The Portuguese tax authority requested the Swiss tax authority in a letter dated May 28, 2020 based on Article 25 of the DTT CH-PT to provide information regarding “A Furnishing SA” (hereinafter the Portuguese company) for the tax periods from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2018. X Furnishing AG (hereinafter the Swiss company) was the holder of the information. The Portuguese tax authority states that it is carrying out a tax audit of the Portuguese company for the tax years 2015-2017, or the period between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2018. The Portuguese company mainly produces wood-based furnishings in accordance with supply contracts with the Swiss company, which takes over all products. The Portuguese and Swiss companies are affiliated companies and are currently part of the C. group, from which they were taken over by the D. group on August 31, 2016. The Swiss company is the global buyer of Furnishing products. In the transfer pricing documentation submitted by the Portuguese company, the transactions with the Swiss company were determined by applying the transactional net margin method (TNMM) as it was stated there that other methods were either not applicable or could not be used with sufficient reliability. The documentation also states that the Swiss company is responsible for the storage and distribution of products and that this company also provides related, highly qualified services, such as monitoring quality control. However, the documentation does not explain how the price for these services were determined , nor does it show how some of the functions supposedly developed by the Swiss company for products manufactured by the Portuguese company were carried out. During the ongoing tax audit, the Portuguese tax authority wants to identify the overall picture of these transactions, namely the functions carried out by the Portuguese company, the Swiss company and other entities, the means used and the risks assumed by these companies. A request for administrative assistance was therefore considered necessary in order to understand the pricing mechanisms used and to determine whether the transactions comply with the arm’s length principle. After examining the request, the Swiss tax authority came to the conclusion that it should be acted upon, whereupon it requested the Swiss company to provide it with further information and to inform the Portuguese company about the ongoing administrative assistance procedure X Furnishing AG objected and called the request of the Portuguese tax authority a “fishing expedition” and the case ended up in the Federal Administrative Court. Decision of the Court The appeal of X Furnishing AG was largely dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court. However in regards of the request for transfer pricing documentation from the Swiss company the court states that none is available and, under Swiss law, does not have to be produced. See also the previous decision A-742/2022. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Two issues were adressed in this case – transfer pricing and withholding taxes. The transfer pricing issue concerned whether the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had been entitled to issue an assessment on controlled transactions made between “Soy A/S” and a flow-through company in the group located in a low tax jurisdiction. The withholding tax issue concerned whether the 13 transfers actually constituted taxable dividends under section 31, D of the Danish Corporation Tax Act, which “Soy A/S” was subsequently liable for not having withheld tax at source, cf. section 69(1) of the Danish Withholding Tax Act. Judgement of the High Court In regards of the transfer pricing issue, the High Court found that the company’s TP documentation was subject to a number of deficiencies which meant that the documentation did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for assessing whether the transactions were made in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The High Court emphasised, among other things, that the documentation did not sufficiently describe how prices and terms had actually been determined. The High Court also emphasised that there had only been a very general description and very sparse information about the sister company’s business activities, contractual terms and financial circumstances, including no information about to whom and at what prices the goods from the sister company were resold. SKAT was therefore entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the company’s taxable income. The High Court found no basis to set aside SKAT’s estimate, as the company had neither demonstrated that the estimate was exercised on an erroneous basis nor led to a manifestly unreasonable result. The High Court emphasised, among other things, the extent and nature of the deficiencies in the information basis and the fact that SKAT had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain additional information for use in the tax assessment. As regards the arm’s length interval used by SKAT, the High Court found, after an overall assessment, that SKAT had been entitled to use the interquartile range and adjusted the price to the third quartile. The High Court stated that the company had a central and value-creating function in the group, and that the comparability analysis was based on “limited risk distributors”, which were not directly comparable with the company. The High Court also found that the foreign sister company had to be considered a pure flow-through company that had no independent business justification in the group. In this connection, the High Court stated that there had been changing information about the sister company’s employees and that there was no documentation that there had been employees to carry out the alleged activities in the company. The analyses prepared after the tax assessment, including the capital adjustment test and the berry ratio analysis, as well as the other factors invoked by the company could not lead to a different assessment. In regards of the withholding tax issue the High Court found that the foreign sister company could only be considered to have acted as a flow-through company that did not bear any risk with the commodity trade. The High Court emphasised, among other things, that no hedging contracts had been presented. In light of the other circumstances of the case, the High Court found that the 13 transfers, which did not take place until 2010, could not be considered to have been made pursuant to the aforementioned agency agreement. The High Court stated that in the situation at hand, the company had a heightened burden of proof that there was no basis for considering the payments as subsidies/dividends with derived liability for withholding tax. The High Court found that the Danish company had not met this burden of proof through the testimony of the company’s former CEO and auditor. Finally, the High Court found that the Danish company was aware of all the circumstances surrounding the transfers to the foreign sister company in Y1 country, and that the transfers were very significant without documentation. On this basis, the High Court found that the Danish company had acted negligently and was therefore liable for the missing withholding tax, cf. section 69(1) of the current Withholding Tax Act, cf. section 65(1). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

“Forward KT Limited” submitted a report on controlled transactions for 2013 to the tax authority on 13 May 2015. The tax authority found that Forward KT Limited had failed to submit the report within the filing deadline of 1 October 2014. In an appeal “Forward KT Limited” claimed that within the meaning of Article 39 24 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, transactions where one party is a non-resident registered in a country where the income tax rate is 5 percentage points or more lower than in Ukraine, provided that the amount of such transactions exceeds UAH 50 million during a calendar year, are considered controlled. The Republic of Cyprus was included in the list of such countries from 25 December 2013, and the total amount of transactions with a non-resident for the period from 25 December 2013 to 31 December 2013 was only UAH 25.5 million. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim in a ruling later upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. The lower courts concluded that transactions with the non-resident party for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 December 2013 were controlled within the meaning of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and therefore the report on these transactions should have been submitted to the tax authority by 1 October 2014. “Forward KT Limited” then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the challenged court decisions. Excerpts “(…)The courts of the previous instances found that the total amount of transactions between the plaintiff and the non-resident counterparty for the period from 23 October 2013 to 31 December 2013 was UAH 82,466,456.12. Given that the plaintiff’s counterparty is registered in a country included in the list of countries where the corporate income tax rate is 5 per cent or more lower than in Ukraine and the total amount of transactions for the relevant calendar year is more than UAH 50 million, the courts of previous instances concluded that the business transactions of the plaintiff and Ktonel Holdings Limited are controlled within the meaning of Article 39 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. In its turn, the plaintiff argues that in this case only those transactions that took place between 25 December 2013 and 31 December 2013, i.e. from the date of adoption of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1042-р dated 25 December 2013, should be taken into account. According to the plaintiff, the amount of the transaction for the said period is UAH 25,495,054.92, i.e. the transactions are not controlled. Sub-clause 39.2.1.4. of clause 39.2 of Article 39 of the Tax Code of Ukraine stipulates that the transactions referred to in sub-clauses 39.2.1.1 and 39.2.1.2 of this Article are recognised as controlled provided that the total amount of the taxpayer’s transactions with each counterparty equals or exceeds UAH 50 million (excluding value added tax) for the relevant calendar year. The court agrees with the conclusion of the courts of previous instances that if the total amount of transactions between the taxpayer and a non-resident whose place of registration is a country included in the List exceeds or equals UAH 50 million in the period from 01.09.2013 to 31.12.2013, such transactions are controlled.” (…) “The court agrees with the argument of the court of first instance that the actions of the plaintiff in preparing and submitting to the controlling authority the report on controlled transactions for 2013 on business transactions with Ktonel Holdings Limited refute the plaintiff’s claim that there are no signs of a controlled transaction, since by its actions the plaintiff has actually acknowledged the fact that it has an obligation to submit such a report. In view of the foregoing, the court agrees with the conclusion of the courts of first instance and appeal that the plaintiff’s business transactions with Ktonel Holdings Limited for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 December 2013 are controlled within the meaning of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and the report on these transactions should have been submitted to the controlling authority by 1 October 2014. The arguments of the cassation appeal have not been confirmed and are refuted by the case file and do not give grounds to believe that the courts of first instance and appellate courts violated the substantive and procedural law in making the contested decision. Pursuant to Article 350(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the cassation court shall dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the court decisions unchanged if it finds that the courts of first instance and appellate courts did not misapply substantive law or violate procedural law in making court decisions or performing procedural actions. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal within the arguments and requirements of the cassation appeal and based on the established factual circumstances of the case, having verified the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the courts, sees no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal”. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Based on Article 28 of the DTT CH-FR the French tax authority requested the Swiss tax authorities to answer several questions regarding A. SAS and B. GmbH. and to submit various documents to verify the “economic reality” or “real” existence and substance of G. Switzerland and to the modalities of their taxation in Switzerland and the “bond subscription agreement” between G. Switzerland and G. Belgium). After examining the request, the Swiss tax authority came to the conclusion that it should be acted upon, whereupon it requested the company to provide it with the information. The Swiss company objected to parts of the request and called it a “fishing expedition” and the case ended up in the Federal Administrative Court. Decision of the Court The appeal of the Swiss company was partly upheld by the Federal Administrative Court. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Portuguese tax authority requested the Swiss tax authority in a letter dated May 28, 2020 based on Article 25 of the DTT CH-PT to provide information regarding “A Furnishing SA” (hereinafter the Portuguese company) for the tax periods from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2018. X Furnishing AG (hereinafter the Swiss company) was the holder of the information. The Portuguese tax authority states that it is carrying out a tax audit of the Portuguese company for the tax years 2015-2017, or the period between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2018. The Portuguese company mainly produces wood-based furnishings in accordance with supply contracts with the Swiss company, which takes over all products. The Portuguese and Swiss companies are affiliated companies and are currently part of the C. group, from which they were taken over by the D. group on August 31, 2016. The Swiss company is the global buyer of Furnishing products. In the transfer pricing documentation submitted by the Portuguese company, the transactions with the Swiss company were determined by applying the transactional net margin method (TNMM) as it was stated there that other methods were either not applicable or could not be used with sufficient reliability. The documentation also states that the Swiss company is responsible for the storage and distribution of products and that this company also provides related, highly qualified services, such as monitoring quality control. However, the documentation does not explain how the price for these services were determined , nor does it show how some of the functions supposedly developed by the Swiss company for products manufactured by the Portuguese company were carried out. During the ongoing tax audit, the Portuguese tax authority wants to identify the overall picture of these transactions, namely the functions carried out by the Portuguese company, the Swiss company and other entities, the means used and the risks assumed by these companies. A request for administrative assistance was therefore considered necessary in order to understand the pricing mechanisms used and to determine whether the transactions comply with the arm’s length principle. After examining the request, the Swiss tax authority came to the conclusion that it should be acted upon, whereupon it requested the Swiss company to provide it with further information and to inform the Portuguese company about the ongoing administrative assistance procedure X Furnishing AG objected and called the request of the Portuguese tax authority a “fishing expedition” and the case ended up in the Federal Administrative Court. Decision of the Court The appeal of X Furnishing AG was largely dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court. However in regards of the request for transfer pricing documentation from the Swiss company the court states that none is available and, under Swiss law, does not have to be produced. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

“XZ Insurance SA” is the parent company in a group engaged in insurance activities in its various branches, both life and non-life, finance, investment property and services. An audit was conducted for FY 2013-2016 and in 2020 an assessment was issued in relation to both controlled transactions and other transactions. Among outher issued the tax authorities determined that “XZ Insurance SA” did not receive any royalty income from the use of the XZ trademark by to other entities of the group, both domestic and foreign. In the assessment the tax authorities determined the arm’s length royalty percentage for use of the trademarks to be on average ~0,5%. “In order to estimate the market royalty, the first aspect to be studied is the existence of an internal comparable or comparable trademark assignment contracts. And we have already stated that the absence of valid internal and external comparables has led us to resort to the use of other generally accepted valuation methods and techniques. In this respect, it should be noted that this situation is frequent when valuing transactions related to intangibles, and the Guidelines have expressly echoed this situation (in particular, in paragraphs 6.138, 6.153, 6.156, 6.157 and 6.162, which are transcribed in section 6.2 of this Report).” A complaint was filed by “XZ Insurance SA” Judgement of the TEAC The TEAC dismissed the complaint of “XZ Insurance SA” and upheld the tax assessment. Excerpts from the decision concerning the assessment of income for use of the trademarks by other group companies “On this issue, it is worth pointing out an idea that the complainant uses recurrently in its written submissions. The complainant considers that if there is no growth in the number of policies and premiums, it should not be argued that the use of the XZ brand generates a profit in the subsidiaries. However, as the Inspectorate has already replied, it is not possible to identify the increase in the profit of the brand with the increase in premiums, nor that the growth, in certain countries, of the entities is exclusively due to the value of the brand. Logically, increases and decreases in premiums are due to multiple factors, including the disposable income of the inhabitants of each country, tax regulations, civil liability legislation, among others, and we cannot share the complainant’s view that the brand does not generate a profit in the event of a decrease in premiums in the market. Furthermore, insofar as the enforceability of the royalty is conditioned by the fact that the assignment produces a profit for the company using the brand, there is greater evidence as to the usefulness of the brand in the main markets in which the group operates and in which it is most relevant: Spain, COUNTRY_1, Latin American countries, COUNTRY_2, COUNTRY_3, COUNTRY_4 and COUNTRY_5. Finally, one aspect that draws the attention of this TEAC is the contrast between what the complainant demands that the administration should do and the attitude of the administration in the inspection procedure. On the one hand, it demands that the administration carry out a detailed analysis of the valuation of the profit generated by the trademark for the group, but, on the other hand, there is a total lack of contribution on the part of the entity in providing specific information on the valuation of the trademark that could facilitate the task it demands of the administration. In fact, this information was requested by the Inspectorate, to which it replied that “there are no studies available on the value or awareness and relevance of the XZ brand in the years under inspection” (…) “It follows from the above that it has not been proven that the different entities of the group made direct contributions or contributions that would determine that, effectively, the economic ownership of the trademark should be shared. Therefore, this TEAC must consider, given the existing evidence, that both the legal and economic ownership of the trademark corresponds to the entity XZ ESPAÑA. In short, it is clear from the facts set out above that certain entities of the group used, and use, for the marketing of their services and products, a relevant and internationally established trademark, the “XZ” trademark, which gives them a prestige in the market that directly and undoubtedly has an impact on their sales figures, with the consequent increase in their economic profit. It is clear from the above that there was, in the years audited, a transfer of use of an established, international brand, valued by independent third parties (according to the ONFI report, according to …, between … and …. million euros in the years under review) and maintained from a maintenance point of view (relevant advertising and promotional expenses). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, as does the Inspectorate, that, in a transaction of this type – the assignment of the “XZ” trademark – carried out at arm’s length, a payment for the use of the intangible asset would have been made to its owner, without prejudice to the fact that the value assigned to the assignment of use of the aforementioned trademark may be disputed; but what seems clear, and this is what the TEAC states, is that it is an intangible asset whose assignment of use has value. In conclusion, the TEAC considers that the entity owning the trademark (XZ SPAIN) had an intangible asset and transferred its use, for which it should receive income; by transferring the use of the asset to group entities, both domiciled in Spain and abroad, it is appropriate to calculate that income for XZ SPAIN by applying the regime for related-party transactions.” (…) “In section 6 of the report, as we have already analysed, ONFI attempts to find external comparables, insofar as there are no internal comparables within the group, reaching the conclusion that they cannot be identified in the market analysed. Consequently, it proceeds to estimate the royalty that XZ Spain should receive, by applying other methodologies that allow an approximation to the arm’s length price, based ...

