether the price charged by FP to USSub in 1995 was arm’s length, the district director may consider USSub’s average gross margin for an appropriate period before and after 1995 to determine whether USSub’s average gross margin during the period was sufficiently greater than UD’s average gross margin during the same period such that USSub was sufficiently compensated for the currency risk it bore throughout the period. See § 1.482– 1(d)(3)(iii) (Risk) ...

P sold product Z to S for $60 per unit in 1995. Applying the resale price method to data from uncontrolled comparables for the same year establishes an arm’s length range of prices for the controlled transaction from $52 to $59 per unit. Since the price charged in the controlled transaction falls outside the range, the district director would ordinarily make an allocation under section 482. However, in this case there are cyclical factors that affect the results of the uncontrolled comparables (and that of the controlled transaction) that cannot be adequately accounted for by specific adjustments to the data for 1995. Therefore, the district director considers results over multiple years to account for these factors. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to average the results of the uncontrolled comparables over the years 1993, 1994, and 1995 to determine an arm’s length range. The averaged results establish an arm’s length range of $56 to $58 per unit. For consistency, the results of the controlled taxpayers must also be averaged over the same years. The average price in the controlled transaction over the three years is $57. Because the controlled transfer price of product Z falls within the arm’s length range, the district director makes no allocation ...

The following examples, in which S and P are controlled taxpayers, illustrate this paragraph (f)(2)(iii). Examples 1 and 4 also illustrate the principle of the arm’s length range of paragraph (e) of this section ...

If a comparison of a controlled taxpayer’s average result over a multiple year period with the average results of uncontrolled comparables over the same period would reduce the effect of short-term variations that may be unrelated to transfer pricing, it may be appropriate to establish a range derived from the average results of uncontrolled comparables over a multiple year period to determine if an adjustment should be made. In such a case the district director may make an adjustment if the controlled taxpayer’s average result for the multiple year period is not within such range. Such a range must be determined in accordance with § 1.482-1(e) (Arm’s length range). An adjustment in such a case ordinarily will be equal to the difference, if any, between the controlled taxpayer’s result for the taxable year and the mid-point of the uncontrolled comparables’ results for that year. If the interquartile range is used to determine the range of average results for the multiple year period, such adjustment will ordinarily be made to the median of all the results of the uncontrolled comparables for the taxable year. See Example 2 of § 1.482-5(e). In other cases, the adjustment normally will be made to the arithmetic mean of all the results of the uncontrolled comparables for the taxable year. However, an adjustment will be made only to the extent that it would move the controlled taxpayer’s multiple year average closer to the arm’s length range for the multiple year period or to any point within such range. In determining a controlled taxpayer’s average result for a multiple year period, adjustments made under this section for prior years will be taken into account only if such adjustments have been finally determined, as described in § 1.482-1(g)(2)(iii). See Example 3 of § 1.482-5(e) ...

Data from multiple years may be considered to determine whether the same economic conditions that caused the controlled taxpayer’s results had a comparable effect over a comparable period of time on the uncontrolled comparables that establish the arm’s length range. For example, given that uncontrolled taxpayers enter into transactions with the ultimate expectation of earning a profit, persistent losses among controlled taxpayers may be an indication of non-arm’s length dealings. Thus, if a controlled taxpayer that realizes a loss with respect to a controlled transaction seeks to demonstrate that the loss is within the arm’s length range, the district director may take into account data from taxable years other than the taxable year of the transaction to determine whether the loss was attributable to arm’s length dealings. The rule of this paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C) is illustrated by Example 3 of paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(E) of this section ...

The extent to which it is appropriate to consider multiple year data depends on the method being applied and the issue being addressed. Circumstances that may warrant consideration of data from multiple years include the extent to which complete and accurate data are available for the taxable year under review, the effect of business cycles in the controlled taxpayer’s industry, or the effects of life cycles of the product or intangible property being examined. Data from one or more years before or after the taxable year under review must ordinarily be considered for purposes of applying the provisions of paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section (risk), paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section (market share strategy), § 1.482-4(f)(2) (periodic adjustments), § 1.482-5 (comparable profits method), § 1.482-9(f) (comparable profits method for services), and § 1.482-9(i) (contingent-payment contractual terms for services). On the other hand, multiple year data ordinarily will not be considered for purposes of applying the comparable uncontrolled price method of § 1.482-3(b) or the comparable uncontrolled services price method of § 1.482-9(c) (except to the extent that risk or market share strategy issues are present) ...

The results of a controlled transaction ordinarily will be compared with the results of uncontrolled comparables occurring in the taxable year under review. It may be appropriate, however, to consider data relating to the uncontrolled comparables or the controlled taxpayer for one or more years before or after the year under review. If data relating to uncontrolled comparables from multiple years is used, data relating to the controlled taxpayer for the same years ordinarily must be considered. However, if such data is not available, reliable data from other years, as adjusted under paragraph (d)(2) (Standard of comparability) of this section may be used ...