A Regional Tax Court in Germany had requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice on two questions related to German transfer pricing documentation requirements. whether the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) or the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU) is to be interpreted in such a way that it precludes the obligation to provide transfer pricing documentation for transactions with a foreign related parties (Section 90 (3) AO) and whether the sanctions regulated in section 162(4) AO could be contrary to EU law The Regional Tax Court considered that these provisions establish special documentation requirements for taxpayers with transactions with foreign related parties. In the event of non-compliance with these documentation requirements, section 162(4) AO leads to a sanction in the form of a fine/surcharge. Neither was provided for taxpayers with transactions with domestic related parties. However, such discrimination can be justified by compelling reasons in the public interest. In this context, the Regional Tax Court considered the legitimate objective of preventing tax avoidance and the preservation of the balanced distribution of taxation powers between the Member States as possible grounds for justification. However, the Tax Court was not confident in regards to the level of sanctions – i.e. whether the fine/surcharges went beyond what was necessary to achieve the intended purpose. Judgement of the European Court of Justice The Court ruled that German transfer pricing documentation requirement and related sanctions was not in conflict with EU law. “Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation under which, in the first place, the taxpayer is subject to an obligation to provide documentation on the nature and content of, as well as on the economic and legal bases for, prices and other terms and conditions of his, her or its cross-border business transactions, with parties with which he, she or it has a relationship of interdependence, in capital or other aspects, enabling that taxpayer or those parties to exercise a definite influence over the other, and which provides, in the second place, in the event of infringement of that obligation, not only that his, her or its taxable income in the Member State concerned is rebuttably presumed to be higher than that which has been declared, and the tax authorities may carry out an estimate to the detriment of the taxpayer, but also that a surcharge of an amount equivalent to at least 5% and at most 10% of the excess income determined is imposed, with a minimum amount of EUR 5 000, unless non-compliance with that obligation is excusable or if the fault involved is minor.” ...

Polish Ordinance No. 1934 of August 29 2022 on transfer pricing documentation. The new ordinance sets out the detailed scope of data and information and the content of the statement contained in the corporate income tax transfer pricing documentation together with explanations on how it should be prepared. Click here for unofficial English translation Click here for other translation ...

In case concerns the tax implications of four reinsurance agreements concluded between Codan Forsikring (Codan Insurance) and a controlled Irish company, RSA Reinsurance Ireland Ltd. for FY 2010-2013. The tax authorities had increased Codan Insurance’s taxable income for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 by DKK 23 million, DKK 25 million, and DKK 18 million and reduced the taxable income for FY 2013 by DKK 4 million. At issue was whether expenses incurred by Codan for reinsurance of policies in Ireland were commercially justified and thus deductible. If so, there were questions as to whether the reinsurance agreements were concluded at arm’s length and whether Codan Insurance’s transfer pricing documentation met the requirements that could be made. By decision of 26 June 2019, the Tax Court reduced the assessment to DKK 0 for the 2010-2012 tax years and upheld Codan’s taxable income for FY 2013. An appeal was filed by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Eastern High Court The High Court upheld the decision of the tax Court and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities. The Court found that the reinsurance agreements with the Irish subsidiary served a commercial purpose and that there were no grounds for setting them aside. The significance of the existence of a controlled relationship between Codan Forsikring and RSA Reinsurance, including the determination of the amount of the commission, had then to be assessed according to the rules on arm’s length correction of transactions between related parties. The Regional Court further found that the transfer pricing documentation was not deficient to such a significant extent that it could be equated with a lack of documentation and that Codan Insurance’s income could not, on the basis specified, be assessed on an estimated basis pursuant to section 3B(8) of the current Tax Control Act, cf. section 5(3). Finally, the Regional Court found that the reinsurance agreements were not outside the scope of what could have been agreed between independent parties, cf. The Regional Court therefore upheld Codan Forsikrings’ claim for acquittal. Click here for English Translation ...

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to disclose the event related to the free-of-charge consideration received in a simplified CIT/TP report, both for the year in which the guarantee is granted and for subsequent tax years during which the guarantee is in effect. In A. Sp. z o.o.’s opinion, the company was not obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received. And if the tax authority’s decision was contrary to the Company’s position, documentation should be prepared only for the tax year in which the guarantees was entered. The tax authorities disagreed with the company, and a complaint was filed by A. Sp. Z o.o. with the Administrative Court. In March 2019 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint of A. Sp. z o.o. and sided with the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed by the company with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Guidance on the understanding of the notion of “transaction”, was published by Polish Ministry of Finance in December 2021. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

Annex III to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Country-by-Country Report A. Model template for the Country-by-Country Report Table 1. Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax jurisdiction Table 2. List of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group included in each aggregation per tax jurisdiction Please specify the nature of the activity of the Constituent Entity in the Additional Information” section. Table 3. Additional Information B. Template for the Country-by-Country Report – General instructions Purpose This Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains a template for reporting a multinational enterprise’s (MNE) group allocation of income, taxes and business activities on a tax jurisdiction-by-tax jurisdiction basis. These instructions form an integral part of the model template for the Country-by-Country Report. Definitions Reporting MNE A Reporting MNE is the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group. Constituent Entity For purposes of completing Annex III, a Constituent Entity of the MNE group is (i) any separate business unit of an MNE group that is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE group for financial reporting purposes, or would be so included if equity interests in such business unit of the MNE group were traded on a public securities exchange; (ii)   any such business unit that is excluded from the MNE group’s Consolidated Financial Statements solely on size or materiality grounds; and (iii)  any permanent establishment of any separate business unit of the MNE group included in (i) or (ii) above provided the business unit prepares a separate financial statement for such permanent establishment for financial reporting, regulatory, tax reporting, or internal management control purposes. Treatment of Branches and Permanent Establishments The permanent establishment data should be reported by reference to the tax jurisdiction in which it is situated and not by reference to the tax jurisdiction of residence of the business unit of which the permanent establishment is a part. Residence tax jurisdiction reporting for the business unit of which the permanent establishment is a part should exclude financial data related to the permanent establishment. Consolidated Financial Statements The Consolidated Financial Statements are the financial statements of an MNE group in which the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and cash flows of the ultimate parent entity and the Constituent Entities are presented as those of a single economic entity. Period covered by the annual template The template should cover the fiscal year of the Reporting MNE. For Constituent Entities, at the discretion of the Reporting MNE, the template should reflect on a consistent basis either (i) information for the fiscal year of the relevant Constituent Entities ending on the same date as the fiscal year of the Reporting MNE, or ending within the 12 month period preceding such date, or (ii) information for all the relevant Constituent Entities reported for the fiscal year of the Reporting MNE. Source of data The Reporting MNE should consistently use the same sources of data from year to year in completing the template. The Reporting MNE may choose to use data from its consolidation reporting packages, from separate entity statutory financial statements, regulatory financial statements, or internal management accounts. It is not necessary to reconcile the revenue, profit and tax reporting in the template to the consolidated financial statements. If statutory financial statements are used as the basis for reporting, all amounts should be translated to the stated functional currency of the Reporting MNE at the average exchange rate for the year stated in the Additional Information section of the template. Adjustments need not be made, however, for differences in accounting principles applied from tax jurisdiction to tax jurisdiction. The Reporting MNE should provide a brief description of the sources of data used in preparing the template in the Additional Information section of the template. If a change is made in the source of data used from year to year, the Reporting MNE should explain the reasons for the change and its consequences in the Additional Information section of the template. C. Template for the Country-by-Country Report – Specific instructions Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax jurisdiction (Table 1) Tax Jurisdiction In the first column of the template, the Reporting MNE should list all of the tax jurisdictions in which Constituent Entities of the MNE group are resident for tax purposes. A tax jurisdiction is defined as a State as well as a non-State jurisdiction which has fiscal autonomy. A separate line should be included for all Constituent Entities in the MNE group deemed by the Reporting MNE not to be resident in any tax jurisdiction for tax purposes. Where a Constituent Entity is resident in more than one tax jurisdiction, the applicable tax treaty tie breaker should be applied to determine the tax jurisdiction of residence. Where no applicable tax treaty exists, the Constituent Entity should be reported in the tax jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity’s place of effective management. The place of effective management is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity’s business as a whole are in substance made. All relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the place of effective management. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can have only one place of effective management at any one time. Revenues In the three columns of the template under the heading Revenues, the Reporting MNE should report the following information: (i) the sum of revenues of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group in the relevant tax jurisdiction generated from transactions with associated enterprises; (ii) the sum of revenues of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group in the relevant tax jurisdiction generated from transactions with independent parties; and (iii) the total of (i) and (ii). Revenues should include revenues from sales of inventory and properties, services, royalties, interest, premiums and any other amounts. Revenues should exclude payments received from other Constituent Entities that are treated as dividends in the ...

Annex II to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Local file The following information should be included in the local file: Local entity A description of the management structure of the local entity, a local organisation chart, and a description of the individuals to whom local management reports and the country(ies) in which such individuals maintain their principal offices. A detailed description of the business and business strategy pursued by the local entity including an indication whether the local entity has been involved in or affected by business restructurings or intangibles transfers in the present or immediately past year and an explanation of those aspects of such transactions affecting the local entity. Key competitors. Controlled transactions For each material category of controlled transactions in which the entity is involved, provide the following information: A description of the material controlled transactions (e.g. procurement of manufacturing services, purchase of goods, provision of services, loans, financial and performance guarantees, licences of intangibles, etc.) and the context in which such transactions take place. The amount of intra-group payments and receipts for each category of controlled transactions involving the local entity (i.e. payments and receipts for products, services, royalties, interest, etc.) broken down by tax jurisdiction of the foreign payor or recipient. An identification of associated enterprises involved in each category of controlled transactions, and the relationship amongst them. Copies of all material intercompany agreements concluded by the local entity. A detailed comparability and functional analysis of the taxpayer and relevant associated enterprises with respect to each documented category of controlled transactions, including any changes compared to prior years. An indication of the most appropriate transfer pricing method with regard to the category of transaction and the reasons for selecting that method. An indication of which associated enterprise is selected as the tested party, if applicable, and an explanation of the reasons for this selection. A summary of the important assumptions made in applying the transfer pricing methodology. If relevant, an explanation of the reasons for performing a multi-year analysis. A list and description of selected comparable uncontrolled transactions (internal or external), if any, and information on relevant financial indicators for independent enterprises relied on in the transfer pricing analysis, including a description of the comparable search methodology and the source of such information. A description of any comparability adjustments performed, and an indication of whether adjustments have been made to the results of the tested party, the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or both. A description of the reasons for concluding that relevant transactions were priced on an arm’s length basis based on the application of the selected transfer pricing method. A summary of financial information used in applying the transfer pricing methodology. A copy of existing unilateral and bilateral/multilateral APAs and other tax rulings to which the local tax jurisdiction is not a party and which are related to controlled transactions described above. Financial information Annual local entity financial accounts for the fiscal year concerned. If audited statements exist they should be supplied and if not, existing unaudited statements should be supplied. Information and allocation schedules showing how the financial data used in applying the transfer pricing method may be tied to the annual financial statements. Summary schedules of relevant financial data for comparables used in the analysis and the sources from which that data was obtained ...

Annex I to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Master file The following information should be included in the master file: Organisational structure Chart illustrating the MNE group’s legal and ownership structure and geographical location of operating entities. Description of MNE group’s business(es) General written description of the MNE group’s business including: –     Important drivers of business profit; –      A description of the supply chain for the group’s five largest products and/or service offerings by turnover plus any other products and/or services amounting to more than 5% of group turnover. The required description could take the form of a chart or a diagram; –      A list and brief description of important service arrangements between members of the MNE group, other than research and development (R&D) services, including a description of the capabilities of the principal locations providing important services and transfer pricing policies for allocating services costs and determining prices to be paid for intra-group services; –      A description of the main geographic markets for the group’s products and services that are referred to in the second bullet point above; –      A brief written functional analysis describing the principal contributions to value creation by individual entities within the group, i.e. key functions performed, important risks assumed, and important assets used; –      A description of important business restructuring transactions, acquisitions and divestitures occurring during the fiscal year. MNE group’s intangibles (as defined in Chapter VI of these Guidelines) A general description of the MNE’s overall strategy for the development, ownership and exploitation of intangibles, including location of principal R&D facilities and location of R&D management. A list of intangibles or groups of intangibles of the MNE group that are important for transfer pricing purposes and which entities legally own them. A list of important agreements among identified associated enterprises related to intangibles, including cost contribution arrangements, principal research service agreements and licence agreements. A general description of the group’s transfer pricing policies related to R&D and intangibles. A general description of any important transfers of interests in intangibles among associated enterprises during the fiscal year concerned, including the entities, countries, and compensation involved. MNE group’s intercompany financial activities A general description of how the group is financed, including important financing arrangements with unrelated lenders. The identification of any members of the MNE group that provide a central financing function for the group, including the country under whose laws the entity is organised and the place of effective management of such entities. A general description of the MNE group’s general transfer pricing policies related to financing arrangements between associated enterprises. MNE group’s financial and tax positions The MNE group’s annual consolidated financial statement for the fiscal year concerned if otherwise prepared for financial reporting, regulatory, internal management, tax or other purposes. A list and brief description of the MNE group’s existing unilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) and other tax rulings relating to the allocation of income among countries ...

A potential difficulty for tax administrations in analysing cash pooling arrangements is that the various entities in a cash pool may be resident across a number of jurisdictions, potentially making it difficult to access sufficient information to verify the position as set out by the taxpayer. It would be of assistance to tax authorities if MNE groups would provide information on the structuring of the pool and the returns to the cash pool leader and the members in the cash pool as part of their transfer pricing documentation. (See Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines about the information to be included in the master file) ...

It is important that the MNE group appropriately documents the reasons and selection of the credit rating used for a particular MNE when pricing intra-group loans and other controlled financial transactions ...

As part of their transfer pricing documentation, MNE groups are recommended to document their decisions and intentions regarding business restructurings, especially as regards their decisions to assume or transfer significant risks, before the relevant transactions occur, and to document the evaluation of the consequences on profit potential of significant risk allocations resulting from the restructuring. In describing the assumption of risk as part of a business restructuring, it is recommended that taxpayers use the framework set out in Section D. 1.2.1 of Chapter I ...

Over the duration of the CCA term, the following information could be useful: a) any change to the arrangement (e.g. in terms, participants, subject activity), and the consequences of such change b) a comparison between projections used to determine the share of expected benefits from the CCA activity with the actual share of benefits (however, regard should be had to paragraph 3.74) c) the annual expenditure incurred in conducting the CCA activity, the form and value of each participant’s contributions made during the CCA’s term, and a detailed description of how the value of contributions is determined ...

The following information would be relevant and useful concerning the initial terms of the CCA: a) a list of participants b) a list of any other associated enterprises that will be involved with the CCA activity or that are expected to exploit or use the results of the subject activity c) the scope of the activities and specific projects covered by the CCA, and how the CCA activities are managed and controlled d) the duration of the arrangement e) the manner in which participants’ proportionate shares of expected benefits are measured, and any projections used in this determination f) the manner in which any future benefits (such as intangibles) are expected to be exploited g) the form and value of each participant’s initial contributions, and a detailed description of how the value of initial and ongoing contributions is determined (including any budgeted vs actual adjustments) and how accounting principles are applied consistently to all participants in determining expenditures and the value of contributions h) the anticipated allocation of responsibilities and tasks, and the mechanisms for managing and controlling those responsibilities and tasks, in particular, those relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection or exploitation of intangibles or tangible assets used in the CCA activity i) the procedures for and consequences of a participant entering or withdrawing from the CCA and the termination of the CCA j) any provisions for balancing payments or for adjusting the terms of the arrangement to reflect changes in economic circumstances ...

The transfer pricing documentation standard set out in Chapter V requires reporting under the master file of important service arrangements and important agreements related to intangibles, including CCAs. The local file requires transactional information including a description of the transactions, the amounts of payments and receipts, identification of the associated enterprises involved, copies of material intercompany agreements, and pricing information including a description of reasons for concluding that the transactions were priced on an arm’s length basis. It would be expected that in order to comply with these documentation requirements, the participants in a CCA will prepare or obtain materials about the nature of the subject activity, the terms of the arrangement, and its consistency with the arm’s length principle. Implicit in this is that each participant should have full access to the details of the activities to be conducted under the CCA, the identity and location of the other parties involved in the CCA, the projections on which the contributions are to be made and expected benefits determined, and budgeted and actual expenditures for the CCA activity, at a level of detail commensurate with the complexity and importance of the CCA to the taxpayer. All this information could be relevant and useful to tax administrations in the context of a CCA and, if not included in the master file or local file, taxpayers should be prepared to provide it upon request. The information relevant to any particular CCA will depend on the facts and circumstances. It should be emphasised that the information described in this list is neither a minimum compliance standard nor an exhaustive list of the information that a tax administration may be entitled to request ...

This chapter discusses cost contribution arrangements (CCAs) between two or more associated enterprises. The purpose of the chapter is to provide some general guidance for determining whether the conditions established by associated enterprises for transactions covered by a CCA are consistent with the arm’s length principle. The analysis of the structure of such arrangements should be informed by the provisions of this chapter and other provisions of these Guidelines and should be based on an adequate documentation of the arrangement ...

An MNE group electing for application of this simplified methodology shall prepare the following information and documentation and make it available upon request to the tax administration of any entity within the group either making or receiving a payment for low value-adding intra-group services. A description of the categories of low value-adding intra-group services provided; the identity of the beneficiaries; the reasons justifying that each category of services constitute low value-adding intra-group services within the definition set out in Section D.1; the rationale for the provision of services within the context of the business of the MNE; a description of the benefits or expected benefits of each category of services; a description of the selected allocation keys and the reasons justifying that such allocation keys produce outcomes that reasonably reflect the benefits received, and confirmation of the mark-up applied; Written contracts or agreements for the provision of services and any modifications to those contracts and agreements reflecting the agreement of the various members of the group to be bound by the allocation rules of this section. Such written contracts or agreements could take the form of a contemporaneous document identifying the entities involved, the nature of the services, and the terms and conditions under which the services are provided; Documentation and calculations showing the determination of the cost pool as described in Section D.2.2, and of the mark-up applied thereon, in particular a detailed listing of all categories and amounts of relevant costs, including costs of any services provided solely to one group member; Calculations showing the application of the specified allocation keys ...

While low value-adding intra-group services may provide benefits to all recipients of those services, questions may arise about the extent of the benefits and whether independent parties would have been willing to pay for the service or perform it themselves. Where the MNE group has followed the guidance of the simplified approach the documentation and reporting discussed in Section D.3 below, it should provide sufficient evidence that the benefits test is met given the nature of low value-adding intra-group services. In evaluating the benefits test, tax administrations should consider benefits only by categories of services and not on a specific charge basis. Thus, the taxpayer need only demonstrate that assistance was provided with, for example, payroll processing, rather than being required to specify individual acts undertaken that give rise to the costs charged. Provided such information outlined in paragraph 7.64 is made available to the tax administration, a single annual invoice describing a category of services should suffice to support the charge, and correspondence or other evidence of individual acts should not be required. With regard to low value-adding intra-group services that benefit only one recipient entity in the MNE group, it is expected that the benefits to the service recipient will be capable of separate demonstration ...

Some intra-group services are performed by one member of an MNE group to meet an identified need of one or more specific members of the group. In such a case, it is relatively straightforward to determine whether a service has been provided. Ordinarily an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances would have satisfied the identified need either by performing the activity in-house or by having the activity performed by a third party. Thus, in such a case, an intra-group service ordinarily would be found to exist. For example, an intra-group service would normally be found where an associated enterprise repairs equipment used in manufacturing by another member of the MNE group. It is essential, however, that reliable documentation is provided to the tax administrations to verify that the costs have been incurred by the service provider ...

Because of the importance of the underlying assumptions and valuation parameters, taxpayers and tax administrations making use of valuation techniques in determining arm’s length prices for transferred intangibles should explicitly set out each of the relevant assumptions made in creating the valuation model, should describe the basis for selecting valuation parameters, and should be prepared to defend the reasonableness of such assumptions and valuation parameters. Moreover, it is a good practice for taxpayers relying on valuation techniques to present as part of their transfer pricing documentation some sensitivity analysis reflecting the consequential change in estimated intangible value produced by the model when alternative assumptions and parameters are adopted ...

Jurisdictions endeavour to introduce as necessary domestic legislation in a timely manner. They are also encouraged to expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of information. The implementation of the package will be monitored on an ongoing basis. The outcomes of this monitoring will be taken into consideration in the 2020 review ...

Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains an implementation package for government-to-government exchange of Country-by-Country Reports, which includes: • Model legislation requiring the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group to file the Country-by-Country Report in its jurisdiction of residence. Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems, where changes to current legislation are required. Key elements of secondary mechanisms have also been developed. • Implementing arrangements for the automatic exchange of the Country- by-Country Reports under international agreements, incorporating the conditions set out in Section E.2.3. Such implementing arrangements include competent authority agreements (CAAs) based on existing international agreements (the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, bilateral tax treaties and TIEAs) and inspired by the existing models developed by the OECD working with G20 countries for the automatic exchange of financial account information ...

Jurisdictions should require in a timely manner Country-by-Country Reporting from ultimate parent entities of MNE groups resident in their jurisdiction and referred to in Section E.2.2 and exchange this information on an automatic basis with the jurisdictions in which the MNE group operates and which fulfil the conditions listed in Section E.2.3. Only in cases where a jurisdiction fails to provide information to a jurisdiction fulfilling the conditions listed in Section E.2.3, because (a) it has not required Country- by-Country Reporting from the ultimate parent entity of such MNE groups, (b) no competent authority agreement has been agreed in a timely manner under the current international agreements of the jurisdiction for the exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports or (c) it has been established that there is a failure to exchange the information in practice with a jurisdiction after agreeing with that jurisdiction to do so, a secondary mechanism would be accepted as appropriate, through local filing or through filing of the Country- by-Country Reports by a designated member of the MNE group acting in place of the ultimate parent entity and automatic exchange of these reports by its jurisdiction of tax residence ...

Jurisdictions should use appropriately the information in the Country- by-Country Report template in accordance with paragraph 5.25. In particular, jurisdictions will commit to use the Country-by-Country Report for assessing high-level transfer pricing risk. Jurisdictions may also use the Country-by- Country Report for assessing other BEPS-related risks. Jurisdictions should not propose adjustments to the income of any taxpayer on the basis of an income allocation formula based on the data from the Country-by-Country Report. They will further commit that if such adjustments based on Country- by-Country Report data are made by the local tax administration of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction’s competent authority will promptly concede the adjustment in any relevant competent authority proceeding. This does not imply, however, that jurisdictions would be prevented from using the Country-by-Country Report data as a basis for making further enquiries into the MNE group’s transfer pricing arrangements or into other tax matters in the course of a tax audit. (Access to a mutual agreement procedure (MAP) will be available when the government-to-government exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports is based on bilateral treaties. In cases where the international agreements on which the government-to-government exchanges of the Country-by-Country Reports are based do not contain provisions providing access to MAP, jurisdictions commit to introducing in the competent authority agreement to be developed a mechanism for competent authority procedures to discuss with the aim of resolving cases of undesirable economic outcomes, including if such cases arise for individual businesses.) ...

Jurisdictions should use their best efforts to adopt a legal requirement that MNE groups’ ultimate parent entities resident in their jurisdiction prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, unless exempted as set out in paragraph 5.52. Jurisdictions should utilise the standard template contained in Annex III of Chapter V of these Guidelines. Stated otherwise, under this condition no jurisdiction will require that the Country-by-Country Report contain either additional information not contained in Annex III, nor will it fail to require reporting of information included in Annex III ...

Jurisdictions should have in place and enforce legal protections of the confidentiality of the reported information. Such protections would preserve the confidentiality of the Country-by-Country Report to an extent at least equivalent to the protections that would apply if such information were delivered to the country under the provisions of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) or a tax treaty that meets the internationally agreed standard of information upon request as reviewed by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. Such protections include limitation of the use of information, rules on the persons to whom the information may be disclosed, ordre public, etc ...

The following conditions underpin the obtaining and the use of the Country-by-Country Report ...

It is considered that no exemptions from filing the Country-by- Country Report should be adopted apart from the exemptions outlined in this section. In particular, no special industry exemptions should be provided, no general exemption for investment funds should be provided, and no exemption for non-corporate entities or non-public corporate entities should be provided. Notwithstanding this conclusion, MNE groups with income derived from international transportation or transportation in inland waterways that is covered by treaty provisions that are specific to such income and under which the taxing rights on such income are allocated exclusively to one jurisdiction, should include the information required by the Country-by-Country Report template with respect to such income only against the name of the jurisdiction to which the relevant treaty provisions allocate these taxing rights ...

It is the intention of the countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project to reconsider the appropriateness of the applicable revenue threshold described in the preceding paragraph in connection with their 2020 review of implementation of the new standard, including whether additional or different data should be reported ...

It is believed that the exemption described in paragraph 52, which provides a threshold of EUR 750 million, will exclude approximately 85 to 90% of MNE groups from the requirement to file the Country-by-Country Report, but that the Country-by-Country Report will nevertheless be filed by MNE groups controlling approximately 90% of corporate revenues. The prescribed exemption threshold therefore represents an appropriate balancing of reporting burden and benefit to tax administrations ...

There would be an exemption from the general filing requirement for MNE groups with annual consolidated group revenue in the immediately preceding fiscal year of less than EUR 750 million or a near equivalent amount in domestic currency as of January 2015. Thus, for example, if an MNE that keeps its financial accounts on a calendar year basis has EUR 625 million in consolidated group revenue for its 2015 calendar year, it would not be required to file the Country-by-Country Report in any country with respect to its fiscal year ending 31 December 2016 ...

It is recommended that all MNE groups be required to file the Country-by-Country Report each year except as follows ...

It is recommended that the first Country-by-Country Reports be required to be filed for MNE fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2016. However, it is acknowledged that some jurisdictions may need time to follow their particular domestic legislative process in order to make necessary adjustments to the law. In order to assist jurisdictions in preparing timely legislation, model legislation requiring ultimate parent entities of MNE groups to file the Country-by-Country Report in their jurisdiction of residence has been developed (see Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines). Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems. Given the recommendation in paragraph 5.31 that MNEs be allowed one year from the close of the fiscal year to which the Country-by-Country Report relates to prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, this recommendation means that the first Country-by-Country Reports would be filed by 31 December 2017. For MNEs with a fiscal year ending on a date other than 31 December, the first Country-by-Country Reports would be required to be filed later in 2018, twelve months after the close of the relevant MNE fiscal year, and would report on the MNE group’s first fiscal year beginning after 1 January 2016. It follows from this recommendation that the jurisdictions participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that they will not require filing of a Country- by-Country Report based on the new template for MNE fiscal years beginning prior to 1 January 2016. The MNE fiscal year relates to the consolidated reporting period for financial statement purposes and not to taxable years or to the financial reporting periods of individual subsidiaries ...

It is recommended that the master file and local file elements of the transfer pricing documentation standard be implemented in each jurisdiction through local legislation or administrative procedures and that the master file and local file be filed directly with the tax administrations in each relevant jurisdiction as required by those administrations. With regard to the local file and the master file, confidentiality and the consistent use of the standards contained in Annex I and Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines should be taken into account by jurisdictions when introducing these elements in local legislation or administrative procedures ...

This section contains guidance to ensure an effective and consistent implementation of transfer pricing documentation requirements, and in particular Country-by-Country Reporting ...

It is not recommended, particularly at the stage of transfer pricing risk assessment, to require that the transfer pricing documentation should be certified by an outside auditor or other third party. Similarly, mandatory use of consulting firms to prepare transfer pricing documentation is not recommended ...

The requirement to use the most reliable information will usually, but not always, require the use of local comparables over the use of regional comparables where such local comparables are reasonably available. The use of regional comparables in transfer pricing documentation prepared for jurisdictions in the same geographic region in situations where appropriate local comparables are available will not, in some cases, comport with the obligation to rely on the most reliable information. While the simplification benefits of limiting the number of comparable searches an entity is required to undertake are obvious, and materiality and compliance costs are relevant factors to consider, a desire for simplifying compliance processes should not go so far as to undermine compliance with the requirement to use the most reliable available information. See paragraphs 1.132-1.133 on market differences and multi-jurisdictional analyses for further details on when local comparables are to be preferred ...

The Confidentiality and Information Security Management Toolkit (2020) produced by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes provides guidance to jurisdictions to ensure that their legal framework on the confidentiality of taxpayer information is adequate and protects the confidentiality and appropriate use of information exchanged under an international exchange agreement ...

Tax administrations should take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is no public disclosure of confidential information (trade secrets, scientific secrets, etc.) and other commercially sensitive information contained in the documentation package (master file, local file and Country¬by-Country Report). Tax administrations should also assure taxpayers that the information presented in transfer pricing documentation will remain confidential. In cases where disclosure is required in public court proceedings or judicial decisions, every effort should be made to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that information is disclosed only to the extent needed ...

Another way for countries to encourage taxpayers to fulfil transfer pricing documentation requirements is by designing compliance incentives such as penalty protection or a shift in the burden of proof. Where the documentation meets the requirements and is timely submitted, the taxpayer could be exempted from tax penalties or subject to a lower penalty rate if a transfer pricing adjustment is made and sustained, notwithstanding the provision of documentation. In some jurisdictions where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof regarding transfer pricing matters, a shift of the burden of proof to the tax administration’s side where adequate documentation is provided on a timely basis offers another measure that could be used to create an incentive for transfer pricing documentation compliance ...