...

The Commissioner will evaluate the results of a transaction as actually structured by the taxpayer unless its structure lacks economic substance. However, the Commissioner may consider the alternatives available to the taxpayer in determining whether the terms of the controlled transaction would be acceptable to an uncontrolled taxpayer faced with the same alternatives and operating under comparable circumstances. In such cases the Commissioner may adjust the consideration charged in the controlled transaction based on the cost or profit of an alternative as adjusted to account for material differences between the alternative and the controlled transaction, but will not restructure the transaction as if the alternative had been adopted by the taxpayer. See paragraph (d)(3) of this section (factors for determining comparability; contractual terms and risk); §§ 1.482-3(e), 1.482-4(d), and 1.482-9(h) (unspecified methods) ...

...

The following rules must be taken into account in determining the true taxable income of a controlled taxpayer ...

Section 482 and the regulations thereunder apply to all controlled taxpayers, whether the controlled taxpayer files a separate or consolidated U.S. income tax return. If a controlled taxpayer files a separate return, its true separate taxable income will be determined. If a controlled taxpayer is a party to a consolidated return, the true consolidated taxable income of the affiliated group and the true separate taxable income of the controlled taxpayer must be determined consistently with the principles of a consolidated return ...

(i) In Year 1 USP, a United States corporation, bought 100 shares of UR, an unrelated corporation, for $100,000. In Year 2, when the value of the UR stock had decreased to $40,000, USP contributed all 100 shares of UR stock to its wholly-owned subsidiary in exchange for subsidiary’s capital stock. In Year 3, the subsidiary sold all of the UR stock for $40,000 to an unrelated buyer, and on its U.S. income tax return, claimed a loss of $60,000 attributable to the sale of the UR stock. USP and its subsidiary do not file a consolidated return. (ii) In determining the true taxable income of the subsidiary, the district director may disallow the loss of $60,000 on the ground that the loss was incurred by USP. National Securities Corp. v Commissioner, 137 F.2d 600 (3rd Cir. 1943), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 794 (1943) ...

The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(1)(iii) ...

If necessary to prevent the avoidance of taxes or to clearly reflect income, the district director may make an allocation under section 482 with respect to transactions that otherwise qualify for nonrecognition of gain or loss under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (such as section 351 or 1031) ...

...

USSub is a U.S. subsidiary of FP, a foreign corporation. Parent manufactures product X and sells it to USSub. USSub functions as a distributor of product X to unrelated customers in the United States. The fact that FP may incur a loss on the manufacture and sale of product X does not by itself establish that USSub, dealing with FP at arm’s length, also would incur a loss. An independent distributor acting at arm’s length with its supplier would in many circumstances be expected to earn a profit without regard to the level of profit earned by the supplier ...

The following example illustrates this paragraph (f)(1)(ii) ...

The district director may make an allocation under section 482 even if the income ultimately anticipated from a series of transactions has not been or is never realized. For example, if a controlled taxpayer sells a product at less than an arm’s length price to a related taxpayer in one taxable year and the second controlled taxpayer resells the product to an unrelated party in the next taxable year, the district director may make an appropriate allocation to reflect an arm’s length price for the sale of the product in the first taxable year, even though the second controlled taxpayer had not realized any gross income from the resale of the product in the first year. Similarly, if a controlled taxpayer lends money to a related taxpayer in a taxable year, the district director may make an appropriate allocation to reflect an arm’s length charge for interest during such taxable year even if the second controlled taxpayer does not realize income during such year. Finally, even if two controlled taxpayers realize an overall loss that is attributable to a particular controlled transaction, an allocation under section 482 is not precluded ...

...

In making allocations under section 482, the district director is not restricted to the case of improper accounting, to the case of a fraudulent, colorable, or sham transaction, or to the case of a device designed to reduce or avoid tax by shifting or distorting income, deductions, credits, or allowances ...

The authority to determine true taxable income extends to any case in which either by inadvertence or design the taxable income, in whole or in part, of a controlled taxpayer is other than it would have been had the taxpayer, in the conduct of its affairs, been dealing at arm’s length with an uncontrolled taxpayer ...

...

In situations where a proper transfer pricing risk assessment suggests that a thorough transfer pricing audit is warranted with regard to one or more issues, it is clearly the case that the tax administration must have the ability to obtain, within a reasonable period, all of the relevant documents and information in the taxpayer’s possession. This includes information regarding the taxpayer’s operations and functions, relevant information on the operations, functions and financial results of associated enterprises with which the taxpayer has entered into controlled transactions, information regarding potential comparables, including internal comparables, and documents regarding the operations and financial results of potentially comparable uncontrolled transactions and unrelated parties. To the extent such information is included in the transfer pricing documentation, special information and document production procedures can potentially be avoided. It must be recognised, however, that it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient for transfer pricing documentation to attempt to anticipate all of the information that might possibly be required for a full audit. Accordingly, situations will inevitably arise when tax administrations wish to obtain information not included in the documentation package. Thus, a tax administration’s access to information should not be limited to, or by, the documentation package relied on in a transfer pricing risk assessment. Where a jurisdiction requires particular information to be retained for transfer pricing audit purposes, such requirements should balance the tax administration’s need for information and the compliance burdens on taxpayers ...