Care should be taken not to impose a documentation-related penalty on a taxpayer for failing to submit data to which the MNE group did not have access. However, a decision not to impose documentation-related penalties does not mean that adjustments cannot be made to income where prices are not consistent with the arm’s length principle. The fact that positions are fully documented does not necessarily mean that the taxpayer’s positions are correct. Moreover, an assertion by a local entity that other group members are responsible for transfer pricing compliance is not a sufficient reason for that entity to fail to provide required documentation, nor should such an assertion prevent the imposition of documentation-related penalties for failure to comply with documentation rules where the necessary information is not forthcoming ...

Documentation-related penalties imposed for failure to comply with transfer pricing documentation requirements or failure to timely submit required information are usually civil (or administrative) monetary penalties. These documentation-related penalties are based on a fixed amount that may be assessed for each document missing or for each fiscal year under review, or calculated as a percentage of the related tax understatement ultimately determined, a percentage of the related adjustment to the income, or as a percentage of the amount of the cross-border transactions not documented ...

Many countries have adopted documentation-related penalties to ensure efficient operation of transfer pricing documentation requirements. They are designed to make non-compliance more costly than compliance. Penalty regimes are governed by the laws of each individual country. Country practices with regard to transfer pricing documentation-related penalties vary widely. The existence of different local country penalty regimes may influence the quality of taxpayers’ compliance so that taxpayers could be driven to favour one country over another in their compliance practices ...

The necessity of providing documentation in local language may constitute a complicating factor with respect to transfer pricing compliance to the extent that substantial time and cost may be involved in translating documents. The language in which transfer pricing documentation should be submitted should be established under local laws. Countries are encouraged to permit filing of transfer pricing documentation in commonly used languages where it will not compromise the usefulness of the documents. Where tax administrations believe that translation of documents is necessary, they should make specific requests for translation and provide sufficient time to make such translation as comfortable a burden as possible ...

In order to simplify compliance burdens on taxpayers, tax administrations may determine, as long as the operating conditions remain unchanged, that the searches in databases for comparables supporting part of the local file be updated every three years rather than annually. Financial data for the comparables should nonetheless be updated every year in order to apply the arm’s length principle reliably ...

It is recommended that transfer pricing documentation be periodically reviewed in order to determine whether functional and economic analyses are still accurate and relevant and to confirm the validity of the applied transfer pricing methodology. In general, the master file, the local file and the Country-by-Country Report should be reviewed and updated annually. It is recognised, however, that in many situations business descriptions, functional analyses, and descriptions of comparables may not change significantly from year to year ...

Because the tax administration’s ultimate interest would be satisfied if the necessary documents were submitted in a timely manner when requested by the tax administration in the course of an examination, the way that documentation is stored – whether in paper, electronic form, or in any other system – should be at the discretion of the taxpayer provided that relevant information can promptly be made available to the tax administration in the form specified by the local country rules and practices ...

Taxpayers should not be obliged to retain documents beyond a reasonable period consistent with the requirements of domestic law at either the parent company or local entity level. However, at times materials and information required in the documentation package (master file, local file and Country-by-Country Report) may be relevant to a transfer pricing enquiry for a subsequent year that is not time barred, for example where taxpayers voluntarily keep such records in relation to long-term contracts, or to determine whether comparability standards relating to the application of a transfer pricing method in that subsequent year are satisfied. Tax administrations should bear in mind the difficulties in locating documents for prior years and should restrict such requests to instances where they have good reason in connection with the transaction under examination for reviewing the documents in question ...

For purposes of Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines, the Country-by-Country Report should include all tax jurisdictions in which the MNE group has an entity resident for tax purposes, regardless of the size of business operations in that tax jurisdiction ...

A number of countries have introduced in their transfer pricing documentation rules simplification measures which exempt small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from transfer pricing documentation requirements or limit the information required to be provided by such enterprises. In order not to impose on taxpayers costs and burdens disproportionate to the circumstances, it is recommended to not require SMEs to produce the amount of documentation that might be expected from larger enterprises. However, SMEs should be obliged to provide information and documents about their material cross-border transactions upon a specific request of the tax administration in the course of a tax examination or for transfer pricing risk assessment purposes ...

Not all transactions that occur between associated enterprises are sufficiently material to require full documentation in the local file. Tax administrations have an interest in seeing the most important information while at the same time they also have an interest in seeing that MNE groups are not so overwhelmed with compliance demands that they fail to consider and document the most important items. Thus, jurisdictional transfer pricing documentation requirements based on Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines should include specific materiality thresholds that take into account the size and the nature of the local economy, the importance of the MNE group in that economy, and the size and nature of local operating entities, in addition to the overall size and nature of the MNE group. Measures of materiality may be considered in relative terms (e.g. transactions not exceeding a percentage of revenue or a percentage of cost measure) or in absolute amount terms (e.g. transactions not exceeding a certain fixed amount). Individual jurisdictions should establish their own materiality standards for local file purposes, based on local conditions. The materiality standards should be objective standards that are commonly understood and accepted in commercial practice. See paragraph 5.18 for the materiality standards applicable in completing the master file ...

Taxpayers should not be expected to incur disproportionately high costs and burdens in producing documentation. Therefore, tax administrations should balance requests for documentation against the expected cost and administrative burden to the taxpayer of creating it. Where a taxpayer reasonably demonstrates, having regard to the principles of these Guidelines, that either no comparable data exists or that the cost of locating the comparable data would be disproportionately high relative to the amounts at issue, the taxpayer should not be required to incur costs in searching for such data ...

Each taxpayer should endeavour to determine transfer prices for tax purposes in accordance with the arm’s length principle, based upon information reasonably available at the time of the transaction. Thus, a taxpayer ordinarily should give consideration to whether its transfer pricing is appropriate for tax purposes before the pricing is established and should confirm the arm’s length nature of its financial results at the time of filing its tax return ...

Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains a model template for the Country-by-Country Report together with its accompanying instructions ...

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 ...

The Country-by-Country Report requires aggregate tax jurisdiction-wide information relating to the global allocation of the income, the taxes paid, and certain indicators of the location of economic activity among tax jurisdictions in which the MNE group operates. The report also requires a listing of all the Constituent Entities for which financial information is reported, including the tax jurisdiction of incorporation, where different from the tax jurisdiction of residence, as well as the nature of the main business activities carried out by that Constituent Entity ...

Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines sets out the items of information to be included in the local file ...

In contrast to the master file, which provides a high-level overview as described in paragraph 5.18, the local file provides more detailed information relating to specific intercompany transactions. The information required in the local file supplements the master file and helps to meet the objective of assuring that the taxpayer has complied with the arm’s length principle in its material transfer pricing positions affecting a specific jurisdiction. The local file focuses on information relevant to the transfer pricing analysis related to transactions taking place between a local affiliate and associated enterprises in different jurisdictions and which are material in the context of the jurisdiction’s tax system. Such information would include relevant financial information regarding those specific transactions, a comparability analysis, and the selection and application of the most appropriate transfer pricing method. Where a requirement of the local file can be fully satisfied by a specific cross-reference to information contained in the master file, such a cross-reference should suffice ...

Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines sets out the information to be included in the master file ...

Taxpayers should present the information in the master file for the MNE group as a whole. However, organisation of the information presented by line of business is permitted where well justified by the facts, e.g. where the structure of the MNE group is such that some significant business lines operate largely independently or are recently acquired. Where line of business presentation is used, care should be taken to assure that centralised group functions and transactions between business lines are properly described in the master file. Even where line of business presentation is selected, the entire master file consisting of all business lines should be available to each jurisdiction in order to assure that an appropriate overview of the MNE group’s global business is provided ...

The information required in the master file provides a “blueprint” of the MNE group and contains relevant information that can be broken down into five categories: a) the MNE group’s organisational structure; b) a description of the MNE group’s business or businesses; c) the MNE group’s intangibles; d) the MNE group’s intercompany financial activities; and e) the MNE group’s financial and tax positions ...

The master file should provide an overview of the MNE group business, including the nature of its global business operations, its overall transfer pricing policies, and its global allocation of income and economic activity in order to assist tax administrations in evaluating the presence of significant transfer pricing risk. In general, the master file is intended to provide a high-level overview in order to place the MNE group’s transfer pricing practices in their global economic, legal, financial and tax context. It is not intended to require exhaustive listings of minutiae (e.g. a listing of every patent owned by members of the MNE group) as this would be both unnecessarily burdensome and inconsistent with the objectives of the master file. In producing the master file, including lists of important agreements, intangibles and transactions, taxpayers should use prudent business judgment in determining the appropriate level of detail for the information supplied, keeping in mind the objective of the master file to provide tax administrations a high-level overview of the MNE group’s global operations and policies. When the requirements of the master file can be fully satisfied by specific cross-references to other existing documents, such cross-references, together with copies of the relevant documents, should be deemed to satisfy the relevant requirement. For purposes of producing the master file, information is considered important if its omission would affect the reliability of the transfer pricing outcomes ...

This approach to transfer pricing documentation will provide tax administrations with relevant and reliable information to perform an efficient and robust transfer pricing risk assessment analysis. It will also provide a platform on which the information necessary for an audit can be developed and provide taxpayers with a means and an incentive to meaningfully consider and describe their compliance with the arm’s length principle in material transactions ...

In order to achieve the objectives described in Section B, jurisdictions should adopt a standardised approach to transfer pricing documentation. This section describes a three-tiered structure consisting of (i) a master file containing standardised information relevant for all MNE group members; (ii) a local file referring specifically to material transactions of the local taxpayer; and (iii) a Country-by-Country Report containing certain information relating to the global allocation of the MNE group’s income and taxes paid together with certain indicators of the location of economic activity within the MNE group ...

It may often be the case that the documents and other information required for a transfer pricing audit will be in the possession of members of the MNE group other than the local affiliate under examination. Often the necessary documents will be located outside the country whose tax administration is conducting the audit. It is therefore important that the tax administration is able to obtain directly or through information sharing, such as exchange of information mechanisms, information that extends beyond the country’s borders ...

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 ...

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 ...

While ideally taxpayers will use transfer pricing documentation as an opportunity to articulate a well thought-out basis for their transfer pricing policies, thereby meeting an important objective of such requirements, issues such as costs, time constraints, and competing demands for the attention of relevant personnel can sometimes undermine these objectives. It is therefore important for countries to keep documentation requirements reasonable and focused on material transactions in order to ensure mindful attention to the most important matters ...

This compliance objective may be supported in two important ways. First, tax administrations can require that transfer pricing documentation requirements be satisfied on a contemporaneous basis. This would mean that the documentation would be prepared at the time of the transaction, or in any event, no later than the time of completing and filing the tax return for the fiscal year in which the transaction takes place. The second way to encourage compliance is to establish transfer pricing penalty regimes in a manner intended to reward timely and accurate preparation of transfer pricing documentation and to create incentives for timely, careful consideration of the taxpayer’s transfer pricing positions. Filing requirements and penalty provisions related to documentation are discussed in greater detail in Section D below ...

By requiring taxpayers to articulate convincing, consistent and cogent transfer pricing positions, transfer pricing documentation can help to ensure that a culture of compliance is created. Well-prepared documentation will give tax administrations some assurance that the taxpayer has analysed the positions it reports on tax returns, has considered the available comparable data, and has reached consistent transfer pricing positions. Moreover, contemporaneous documentation requirements will help to ensure the integrity of the taxpayers’ positions and restrain taxpayers from developing justifications for their positions after the fact ...

Each of these objectives should be considered in designing appropriate domestic transfer pricing documentation requirements. It is important that taxpayers be required to carefully evaluate, at or before the time of filing a tax return, their own compliance with the applicable transfer pricing rules. It is also important that tax administrations be able to access the information they need to conduct a transfer pricing risk assessment to make an informed decision about whether to perform an audit. In addition, it is important that tax administrations be able to access or demand, on a timely basis, all additional information necessary to conduct a comprehensive audit once the decision to conduct such an audit is made ...

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 following discussion identifies three objectives of transfer pricing documentation rules. The discussion also provides guidance for the development of such rules so that transfer pricing compliance is more straightforward and more consistent among countries, while at the same time providing tax administrations with more focused and useful information for transfer pricing risk assessments and audits. An important overarching consideration in developing such rules is to balance the usefulness of the data to tax administrations for transfer pricing risk assessment and other purposes with any increased compliance burdens placed on taxpayers. In this respect it is noted that clear and widely adopted documentation rules can reduce compliance costs which could otherwise arise in a transfer pricing dispute ...

Since then, many jurisdictions have adopted transfer pricing documentation rules and the proliferation of these requirements, combined with a sharp increase in the volume and complexity of international intra- group trade and the heightened scrutiny of transfer pricing issues by tax administrations, has resulted in a significant increase in compliance costs for taxpayers. Nevertheless tax administrations have often found transfer pricing documentation to be less than fully informative and not adequate for their tax enforcement and risk assessment needs ...

This chapter provides guidance for tax administrations to take into account in developing rules and/or procedures on documentation to be obtained from taxpayers in connection with a transfer pricing enquiry or risk assessment. It also provides guidance to assist taxpayers in identifying documentation that would be most helpful in showing that their transactions satisfy the arm’s length principle and hence in resolving transfer pricing issues and facilitating tax examinations ...

This chapter provides guidance for tax administrations to take into account in developing rules and/or procedures on documentation to be obtained from taxpayers in connection with a transfer pricing enquiry or risk assessment. It also provides guidance to assist taxpayers in identifying documentation that would be most helpful in showing that their transactions satisfy the arm’s length principle and hence in resolving transfer pricing issues and facilitating tax examinations ...

In order to assist tax administrations in conducting an informed examination of the taxpayer’s transfer pricing practices, taxpayers should provide reliable evidence and document, as part of their transfer pricing documentation, the price-setting policy for commodity transactions, the information needed to justify price adjustments based on the comparable uncontrolled transactions or comparable uncontrolled arrangements represented by the quoted price and any other relevant information, such as pricing formulas used, third party end-customer agreements, premia or discounts applied, pricing date, supply chain information, and information prepared for non-tax purposes ...

Moreover, MNE groups retain the freedom to apply methods not described in these Guidelines (hereafter “other methods”) to establish prices provided those prices satisfy the arm’s length principle in accordance with these Guidelines. Such other methods should however not be used in substitution for OECD-recognised methods where the latter are more appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case. In cases where other methods are used, their selection should be supported by an explanation of why OECD-recognised methods were regarded as less appropriate or non- workable in the circumstances of the case and of the reason why the selected other method was regarded as providing a better solution. A taxpayer should maintain and be prepared to provide documentation regarding how its transfer prices were established. For a discussion of documentation, see Chapter V ...

The economically relevant characteristics or comparability factors that need to be identified in the commercial or financial relations between the associated enterprises in order to accurately delineate the actual transaction can be broadly categorised as follows: The contractual terms of the transaction (D.1.1). The functions performed by each of the parties to the transaction, taking into account assets used and risks assumed, including how those functions relate to the wider generation of value by the MNE group to which the parties belong, the circumstances surrounding the transaction, and industry practices (D.1.2). The characteristics of property transferred or services provided (D.1.3). The economic circumstances of the parties and of the market in which the parties operate (D.1.4). The business strategies pursued by the parties (D.1.5). This information about the economically relevant characteristics of the actual transaction should be included as part of the local file as described in Chapter V in support of a taxpayer’s analysis of its transfer pricing ...

Article 260-8 of the Colombian Tax Statute established which taxpayers were obliged to file Transfer pricing documentation. The rule established two requirements for income taxpayers to be obliged to file DIIPT in the year 2010, the first is to have obtained a gross equity on 31 December of the taxable period of 100.100,000 UVT ($2,455,500,000) or gross income of 61,000 UVT ($1,497,855,000), and the second is to have carried out operations with economic associates or related parties domiciled abroad. In the present case, a Colombian branch of Petroleum Exploration International S.A presented a total gross income of $18,496,716,000 in the income tax return for 2010, and therefore complied with the first requirement. As for the second requirement, it is noted that according to the certificate of existence and legal representation of Colombian branch, it is a branch of the company Petroleum Exploration International S.A. whose principal place of business is Panama. (…) In the accounting inspection report of 2 April 2013, the company’s accountant stated that Ecopetrol paid directly for the oil services provided by the plaintiff to its parent company, which then made the payment to Forum Absolute Return Fund LTD abroad. Consequently, it is evident that there were transactions between the branch and its related company abroad, when the parent company was paid for services provided by the company in Colombia. The aforementioned evidence shows that the company that owned the drill was Petroleum Exploration Internacional S.A. of Panama, which, as recorded in the accounts, was leased by the Colombian branch to provide services in Colombia, but part of the payment went to the company Forum Absolute Return Fund LTD. Hence, there were transactions between the branch and its parent company during the taxable period 2010, so it was obliged to present transfer pricing documentation in the aforementioned period. (…) It is clarified that the acts being challenged do not disregard the principle of the prevalence of substantive law over formal law, as it was not appropriate to declare the drill as an asset of the company, since, as stated by the plaintiff in the appeal, the asset was acquired by its parent company, and therefore the branch could not depreciate an asset that did not belong to it. Moreover, the date of importation of the drill does not affect the fact that transactions had taken place between the branch and its parent company in 2010. (…) According to the above, the branch was obliged to file transfer pricing documentation in 2010 as it exceeded the gross income ceiling, and had carried out operations with its parent company abroad. FORMAL SOURCE: LAW 1437 OF 2011 (CPACA) – ARTICLE 188 / LAW 1564 OF 2012 (GENERAL CODE OF THE PROCESS) – ARTICLE 365 NUMERAL 8 Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

This case deals with arm’s length remuneration of a Greek Diary Distributor. Following an audit of “Diary Distributor Ltd.”, the Greek tax authorities determined that the prices paid to related parties for FY 2017 had been above the arm’s length price. On that basis an upwards adjustment of the taxable income was issued. An appeal was filed by “Diary Distributor Ltd.” Judgement of the Court The court dismissed the appeal of “Diary Distributor Ltd.” and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Danish tax authorities had issued a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Tetra Pak Processing Systems A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court found that the TP documentation provided by the company did not comply to the required standards. The TP documentation did state how prices between Tetra Pak and the sales companies had been determined and did not contain a comparability analysis, as required under the current § 3 B, para. 5 of the Tax Control Act and section 6 of the Danish administrative ordinance regarding transfer pricing documentation. Against this background, the Supreme Court found that the TP documentation was deficient to such an extent that it had to be equated with missing documentation. The Supreme Court agreed that Tetra Pak’s taxable income for FY 2005-2009 could be determined on a discretionary basis. According to the Supreme Court Tetra Pak had not proved that the tax authorities’ discretionary assessments were based on an incorrect or deficient basis, or that the assessment had led to a clearly unreasonable result. Hence, there was no basis for setting aside the assessment. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the prior High Court’s decision. In the decision reference is made to OECD 2010 Transfer Pricing Guidelines Importance of Transfer Pricing documentation and comparability analysis: Para 1.6, 2.22, 2.23, 2.78, 3.1, 3.22 and 5.17 Choice of tested party: Para 3.18 Exceptional and extraordinary costs and calculation of net profit indicator/profit level indicator: Para 2.80 Click here for translation ...

GW Logistics was engaged in the activity of transport management (shipping and Logistics) and a member og the German Gebrüder Weiss Group. The tax authorities carried out an audit of the tax returns for the years 2010-2011 and increased GW Logistics’s taxable profit by HUF 189 159 000 for 2010 and by HUF 53 373 000 for 2011, because of the difference between the consideration paid by the applicant for related party transactions and the open market price. Since GW Logistics had not prepared transfer pricing documentation for its maritime transport activities in 2010 and 2011, the tax authority imposed a default fine of HUF 1 500 000. The tax authority applied the TNMM method to determine the arm’s length profitability. In the course of the audit, the tax authority informed GW Logistics that the data provided were not suitable for obtaining transaction-level profitability information. According to GW Logistics, its controlling system was not capable of providing the breakdown requested for each transaction and, as a result, the tax authority concluded that there was insufficient data to determine accurately the amount of related expenses attributable to the turnover from related parties. The tax authorities therefore applied an estimation procedure to determine the deviation from the arm’s length price. Not agreeing with the assessment GW Logistics filed an appeal. It argued that the tax authority failed to take into account all the facts and circumstances relating to the activity under investigation and thus failed to fulfil its obligation to make a factual assessment. The court of first instance decided in favor of the tax authorities. GW Logistics then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal claiming among other issues that a correct reference to the legal basis for the estimated assessment was missing in the decision. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The Court remanded the case to the court of first instance. Excerpts “Estimation is a method of proof which, in accordance with the law, establishes a probable basis for the actual tax or budgetary support. The tax authority shall prove that the conditions for the application of the estimate are met and that the data, facts and circumstances on which the estimate is based and the methods used in the estimate are likely to provide a basis for the tax [old Art. 108 (1) to (2)]. Paragraph 108(3)(a) to (e) of the old Art. specifies the cases in which an estimate may be used, such as when the tax or budget support base cannot be established; when the data, facts or circumstances available to the tax authority, which may be considered significant because of their number or content, give rise to reasonable grounds to believe that the taxpayer’s records are not suitable for establishing the actual tax or budget support base; or when the individual has made false, incomplete or omitted to make a declaration or declaration, etc.” “In the application for review, the defendant argued that the limits of the application had been exceeded in the judgment of the court of first instance. Although the legal basis for the estimate was indeed disputed by the applicant in its application, it did not challenge the lack of a legal basis in this regard. However, it is of primary importance that the content of the final decision of the tax authority clearly states why the tax authority considered that there was a legal basis for the estimate and that the final decision also describes in detail the method of the estimate. Therefore, the Curia is of the opinion that the mere absence of a reference to the provisions of Article 108 (3) of the old Art. 339 (1) of the Old Law, the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to set aside the nullity of the final decision of the Court of First Instance only in the case of a procedural violation affecting the merits of the case, whereas the procedural violation referred to did not affect the merits of the present case in any way.” “As a result of the above, the Curia set aside the final judgment on the basis of Article 275 (4) of the old Civil Code and ordered the court of first instance to initiate new proceedings and issue a new decision. In the new proceedings, the court of first instance must review the final decision of the tax authority on the merits. It must rule on whether the tax authority chose the correct method for determining the arm’s length price. It must also determine whether, in determining the arm’s length price for transactions with related undertakings, the tax authority lawfully chose to examine separately the road haulage activity and the multi-modal sea and air transport activity, whether the legal basis for the estimate in this area existed and whether the method of estimation complied with the legal requirements, and whether, on the basis of all of these factors, a default penalty was lawfully imposed.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (IMF, OECD, UN and the WBG) has published a toolkit on implementation of effective transfer pricing documentation requirements ...

The determination of the economic relevance of government support will inform its effect, if any, on accurately delineating the controlled transaction and performing the comparability analysis. If the government assistance is an economically relevant characteristic, this information should be included as a part of the documentation to support the transfer pricing analysis ...

The disputed issue concerns the purchase prices of natural gas by SC A from an affiliated company SC B. By orders of the National Energy Regulatory Authority (NERA), the prices of supply of natural gas to domestic and non-domestic consumers were regulated and fixed, but not the price at which SC A purchased it from the SC B. The tax authority issued an assessment where the price of the controlled gas transaction was determined by reference to profit level indicators of comparable businesses. SC A brought the decision to the Romanian courts. Judgement of the Court of Appeal The appeal of SC A was dismissed and the assessment of the tax authorities upheld. Excerpt “In the present case, in order to adjust the expenses for the cost of the goods purchased from SC “B.” SRL, based on the level of the central market trend, the tax body used the information provided by the ORBIS and FISCNET applications. Following the comparative analysis of the information provided by the two IT applications, the tax body identified 22 potentially comparable companies in Romania, of which only one met the qualitative criteria, which is why it correctly moved to a higher search level, namely that of the European Union, identifying 6 companies that were comparable in terms of quantity and quality. In this regard, it was noted that, according to Article 8 of OPANAF No 442/2016, transactions between related persons are considered to be carried out according to the market value principle if the financial indicator of the transaction/transaction value (margin/profit/price) falls within the range of comparison. The following provisions shall be respected in determining the comparator range: 1. the comparability analysis will consider territorial criteria in the following order: national, European Union, pan-European, international; 2. reasonable availability of data at the time of transfer pricing or at the time of their documentation, for which the taxpayer/payer being verified provides supporting documentation for the data used at the time of transfer pricing; 3. the margin of comparison is the range of price or margin/profit values for comparable transactions between independent comparable companies; 4. for the determination of outliers, the margin of comparison shall be divided into 4 segments. The maximum and minimum segments represent the extreme results. The range of comparison is the range of price or margin/output values for comparable transactions between independent comparators, after eliminating the extreme results from the margin of comparison; 5. the extreme results within the margin of comparison shall not be used in determining and calculating the estimate/adjustment; 6. if the median value cannot be identified (the median value is the value at the middle of the range of comparison), the arithmetic mean of the two middle values of the range of comparison shall be taken. In so far as the tax authority complied with the legal procedure for estimating the purchase prices, as required by ANAF Order 442/2016, the appellant’s criticisms are unfounded, especially as they do not essentially concern the specific procedure carried out by the tax authority. Consequently, the appellant’s criticisms, which relate to the ground for annulment relied on, are unfounded, which is why the appeal was dismissed as unfounded.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

ECCO A/S is the parent company of a multinational group, whose main activity is the design, development, production and sale of shoes. The group was founded in 1963, and has since gone from being a small Danish shoe manufacturer to being a global player with about 20,000 employees and with sales and production subsidiaries in a large number of countries. ECCO purchased goods from both internal and external producers, and at issue was whether transactions with it’s foreign subsidiaries had been conducted at arm’s length terms. ECCO had prepared two sets of two transfer pricing documentation, both of which were available when the tax authorities issued its assessment. The transfer pricing documentation contained a review of the parent company’s pricing and terms in relation to both internal and external production companies, and a comparability analyzes. The High Court issued a decision in favor of the ECCO A/S. The Court found that the transfer pricing documentation was not deficient to such an extent that it could be equated with missing documentation, and that the tax authorities did not prove that the pricing of the controlled transactions had not been at arm’s length. Hence, there was no justification for the assessment of additional income. Click here for translation ...

Software A/S was a fully fledged Danish distributor of software an related services up until 2010 where the company was converted into a commissionaire dealing on behalf of a newly established sales and marketing hub in Switzerland. Following an audit, the Danish tax authorities issued a assessment where additional taxable income from the transfer of intangibles to Switzerland in 2010 had been determined by application of the DCF valuation model. As no transfer pricing documentation had been prepared on the transfer, the assessment was issued on a discretionary basis. Software A/S filed a complaint to the Danish Tax Court. The Tax Court found that the tax authorities did not have the authority to make a discretionary assessment. It was emphasized that the company in its transfer pricing documentation had described the relevant circumstances for the restructuring. Furthermore, the company had analyzed functions and risks and prepared comparability analyzes for transactions before and after the restructuring. However, the Tax Court found that the authorities had proved that during the restructuring, valuable intangible assets had been transferred, which were to be priced in accordance with Danish arm’s length provisions. For this purpose, the Tax Court applied the valuation model prepared by the tax authorities, but where the expected useful life of the assets was limited to only 10 years – and not indefinite as determined by the authorities – resulting in a lower value. Click here for other translation ...

The Platform for Collaboration on Tax (IMF, OECD, UN and the WBG) has published a Confidentiality and Information Security Management Toolkit (2020) The aim of this Confidentiality and ISM toolkit (the “toolkit”) is to assist countries that wish to participate in the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) by ensuring that they meet good practice standards in confidentiality and data safeguarding. It provides general guidance on implementing legal and information security management (ISM) frameworks that ensure the confidentiality of taxpayer information, including information exchanged under international agreements (“exchanged information”), in line with the requirements of the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters or “AEOI Standard”. The implementation of good practice ISM frameworks is also relevant to other types of exchange, such as the exchange of information on request, spontaneous exchange of information, and exchange of Country‑by‑Country Reports pursuant to the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 13 standard ...

Bayer Inc, is a Canadian subsidiary of Bayer AG Germany. Bayer is a multinational group of companies in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry . Since 2016, the Canada Revenue Agency has been auditing Bayer Inc. 2013-2015 taxation years. Between December 2017 and August 2018, the CRA made a series of requests to Bayer Canada for copies of agreements that had been negotiated at arm’s length with respect to the activities that are being examined in the audit. On August 21, 2018, the CRA issued Query No 17 to Bayer Canada, in which it revised its previous requests as follows: Pursuant to our discussion on July 18, 2018, we would like to audit agreements made between any member of the Bayer Group with third party(s) in force during the 2013 and 2014 taxation years that perform some or all of the following activities in regards to pharmaceutical products: ‐  Are located in an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) member nation; ‐  Perform research and development (clinical trial level stage II, III and/or IV, inclusive); ‐  Perform regulatory compliance activities (notice of compliance, product labelling verification, etc.); ‐  Perform client and corporate product support; ‐  Perform quality control and assurance activities; ‐  Regional marketing and sales activities (e.g. detailing, medical affairs); ‐  Chain supply management activities (e.g. purchasing. distribution); ‐  Price negotiations with local regulatory bodies; ‐  Price negotiations with the public (e.g. provincial formularies) and private (e.g. insurance companies) funding bodies. Please provide a matrix of no less than 50 contracts that meet some or all of the criterion [sic] listed above, and make sure activities contemplated in the agreements are highlighted, so that CRA can select contracts for further review. On November 14, 2018, the Minister of National Revenue issued a Requirement to provide foreign-based information or documents pursuant to 231.6(2) of the ITA. The Requirement was significantly broader in scope than the previous requests. Bayer Inc took the position that the requested documents were irrelevant to the audit and applied for a judicial review of the requirement pursuant to s 231.6(4) of the ITA. Judgement of the Court The application for judicial review was allowed. The court concluded that Bayer was required to provide the documentation identified in Query No 17 dated August 21, 2018. But, the scope of the Requirement was limited to the agreements with the 21 named pharmaceutical and life sciences companies that operate at arm’s length from the Bayer Group. The court clarified that the sole constraint placed on the Minister of National Revenue was that a rational connection must exist between the information sought and the administration and enforcement of the ITA (Saipem at para 26) “Parliament intended to give the Minister far‑reaching powers under section 231.6 to obtain information available outside of Canada. The Minister need only show that it is relevant to the administration or enforcement of the Act. The taxpayer is protected from abusive use of the provision through the power of a judge to review the requirement. The respondent’s requirement was not an abuse of the process nor was the request unreasonable.” ...