A third objective for transfer pricing documentation is to provide tax administrations with useful information to employ in conducting a thorough transfer pricing audit. Transfer pricing audit cases tend to be fact-intensive. They often involve difficult evaluations of the comparability of several transactions and markets. They can require detailed consideration of financial, factual and other industry information. The availability of adequate information from a variety of sources during the audit is critical to facilitating a tax administration’s orderly examination of the taxpayer’s controlled transactions with associated enterprises and enforcement of the applicable transfer pricing rules ...

31 March 2021 the Polish Ministry of Finance issued tax clarifications on transfer pricing – No. 2: Transfer Pricing Adjustments Click here for unofficial English translation ...

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 ...

During an audit for the FY 2010 “Doc Request SA” was requested to submit information and supporting documentation on expense accounts, acquisitions of goods and services, ISC commission accounts paid etc. after the ordinary one-year audit period established by Article 62º-A of the Tax Code had already expired. The taxpayer filed a complaint arguing that the exception to this one-year period provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 62º-A, referring to the audits carried out in regards of transfer pricing rules, was not applicable, given that the requested information and documentation did not related to transfer pricing. Decision of the Court The Court decided in favour of “Doc Request SA”. Excerpt “…the complainant was requested to submit information and supporting documentation on expense accounts, acquisitions of goods and services recorded in the Book, charges to the ISC commission accounts paid and unreported airline tickets flown, additions and deductions via affidavit, credits to expense accounts, charges to income accounts and bad debts…, in order to support their use in the company’s own operations and demonstrate that such expenses are proper and/or necessary to maintain the source generating taxable income (principle of causality), in accordance with article 37 of the Income Tax Law; among others; that is, the complainant has been asked for information and documentation that would not involve the application of the transfer pricing rules, taking into account that the Administration has not specified in that request whether the information and documentation requested is related to the application of the aforementioned rules. In this regard, in accordance with the aforementioned criterion, the exception regulated by numeral 3) of article 62º-A of the Tax Code is only applicable to the requirements requesting information and/or documentation related to the application of the transfer pricing rules, and not those referring to aspects that do not involve the application of said rules; Consequently, the Administration had a period of one year to request from the complainant information and/or documentation referring to aspects other than the application of the transfer pricing rules, and in this case, the notification of the requirement No. 0122170000434 was not made within the period established by law18. Consequently, considering that the information and/or documentation requested in Demand No. 0122170000434 is not related to the application of the transfer pricing rules, but to other aspects of the tax and period audited, and that said demand was notified to the complainant when the one-year term established by numeral 1 of article 62º-A of the Tax Code had already elapsed, the complaint filed should be declared well-founded, and the Administration should annul the aforementioned demand.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

In situations where a proper transfer pricing risk assessment suggests that a thorough transfer pricing audit is warranted with regard to one or more issues, it is clearly the case that the tax administration must have the ability to obtain, within a reasonable period, all of the relevant documents and information in the taxpayer’s possession. This includes information regarding the taxpayer’s operations and functions, relevant information on the operations, functions and financial results of associated enterprises with which the taxpayer has entered into controlled transactions, information regarding potential comparables, including internal comparables, and documents regarding the operations and financial results of potentially comparable uncontrolled transactions and unrelated parties. To the extent such information is included in the transfer pricing documentation, special information and document production procedures can potentially be avoided. It must be recognised, however, that it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient for transfer pricing documentation to attempt to anticipate all of the information that might possibly be required for a full audit. Accordingly, situations will inevitably arise when tax administrations wish to obtain information not included in the documentation package. Thus, a tax administration’s access to information should not be limited to, or by, the documentation package relied on in a transfer pricing risk assessment. Where a jurisdiction requires particular information to be kept for transfer pricing audit purposes, such requirements should balance the tax administration’s need for information and the compliance burdens on taxpayers ...

A third objective for transfer pricing documentation is to provide tax administrations with useful information to employ in conducting a thorough transfer pricing audit. Transfer pricing audit cases tend to be fact-intensive. They often involve difficult evaluations of the comparability of several transactions and markets. They can require detailed consideration of financial, factual and other industry information. The availability of adequate information from a variety of sources during the audit is critical to facilitating a tax administration’s orderly examination of the taxpayer’s controlled transactions with associated enterprises and enforcement of the applicable transfer pricing rules ...