The question in this case was whether royalty payments from a loss making Danish subsidiary Adecco A/S (H1 A/S in the decision) to its Swiss parent company Adecco SA (G1 SA in the decision – an international provider of temporary and permanent employment services active throughout the entire range of sectors in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia – for use of trademarks and trade names, knowhow, international network intangibles, and business concept were deductible expenses for tax purposes or not. In  2013, the Danish tax authorities (SKAT) had amended Adecco A/S’s taxable income for the years 2006-2009 by a total of DKK 82 million. Adecco A/S submitted that the company’s royalty payments were operating expenses deductible under section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act and that it was entitled to tax deductions for royalty payments of 1.5% of the company’s turnover in the first half of 2006 and 2% up to and including 2009, as these prices were in line with what would have been agreed if the transactions had been concluded between independent parties and thus compliant  with the requirement in section 2 of the Tax Assessment Act (- the arm’s length principle). In particular, Adecco A/S claimed that the company had lifted its burden of proof that the basic conditions for deductions pursuant to section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act were met, and the royalty payments thus deductible to the extent claimed. According to section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act expenses incurred during the year to acquire, secure and maintain income are deductible for tax purposes. There must be a direct and immediate link between the expenditure incurred and the acquisition of income. The company hereby stated that it was not disputed that the costs were actually incurred and that it was evident that the royalty payment was in the nature of operating costs, since the company received significant economic value for the payments. The High Court ruled in favor of the Danish tax authorities and concluded as follows: “Despite the fact that, as mentioned above, there is evidence to suggest that H1 A/S’s payment of royalties for the use of the H1 A/S trademark is a deductible operating expense, the national court finds, in particular, that H1 A/S operates in a national Danish market, where price is by far the most important competitive parameter, that the company has for a very long period largely only deficit, that it is an agreement on payment to the company’s ultimate parent company – which must be assumed to have its own purpose of being represented on the Danish market – and that royalty payments must be regarded as a standard condition determined by G1 SA independent of the market in which the Danish company is working, as well as the information on the marketing costs incurred in the Danish company and in the Swiss company compared with the failure to respond to the relevant provocations that H1 A/S has not lifted the burden of proof that the payments of royalties to the group-affiliated company G1 SA, constitutes a deductible operating expense, cf. section 6 (a) of the State Tax Act. 4.5 and par. 4.6, the national court finds that the company’s royalty payment cannot otherwise be regarded as a deductible operating expense.” Adecco appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and ruled in favor of Adecco. The Supreme Court held that the royalty payments had the nature of deductible operating costs. The Supreme Court also found that Adecco A/S’s transfer pricing documentation for the income years in question was not insufficient to such an extent that it could be considered equal to lack of documentation. The company’s income could therefore not be determined on a discretionary basis by the tax authorities. Finally, the Supreme Court did not consider that a royalty rate of 2% was not at arm’s length, or that Adecco A/S’s marketing in Denmark of the Adecco brand provided a basis for deducting in the royalty payment a compensation for a marketing of the global brand. Click here for translation ...

At issue was the question of whether the Danish tax authorities had been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income of Icemachine Manufacturer A/S due to inadequate transfer pricing documentation and continuous losses. And if such a discretionary assessment was justified, the question of whether the company had lifted the burden of proof that the tax authorities’ estimates had been clearly unreasonable. The Court ruled that the transfer pricing documentation provided by the company was so inadequate that it did not provide the tax authorities with a sufficient basis for determining whether the arm’s length principle had been followed. The tax authorities had therefore been entitled to make a discretionary assessment of the taxable income. For that purpose the Court found that the tax authorities had been justified in using the TNM method with the Danish company as the tested party, since sufficiently reliable information on the sales companies in the group had not been provided. Click here for translation (Part I) Click here for translation (Part II) ...

In the case at hand a related-party transactions had been carried out between a person (shareholder) and a related company. The transaction took place in 2007 and 2008 and was exempt from Spanish transfer pricing documentation requirements. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the transfer pricing had been adjusted and a penalty/fine was added to the claim. The taxpayer was of the opinion that the exemption from penalties extended to cases where the controlled transactions were exempt from transfer pricing documentation requirements. On that basis an appeal was filed. The appeal was dismissed by the lower court Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme court upheld the decision of the lower courts and dismissed the taxpayers appeal. According to the court, the exemption from penalties provided for in the rule on related-party transactions requires the taxpayer to be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation, and is therefore not applicable to those taxpayers who are exempt from the documentation requirement. In order to use the exemption from penalties, the following requirements must be met: The transfer pricing documentation requirements have been complied with; The declared value coincides with the value derived from such documentation; That, notwithstanding the above, the Tax Administration has made a transfer pricing adjustment. If the taxpayer is exempt from the formal transfer pricing documentation obligations, the tax authorities may adjust the transfer price of the related-party transactions and apply the general penalty regime provided for in the General Tax Law. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A potential difficulty for tax administrations in analysing cash pooling arrangements is that the various entities in a cash pool may be resident across a number of jurisdictions, potentially making it difficult to access sufficient information to verify the position as set out by the taxpayer. It would be of assistance to tax authorities if MNE groups would provide information on the structuring of the pool and the returns to the cash pool leader and the members in the cash pool as part of their transfer pricing documentation. (See Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines about the information to be included in the master file) ...

“Glass Corp” Panama, was issued a fine for not filing (in time) Transfer Pricing Report – Form 930 – for the fiscal year 2012. Article 762-I of the Tax Code in Panama establishes that failure to comply with filing obligation of transfer pricing documentation results in a fine of 1% of the total amount of the transactions with related parties. The decision of the Court “since it has been demonstrated that the formal duty to submit the Transfer Pricing Report contained in Article 762-I of the Tax Code has not been fulfilled by the company, this Administrative Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to confirm Resolution No. 201-579 of 15 October 2014 and the administrative act by which the General Revenue Directorate resolves to maintain it in all its parts.“ Click here for English translation ...

The Transfer Pricing Department of the General Directorate of Revenue of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, through Resolution 201-1429 of 24 October 2014, decided to sanction the taxpayer Chevron Products Antilles, LTD, now Chevron Panama Fuels Limited, with a fine of one million balboas (B/. 1,000,000.00), for failure to file the Transfer Pricing Report-Form 930 for the 2012 tax period. As a result of the issuance of the resolution mentioned in the previous paragraph, Chevron’s legal representative filed an appeal for reconsideration with the tax authority, which was resolved by Resolution 201-1321 of 1 March 2016, through which the accused act was maintained in all its parts. This resolution was notified to the taxpayer on 8 April 2016. Chevron then filed an appeal before the Administrative Tax Court, which by Resolution TAT-RF-057 of 22 May 2019, confirmed the provisions of the main administrative act and its confirmatory act, being notified of this appeal ruling on 18 June 2019, thus exhausting the governmental channels. Chevron then appealed to the Third Chamber, on 30 July 2019, in order to declare null and void, as illegal, the administrative resolution through which the General Directorate of Revenue of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, decided to sanction Chevron Products Antilles, LTD, now Chevron Panama Fuels Limited, with a fine of one million balboas (B/. 1,000,000.00), and that as a consequence of such declaration, it be resolved that Chevron has not failed to comply with the obligation to file the transfer pricing report-form 930 for the fiscal period 2012; that it should not pay any fine or sanction; and that, in the event that its principal had paid the fine, the amount of money should be returned to it. In support of its claim, Chevron points out that the contested administrative act does not recognise the right of its principal to be exempt from paying income tax, due to its location in an oil-free zone and for carrying out foreign operations, whose costs and expenses come from foreign sources; in other words, it is excluded from taxable income. In addition to the above, Chevron alleges that by not reporting transactions with related parties abroad, which have the effect of income, costs or deductions in the determination of the taxable base for the calculation of income tax, is under no obligation to file the transfer pricing report (form 930); for which reason, the sanction imposed violates the principles of due process and strict legality. The Judgement of the Court The court dismissed the appeal of Chevron and upheld the fine issued for not filing tranfer pricing documentation. Excerpt: “From the foregoing, it follows that the plaintiff, Chevron Panama Fuels Limited, was obliged to include in the income tax return filed, the data relating to operations with related countries tax residents of other jurisdictions together with the submission of the transfer price report-form 930, within six (6) months after the date of the close of the tax period, a requirement stipulated in article 762-I of the Tax Code, which states the following: “Article 762-1. Transfer pricing report. Taxpayers must submit, on an annual basis, a report of the operations carried out with related parties, within six (6) months following the closing date of the corresponding tax period, under the terms established in the regulations to be drawn up for this purpose. Failure to submit the report shall be punishable by a fine equivalent to 1% of the total amount of the related party transactions. For the purpose of calculating the fine, the gross amount of t he transactions shall be considered, regardless of whether they represent income, costs or deductions. The fine referred to in this paragraph shall not exceed one million balboas (B/.1,000,000.00). The sworn income tax return shall include the data related to related operations, as well as their nature or other relevant information, under the terms provided therein. The Directorate General of Revenue shall adapt the internal administrative procedures in order to comply with this regulation”. (Emphasis added). It is for the above reasons that the Directorate General of Revenue imposed the corresponding fine on the plaintiff taxpayer, Chevron Panama Fuels Limited, since it failed to file the transfer pricing report form 930, within six (6) months after the closing date of the tax period, as required by article 762-I of the aforementioned Tax Code.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

18 June 2019 the Polish Minister of Finance issued the first explanations on transfer pricing concerning – technical aspects of preparing comparability analyses and transfer pricing documentation. With regard to the technical aspects of preparing comparability analyses, the explanations cover such detailed issues as: data comparability vs. locality feasibility of using internal data feasibility of using bid data the appropriateness of using comparables that are not publicly available (so-called secret comparables) reasonableness of discarding from the comparables sample entities with extreme results (including those with loss) minimum sample size for benchmark data analysis selection of an interval point updating the benchmark data analysis. The second key issue addressed by the explanatory notes is the preparation of descriptions of the consistency of the terms of transactions and other events agreed with related parties with the terms that would be agreed among independent parties. Click here for unofficial English translation ...

In this case a group of taxpayers filed a lawsuit for the nullity of the new Mexican transfer pricing documentation obligations introduced in 2017 by rules 3.9.11, 3.9.14, 3.9.15, 3.9.16 and 3.9.17 of the First Resolution of Amendments to the Tax Miscellaneous published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, issued by the Head of the Tax Administration Service. Article 76-A of the Mexican Income Tax Law states that the taxpayers referred to in Article 32-H, Sections I, II, III and IV of the Federal Tax Code who enter into transactions with related parties must provide the tax authorities with annual related party information returns: 1) master file; 2) local file and 3) a country-by-country report. This three tiered documentation package provides the tax authorities with information related to transactions between related parties on transfer pricing, in order to identify conduct that could imply a risk of tax avoidance or evasion, improve the exchange of information with authorities of the same nature at the international level and carry out economic and statistical analyses. Supreme Court Judgement The Supreme Court predominantly dismissed the claim of unlawfulness of the Mexican documentation obligations. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

“Oil Export S.A” Panama, was issued a fine of $ 1 mill. for not filing Transfer Pricing Report – Form 930 – for the fiscal year 2012. Article 762-I of the Tax Code in Panama establishes that “Failure to submit the report shall be sanctioned with a fine equivalent to 1% of the total amount of the operations with related parties. For the calculation of the fine, the gross amount of the operations shall be considered, regardless of whether they are representative of income, costs, or deductions.” The fine referred to in the paragraph shall not exceed one million balboas (B/.1,000,000.00). The decision of the Court “Consequently, since it has been demonstrated that —[“Oil Export S.A”]— did not comply with the formal obligation to submit the Transfer Pricing Report contained in Article 762-I of the Tax Code, the Tax Administration considers that it is appropriate to confirm Resolution No. 201-1429 of 24 October 2014 and its confirmation act.“ Click here for English translation ...

A. Sp. z o.o. was established to carry out an investment project consisting in construction of a shopping center. In order to raise funds, the company concluded a loan agreement. The loan agreement was guaranteed by shareholders and other related parties. By virtue of the guarantees, the guarantors became solitarily liable for the Applicant’s obligations. The guarantees were granted free of charge. A. Sp. z o.o. was not obliged to pay any remuneration or provide any other mutual benefit to the guarantors. In connection with the above description, the following questions were asked: (1) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received, and if so, both for the year in which the surety is granted to the Applicant or also for subsequent tax years during the term of the security? (2) Will A. Sp. z o.o. be obliged to disclose the event related to the free-of-charge consideration received in a simplified CIT/TP report, both for the year in which the guarantee is granted and for subsequent tax years during which the guarantee is in effect. In A. Sp. z o.o.’s opinion, the company was not obliged to prepare transfer pricing documentation in connection with the gratuitous service received. And if the tax authority’s decision was contrary to the Company’s position, documentation should be prepared only for the tax year in which the guarantees was entered. The tax authorities disagreed with the company, and a complaint was filed by A. Sp. Z o.o. with the Administrative Court. Judgement of the Administrative Court The court dismsissed the appeal of A. Sp. z o.o. and sided with the tax authorities. Excerpt “The essence of the dispute in this respect boils down to the understanding of the notion of transaction used in this provision to define the actions the performance of which is to result in the necessity to draw up tax documentation. The provisions of ustawa p.d.o.p. do not contain a legal definition of this notion, therefore, the basis for interpretation of its meaning must be a colloquial understanding of the word transaction. However, basing such an interpretation solely on lexical definitions is doomed to failure because both the interpreter himself, as well as the applicant, basing themselves on linguistic definitions contained in dictionaries, came to completely different conclusions from the point of view of interpretation. One of them concluded that a transaction is a legal act concluded in connection with a party’s business activity in the performance of which at least one payment is made (based on the Internet Dictionary of the Polish Language http://sjp.pl), while the applicant, relying on another dictionary https://sjp.pwn.pl), argued that the word transaction covers only an agreement for the purchase and sale of goods and services. Therefore, resolving the merits of the case based solely on dictionary concepts does not give sufficiently satisfactory results. n such a situation one should refer to a purposeful interpretation, referring to the reasons for introducing this regulation, as well as to the goal the legislator intended to achieve through its introduction. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the provisions on the obligation to prepare tax documentation in the case of civil law transactions between related entities were introduced in order to ensure transparency of such activities, in particular to ensure that such activities are conducted on market principles. The purpose of introducing such a regulation convinces the court to accept as correct a broad definition of the word transaction. Such a definition ensures transparency of actions by related entities. There are no grounds for assuming that the legislator intended to achieve this only with respect to purchase and sale agreements, leaving the entire wide range of possible legal actions between related entities outside these regulations. Such an understanding of this provision is also an implementation of the guarantee function of the tax law, allowing related entities to obtain adequate protection in the event of disclosure of their actions. Therefore, in the court’s opinion, the interpreting authority did not violate the law by stating that the applicant’s position in this respect, in which it assumes that the notion of transaction means only and exclusively sale and purchase agreements, is incorrect. In this respect, the court of first instance fully agrees with the view of the Supreme Administrative Court expressed in the judgment of 8 March 2016 in case II FSK 4000/13, which stated that on the grounds of Article 9a(1) and (2) of the Act, the term “transaction” is synonymous with the term “agreement”. (ONSAiWSA 2017/3/52). In the same judgment, this Court considered as transactions within the meaning of Article 9a(1) of the P.C.P. making a contribution-in-kind to a capital company in the form of shares or stocks, the purchase (acquisition) of shares or taking up shares in increased share capital in exchange for a cash contribution. Cash-pooling agreements were also recognised as agreements exhausting the notion of transaction indicated in Article 9(1) of the APS (e.g. judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 January 2019 II FSK 121/17) or taking up by a bank in exchange for a cash contribution of shares issued upon the establishment of a mortgage bank and subsequent increases in the share capital of a mortgage bank (judgment of the WSA in Gliwice of 25 April 2018 I SA/Gl 314/18). Thus, the court jurisprudence in this respect adopts a broad understanding of the notion of transaction, not limiting it only to a sale-purchase agreement. Taking into account all the elements indicated above, the court held that the authority did not infringe the law by assuming that the notion of transaction referred to in Article 9a(1) of the A.P.C. also includes a legal transaction such as the one described in the application, which is subject to the granting of a surety free of charge to the applicant under a loan agreement. The interpreter’s position does not violate the law either, to the extent in which he stated that the obligation to prepare tax ...

Tax penalties/fines had been issued following a transfer pricing adjustments in regards of controlled transactions exempt from Spanish TP documentation requirements. An appeal was filed by the taxpayer claiming to be excluded from the Spanish penalty regime. The appeal was dismissed by the lower courts. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal of the taxpayer. The Court ruled that the specific transfer pricing penalty regime in Spain is only applicable to the related-party transactions subject to transfer pricing requirements and that controlled transactions exempt from Spanish TP documentation requirements can trigger tax penalties where adjustments have been issued by the tax authorities. In cases, where the taxpayer is exempt from TP documentation requirement, art. 16.10.4 of the TRLIS (the exclusion from penalties) does not apply. The exclusion from penalties provided for in paragraph 4 of art. 16.10 TRLIS is only applicable when the following three circumstances apply: (a) the taxpayer has not failed to comply with the formal obligation to keep the corresponding documentation ex art. 16. 2 TRLIS; (b) that the value declared by him in his tax return coincides with that stated in the documentation of the related-party transaction; and (c) that, despite the existence of this documentary coincidence, the normal market value attributed to the related-party transaction is incorrect and has required a valuation correction by the tax authorities. Only where these three cumulative circumstances are met, the conduct of the taxpayer will not be punishable either in accordance with the specific penalty regime contained in art. 16.10.1 and 2 TRLIS or in accordance with the general penalty regime established in the LGT. Hence, If the taxpayer is exempt from the formal transfer pricing documentation obligations, the tax authorities may adjust the transfer price of the related-party transactions and apply the general penalty regime provided for in the General Tax Law. “The logical consequence of the foregoing can be none other than the dismissal of the appeal lodged by the legal representation of Mr. Matías, as the court decision under appeal has correctly interpreted the legal system by considering (a) that article 16.10.4 TRLIS is not applicable because the appellant is exempt from the formal obligation to keep and maintain at the disposal of the tax authorities the documentation relating to related-party transactions established in article 16.2 TRLIS and developed in article 16.2 TRLIS. 16.2 TRLIS and developed by Royal Decree 1777/2004, and (b) that, in the absence of the application of the special penalty regime established in art. 16.10 TRLIS, it is appropriate to apply the general penalty regime established in the LGT and, in particular, in this case, art. 191 LGT, provided that the objective and subjective elements of the type of offence that we have established in our case law are present, as the Court of First Instance has found and is not the subject of controversy.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

In these two cases from Israel the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether or not companies using the cost plus method must include stock-based compensation in the cost base. The Court concludes that stock-based compensation is an integral part of the compensation package of the Israeli subsidiaries’ employees with the objective of improving the quality of services rendered and strengthening the bond between the companies’ and employees’ cohesive goals. Therefore, such compensation should be included in the cost base. The Court also addressed the burden of proof in relation to transfer pricing disputes in Israel. Section 85 A (c) (2) provides that the burden of proof is with the tax authority if the taxpayer have submitted all required documentation, including a transfer pricing study, that “adequately substantiate” intercompany prices to be in accordance with arm’s length principle ...

Annex III to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Country-by-Country Report A. Model template for the Country-by-Country Report Table 1. Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax jurisdiction Table 2. List of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group included in each aggregation per tax jurisdiction Please specify the nature of the activity of the Constituent Entity in the Additional Information” section. Table 3. Additional Information B. Template for the Country-by-Country Report – General instructions Purpose This Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains a template for reporting a multinational enterprise’s (MNE) group allocation of income, taxes and business activities on a tax jurisdiction-by-tax jurisdiction basis. These instructions form an integral part of the model template for the Country-by-Country Report. Definitions Reporting MNE A Reporting MNE is the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group. Constituent Entity For purposes of completing Annex III, a Constituent Entity of the MNE group is (i) any separate business unit of an MNE group that is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE group for financial reporting purposes, or would be so included if equity interests in such business unit of the MNE group were traded on a public securities exchange; (ii)   any such business unit that is excluded from the MNE group’s Consolidated Financial Statements solely on size or materiality grounds; and (iii)  any permanent establishment of any separate business unit of the MNE group included in (i) or (ii) above provided the business unit prepares a separate financial statement for such permanent establishment for financial reporting, regulatory, tax reporting, or internal management control purposes. Treatment of Branches and Permanent Establishments The permanent establishment data should be reported by reference to the tax jurisdiction in which it is situated and not by reference to the tax jurisdiction of residence of the business unit of which the permanent establishment is a part. Residence tax jurisdiction reporting for the business unit of which the permanent establishment is a part should exclude financial data related to the permanent establishment. Consolidated Financial Statements The Consolidated Financial Statements are the financial statements of an MNE group in which the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and cash flows of the ultimate parent entity and the Constituent Entities are presented as those of a single economic entity. Period covered by the annual template The template should cover the fiscal year of the Reporting MNE. For Constituent Entities, at the discretion of the Reporting MNE, the template should reflect on a consistent basis either (i) information for the fiscal year of the relevant Constituent Entities ending on the same date as the fiscal year of the Reporting MNE, or ending within the 12 month period preceding such date, or (ii) information for all the relevant Constituent Entities reported for the fiscal year of the Reporting MNE. Source of data The Reporting MNE should consistently use the same sources of data from year to year in completing the template. The Reporting MNE may choose to use data from its consolidation reporting packages, from separate entity statutory financial statements, regulatory financial statements, or internal management accounts. It is not necessary to reconcile the revenue, profit and tax reporting in the template to the consolidated financial statements. If statutory financial statements are used as the basis for reporting, all amounts should be translated to the stated functional currency of the Reporting MNE at the average exchange rate for the year stated in the Additional Information section of the template. Adjustments need not be made, however, for differences in accounting principles applied from tax jurisdiction to tax jurisdiction. The Reporting MNE should provide a brief description of the sources of data used in preparing the template in the Additional Information section of the template. If a change is made in the source of data used from year to year, the Reporting MNE should explain the reasons for the change and its consequences in the Additional Information section of the template. C. Template for the Country-by-Country Report – Specific instructions Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax jurisdiction (Table 1) Tax Jurisdiction In the first column of the template, the Reporting MNE should list all of the tax jurisdictions in which Constituent Entities of the MNE group are resident for tax purposes. A tax jurisdiction is defined as a State as well as a non-State jurisdiction which has fiscal autonomy. A separate line should be included for all Constituent Entities in the MNE group deemed by the Reporting MNE not to be resident in any tax jurisdiction for tax purposes. Where a Constituent Entity is resident in more than one tax jurisdiction, the applicable tax treaty tie breaker should be applied to determine the tax jurisdiction of residence. Where no applicable tax treaty exists, the Constituent Entity should be reported in the tax jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity’s place of effective management. The place of effective management should be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and its accompanying Commentary. Revenues In the three columns of the template under the heading Revenues, the Reporting MNE should report the following information: (i) the sum of revenues of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group in the relevant tax jurisdiction generated from transactions with associated enterprises; (ii) the sum of revenues of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE group in the relevant tax jurisdiction generated from transactions with independent parties; and (iii) the total of (i) and (ii). Revenues should include revenues from sales of inventory and properties, services, royalties, interest, premiums and any other amounts. Revenues should exclude payments received from other Constituent Entities that are treated as dividends in the payor’s tax jurisdiction. Profit (Loss) before Income Tax In the fifth column of the template, the Reporting MNE should report the sum of the profit (loss) before income tax for all the Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the relevant tax jurisdiction. The ...

Annex II to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Local file The following information should be included in the local file: Local entity A description of the management structure of the local entity, a local organisation chart, and a description of the individuals to whom local management reports and the country(ies) in which such individuals maintain their principal offices. A detailed description of the business and business strategy pursued by the local entity including an indication whether the local entity has been involved in or affected by business restructurings or intangibles transfers in the present or immediately past year and an explanation of those aspects of such transactions affecting the local entity. Key competitors. Controlled transactions For each material category of controlled transactions in which the entity is involved, provide the following information: A description of the material controlled transactions (e.g. procurement of manufacturing services, purchase of goods, provision of services, loans, financial and performance guarantees, licences of intangibles, etc.) and the context in which such transactions take place. The amount of intra-group payments and receipts for each category of controlled transactions involving the local entity (i.e. payments and receipts for products, services, royalties, interest, etc.) broken down by tax jurisdiction of the foreign payor or recipient. An identification of associated enterprises involved in each category of controlled transactions, and the relationship amongst them. Copies of all material intercompany agreements concluded by the local entity. A detailed comparability and functional analysis of the taxpayer and relevant associated enterprises with respect to each documented category of controlled transactions, including any changes compared to prior years. An indication of the most appropriate transfer pricing method with regard to the category of transaction and the reasons for selecting that method. An indication of which associated enterprise is selected as the tested party, if applicable, and an explanation of the reasons for this selection. A summary of the important assumptions made in applying the transfer pricing methodology. If relevant, an explanation of the reasons for performing a multi-year analysis. A list and description of selected comparable uncontrolled transactions (internal or external), if any, and information on relevant financial indicators for independent enterprises relied on in the transfer pricing analysis, including a description of the comparable search methodology and the source of such information. A description of any comparability adjustments performed, and an indication of whether adjustments have been made to the results of the tested party, the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or both. A description of the reasons for concluding that relevant transactions were priced on an arm’s length basis based on the application of the selected transfer pricing method. A summary of financial information used in applying the transfer pricing methodology. A copy of existing unilateral and bilateral/multilateral APAs and other tax rulings to which the local tax jurisdiction is not a party and which are related to controlled transactions described above. Financial information Annual local entity financial accounts for the fiscal year concerned. If audited statements exist they should be supplied and if not, existing unaudited statements should be supplied. Information and allocation schedules showing how the financial data used in applying the transfer pricing method may be tied to the annual financial statements. Summary schedules of relevant financial data for comparables used in the analysis and the sources from which that data was obtained ...

Annex I to Chapter V Transfer Pricing Documentation – Master file The following information should be included in the master file: Organisational structure Chart illustrating the MNE’s legal and ownership structure and geographical location of operating entities. Description of MNE’s business(es) General written description of the MNE’s business including: –     Important drivers of business profit; –      A description of the supply chain for the group’s five largest products and/or service offerings by turnover plus any other products and/or services amounting to more than 5% of group turnover. The required description could take the form of a chart or a diagram; –      A list and brief description of important service arrangements between members of the MNE group, other than research and development (R&D) services, including a description of the capabilities of the principal locations providing important services and transfer pricing policies for allocating services costs and determining prices to be paid for intra-group services; –      A description of the main geographic markets for the group’s products and services that are referred to in the second bullet point above; –    A brief written functional analysis describing the principal contributions to value creation by individual entities within the group, i.e. key functions performed, important risks assumed, and important assets used; –      A description of important business restructuring transactions, acquisitions and divestitures occurring during the fiscal year. MNE’s intangibles (as defined in Chapter VI of these Guidelines) A general description of the MNE’s overall strategy for the development, ownership and exploitation of intangibles, including location of principal R&D facilities and location of R&D management. A list of intangibles or groups of intangibles of the MNE group that are important for transfer pricing purposes and which entities legally own them. A list of important agreements among identified associated enterprises related to intangibles, including cost contribution arrangements, principal research service agreements and licence agreements. A general description of the group’s transfer pricing policies related to R&D and intangibles. A general description of any important transfers of interests in intangibles among associated enterprises during the fiscal year concerned, including the entities, countries, and compensation involved. MNE’s intercompany financial activities A general description of how the group is financed, including important financing arrangements with unrelated lenders. The identification of any members of the MNE group that provide a central financing function for the group, including the country under whose laws the entity is organised and the place of effective management of such entities. A general description of the MNE’s general transfer pricing policies related to financing arrangements between associated enterprises. MNE’s financial and tax positions The MNE’s annual consolidated financial statement for the fiscal year concerned if otherwise prepared for financial reporting, regulatory, internal management, tax or other purposes. A list and brief description of the MNE group’s existing unilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) and other tax rulings relating to the allocation of income among countries ...

As part of their transfer pricing documentation, MNE groups are recommended to document their decisions and intentions regarding business restructurings, especially as regards their decisions to assume or transfer significant risks, before the relevant transactions occur, and to document the evaluation of the consequences on profit potential of significant risk allocations resulting from the restructuring. In describing the assumption of risk as part of a business restructuring, it is recommended that taxpayers use the framework set out in Section D. 1.2.1 of Chapter I ...

Over the duration of the CCA term, the following information could be useful: a) any change to the arrangement (e.g. in terms, participants, subject activity), and the consequences of such change b) a comparison between projections used to determine the share of expected benefits from the CCA activity with the actual share of benefits (however, regard should be had to paragraph 3.74) c) the annual expenditure incurred in conducting the CCA activity, the form and value of each participant’s contributions made during the CCA’s term, and a detailed description of how the value of contributions is determined ...

The following information would be relevant and useful concerning the initial terms of the CCA: a) a list of participants b) a list of any other associated enterprises that will be involved with the CCA activity or that are expected to exploit or use the results of the subject activity c) the scope of the activities and specific projects covered by the CCA, and how the CCA activities are managed and controlled d) the duration of the arrangement e) the manner in which participants’ proportionate shares of expected benefits are measured, and any projections used in this determination f) the manner in which any future benefits (such as intangibles) are expected to be exploited g) the form and value of each participant’s initial contributions, and a detailed description of how the value of initial and ongoing contributions is determined (including any budgeted vs actual adjustments) and how accounting principles are applied consistently to all participants in determining expenditures and the value of contributions h) the anticipated allocation of responsibilities and tasks, and the mechanisms for managing and controlling those responsibilities and tasks, in particular, those relating to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection or exploitation of intangibles or tangible assets used in the CCA activity i) the procedures for and consequences of a participant entering or withdrawing from the CCA and the termination of the CCA j) any provisions for balancing payments or for adjusting the terms of the arrangement to reflect changes in economic circumstances ...

The transfer pricing documentation standard set out in Chapter V requires reporting under the master file of important service arrangements and important agreements related to intangibles, including CCAs. The local file requires transactional information including a description of the transactions, the amounts of payments and receipts, identification of the associated enterprises involved, copies of material intercompany agreements, and pricing information including a description of reasons for concluding that the transactions were priced on an arm’s length basis. It would be expected that in order to comply with these documentation requirements, the participants in a CCA will prepare or obtain materials about the nature of the subject activity, the terms of the arrangement, and its consistency with the arm’s length principle. Implicit in this is that each participant should have full access to the details of the activities to be conducted under the CCA, the identity and location of the other parties involved in the CCA, the projections on which the contributions are to be made and expected benefits determined, and budgeted and actual expenditures for the CCA activity, at a level of detail commensurate with the complexity and importance of the CCA to the taxpayer. All this information could be relevant and useful to tax administrations in the context of a CCA and, if not included in the master file or local file, taxpayers should be prepared to provide it upon request. The information relevant to any particular CCA will depend on the facts and circumstances. It should be emphasised that the information described in this list is neither a minimum compliance standard nor an exhaustive list of the information that a tax administration may be entitled to request ...

This chapter discusses cost contribution arrangements (CCAs) between two or more associated enterprises. The purpose of the chapter is to provide some general guidance for determining whether the conditions established by associated enterprises for transactions covered by a CCA are consistent with the arm’s length principle. The analysis of the structure of such arrangements should be informed by the provisions of this chapter and other provisions of these Guidelines and should be based on an adequate documentation of the arrangement ...

An MNE group electing for application of this simplified methodology shall prepare the following information and documentation and make it available upon request to the tax administration of any entity within the group either making or receiving a payment for low value-adding intra-group services. A description of the categories of low value-adding intra-group services provided; the identity of the beneficiaries; the reasons justifying that each category of services constitute low value-adding intra-group services within the definition set out in Section D. 1; the rationale for the provision of services within the context of the business of the MNE; a description of the benefits or expected benefits of each category of services; a description of the selected allocation keys and the reasons justifying that such allocation keys produce outcomes that reasonably reflect the benefits received, and confirmation of the mark-up applied; Written contracts or agreements for the provision of services and any modifications to those contracts and agreements reflecting the agreement of the various members of the group to be bound by the allocation rules of this section. Such written contracts or agreements could take the form of a contemporaneous document identifying the entities involved, the nature of the services, and the terms and conditions under which the services are provided; Documentation and calculations showing the determination of the cost pool as described in Section D.2.2, and of the mark-up applied thereon, in particular a detailed listing of all categories and amounts of relevant costs, including costs of any services provided solely to one group member; Calculations showing the application of the specified allocation keys ...

While low value-adding intra-group services may provide benefits to all recipients of those services, questions may arise about the extent of the benefits and whether independent parties would have been willing to pay for the service or perform it themselves. Where the MNE group has followed the guidance of the simplified approach the documentation and reporting discussed in Section D.3 below, it should provide sufficient evidence that the benefits test is met given the nature of low value-adding intra-group services. In evaluating the benefits test, tax administrations should consider benefits only by categories of services and not on a specific charge basis. Thus, the taxpayer need only demonstrate that assistance was provided with, for example, payroll processing, rather than being required to specify individual acts undertaken that give rise to the costs charged. Provided such information outlined in paragraph 7.64 is made available to the tax administration, a single annual invoice describing a category of services should suffice to support the charge, and correspondence or other evidence of individual acts should not be required. With regard to low value-adding intra-group services that benefit only one recipient entity in the MNE group, it is expected that the benefits to the service recipient will be capable of separate demonstration ...

Some intra-group services are performed by one member of an MNE group to meet an identified need of one or more specific members of the group. In such a case, it is relatively straightforward to determine whether a service has been provided. Ordinarily an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances would have satisfied the identified need either by performing the activity in-house or by having the activity performed by a third party. Thus, in such a case, an intra-group service ordinarily would be found to exist. For example, an intra-group service would normally be found where an associated enterprise repairs equipment used in manufacturing by another member of the MNE group. It is essential, however, that reliable documentation is provided to the tax administrations to verify that the costs have been incurred by the service provider ...

Participating jurisdictions endeavour to introduce as necessary domestic legislation in a timely manner. They are also encouraged to expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of information. The implementation of the package will be monitored on an ongoing basis. The outcomes of this monitoring will be taken into consideration in the 2020 review ...

Countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project have therefore developed an implementation package for government-to¬government exchange of Country-by-Country Reports contained in Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines. More specifically: Model legislation requiring the ultimate parent entity of an MNE group to file the Country-by-Country Report in its jurisdiction of residence has been developed. Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems, where changes to current legislation are required. Key elements of secondary mechanisms have also been developed. Implementing arrangements for the automatic exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports under international agreements have been developed, incorporating the conditions set out in Section E.2.3. Such implementing arrangements include competent authority agreements (CAAs) based on existing international agreements (the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, bilateral tax treaties and TIEAs) and inspired by the existing models developed by the OECD working with G20 countries for the automatic exchange of financial account information ...

Jurisdictions should require in a timely manner Country-by-Country Reporting from ultimate parent entities of MNE groups resident in their country and referred to in Section E.2.2 and exchange this information on an automatic basis with the jurisdictions in which the MNE group operates and which fulfil the conditions listed in Section E.2.3. In case a jurisdiction fails to provide information to a jurisdiction fulfilling the conditions listed in Section E.2.3, because (a) it has not required Country¬by-Country Reporting from the ultimate parent entity of such MNE groups, (b) no competent authority agreement has been agreed in a timely manner under the current international agreements of the jurisdiction for the exchange of the Country-by-Country Reports or (c) it has been established that there is a failure to exchange the information in practice with a jurisdiction after agreeing with that jurisdiction to do so, a secondary mechanism would be accepted as appropriate, through local filing or through filing of the Country-by-Country Reports by a designated member of the MNE group acting in place of the ultimate parent entity and automatic exchange of these reports by its country of tax residence ...

Jurisdictions should use appropriately the information in the Country-by-Country Report template in accordance with paragraph 5.25. In particular, jurisdictions will commit to use the Country-by-Country Report for assessing high-level transfer pricing risk. Jurisdictions may also use the Country-by-Country Report for assessing other BEPS-related risks. Jurisdictions should not propose adjustments to the income of any taxpayer on the basis of an income allocation formula based on the data from the Country-by-Country Report. They will further commit that if such adjustments based on Country-by-Country Report data are made by the local tax administration of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction’s competent authority will promptly concede the adjustment in any relevant competent authority proceeding. This does not imply, however, that jurisdictions would be prevented from using the Country-by-Country Report data as a basis for making further enquiries into the MNE’s transfer pricing arrangements or into other tax matters in the course of a tax audit ...

Jurisdictions should use their best efforts to adopt a legal requirement that MNE groups’ ultimate parent entities resident in their jurisdiction prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, unless exempted as set out in paragraph 5.52. Jurisdictions should utilise the standard template contained in Annex III of Chapter V of these Guidelines. Stated otherwise, under this condition no jurisdiction will require that the Country-by-Country Report contain either additional information not contained in Annex III, nor will it fail to require reporting of information included in Annex III ...

Jurisdictions should have in place and enforce legal protections of the confidentiality of the reported information. Such protections would preserve the confidentiality of the Country-by-Country Report to an extent at least equivalent to the protections that would apply if such information were delivered to the country under the provisions of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) or a tax treaty that meets the internationally agreed standard of information upon request as reviewed by the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. Such protections include limitation of the use of information, rules on the persons to whom the information may be disclosed, ordre public, etc ...

Countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree to the following conditions underpinning the obtaining and the use of the Country-by-Country Report ...

It is considered that no exemptions from filing the Country-by-Country Report should be adopted apart from the exemptions outlined in this section. In particular, no special industry exemptions should be provided, no general exemption for investment funds should be provided, and no exemption for non-corporate entities or non-public corporate entities should be provided. Notwithstanding this conclusion, countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that MNE groups with income derived from international transportation or transportation in inland waterways that is covered by treaty provisions that are specific to such income and under which the taxing rights on such income are allocated exclusively to one jurisdiction, should include the information required by the country-by-country template with respect to such income only against the name of the jurisdiction to which the relevant treaty provisions allocate these taxing rights ...

It is the intention of the countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project to reconsider the appropriateness of the applicable revenue threshold described in the preceding paragraph in connection with their 2020 review of implementation of the new standard, including whether additional or different data should be reported ...

It is believed that the exemption described in paragraph 52, which provides a threshold of EUR 750 million, will exclude approximately 85 to 90% of MNE groups from the requirement to file the Country-by-Country Report, but that the Country-by-Country Report will nevertheless be filed by MNE groups controlling approximately 90% of corporate revenues. The prescribed exemption threshold therefore represents an appropriate balancing of reporting burden and benefit to tax administrations ...

There would be an exemption from the general filing requirement for MNE groups with annual consolidated group revenue in the immediately preceding fiscal year of less than EUR 750 million or a near equivalent amount in domestic currency as of January 2015. Thus, for example, if an MNE that keeps its financial accounts on a calendar year basis has EUR 625 million in consolidated group revenue for its 2015 calendar year, it would not be required to file the Country-by-Country Report in any country with respect to its fiscal year ending 31 December 2016 ...

It is recommended that all MNE groups be required to file the Country-by-Country Report each year except as follows ...

It is recommended that the first Country-by-Country Reports be required to be filed for MNE fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2016. However, it is acknowledged that some jurisdictions may need time to follow their particular domestic legislative process in order to make necessary adjustments to the law. In order to assist countries in preparing timely legislation, model legislation requiring ultimate parent entities of MNE groups to file the Country-by-Country Report in their jurisdiction of residence has been developed (see Annex IV to Chapter V of these Guidelines). Jurisdictions will be able to adapt this model legislation to their own legal systems. Given the recommendation in paragraph 31 that MNEs be allowed one year from the close of the fiscal year to which the Country-by-Country Report relates to prepare and file the Country-by-Country Report, this recommendation means that the first Country-by-Country Reports would be filed by 31 December 2017. For MNEs with a fiscal year ending on a date other than 31 December, the first Country-by-Country Reports would be required to be filed later in 2018, twelve months after the close of the relevant MNE fiscal year, and would report on the MNE group’s first fiscal year beginning after 1 January 2016. It follows from this recommendation that the countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that they will not require filing of a Country-by-Country Report based on the new template for MNE fiscal years beginning prior to 1 January 2016. The MNE fiscal year relates to the consolidated reporting period for financial statement purposes and not to taxable years or to the financial reporting periods of individual subsidiaries ...

It is recommended that the master file and local file elements of the transfer pricing documentation standard be implemented through local country legislation or administrative procedures and that the master file and local file be filed directly with the tax administrations in each relevant jurisdiction as required by those administrations. Countries participating in the OECD/G20 BEPS Project agree that with regard to the local file and the master file confidentiality and consistent use of the standards contained in Annex I and Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines should be taken into account when introducing these elements in local country legislation or administrative procedures ...

It is essential that the guidance in this chapter, and in particular the Country-by-Country Report, be implemented effectively and consistently. Therefore, countries participating in the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project have developed the following guidance on implementation of transfer pricing documentation and Country¬by-Country Reporting ...

It is not recommended, particularly at the stage of transfer pricing risk assessment, to require that the transfer pricing documentation should be certified by an outside auditor or other third party. Similarly, mandatory use of consulting firms to prepare transfer pricing documentation is not recommended ...

The requirement to use the most reliable information will usually, but not always, require the use of local comparables over the use of regional comparables where such local comparables are reasonably available. The use of regional comparables in transfer pricing documentation prepared for countries in the same geographic region in situations where appropriate local comparables are available will not, in some cases, comport with the obligation to rely on the most reliable information. While the simplification benefits of limiting the number of comparable searches a company is required to undertake are obvious, and materiality and compliance costs are relevant factors to consider, a desire for simplifying compliance processes should not go so far as to undermine compliance with the requirement to use the most reliable available information. See paragraphs 1.112-1.113 on market differences and multi-country analyses for further detail of when local comparables are to be preferred ...

The OECD Guide Keeping It Safe (2012) on the protection of confidentiality of information exchanged for tax purposes provides guidance on the rules and practices that must be in place to ensure the confidentiality of tax information exchanged under exchange of information instruments ...

Tax administrations should take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is no public disclosure of confidential information (trade secrets, scientific secrets, etc.) and other commercially sensitive information contained in the documentation package (master file, local file and Country¬by-Country Report). Tax administrations should also assure taxpayers that the information presented in transfer pricing documentation will remain confidential. In cases where disclosure is required in public court proceedings or judicial decisions, every effort should be made to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that information is disclosed only to the extent needed ...

Another way for countries to encourage taxpayers to fulfil transfer pricing documentation requirements is by designing compliance incentives such as penalty protection or a shift in the burden of proof. Where the documentation meets the requirements and is timely submitted, the taxpayer could be exempted from tax penalties or subject to a lower penalty rate if a transfer pricing adjustment is made and sustained, notwithstanding the provision of documentation. In some jurisdictions where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof regarding transfer pricing matters, a shift of the burden of proof to the tax administration’s side where adequate documentation is provided on a timely basis offers another measure that could be used to create an incentive for transfer pricing documentation compliance ...

Care should be taken not to impose a documentation-related penalty on a taxpayer for failing to submit data to which the MNE group did not have access. However, a decision not to impose documentation-related penalties does not mean that adjustments cannot be made to income where prices are not consistent with the arm’s length principle. The fact that positions are fully documented does not necessarily mean that the taxpayer’s positions are correct. Moreover, an assertion by a local entity that other group members are responsible for transfer pricing compliance is not a sufficient reason for that entity to fail to provide required documentation, nor should such an assertion prevent the imposition of documentation-related penalties for failure to comply with documentation rules where the necessary information is not forthcoming ...

Documentation-related penalties imposed for failure to comply with transfer pricing documentation requirements or failure to timely submit required information are usually civil (or administrative) monetary penalties. These documentation-related penalties are based on a fixed amount that may be assessed for each document missing or for each fiscal year under review, or calculated as a percentage of the related tax understatement ultimately determined, a percentage of the related adjustment to the income, or as a percentage of the amount of the cross-border transactions not documented ...

Many countries have adopted documentation-related penalties to ensure efficient operation of transfer pricing documentation requirements. They are designed to make non-compliance more costly than compliance. Penalty regimes are governed by the laws of each individual country. Country practices with regard to transfer pricing documentation-related penalties vary widely. The existence of different local country penalty regimes may influence the quality of taxpayers’ compliance so that taxpayers could be driven to favour one country over another in their compliance practices ...

The necessity of providing documentation in local language may constitute a complicating factor with respect to transfer pricing compliance to the extent that substantial time and cost may be involved in translating documents. The language in which transfer pricing documentation should be submitted should be established under local laws. Countries are encouraged to permit filing of transfer pricing documentation in commonly used languages where it will not compromise the usefulness of the documents. Where tax administrations believe that translation of documents is necessary, they should make specific requests for translation and provide sufficient time to make such translation as comfortable a burden as possible ...

In order to simplify compliance burdens on taxpayers, tax administrations may determine, as long as the operating conditions remain unchanged, that the searches in databases for comparables supporting part of the local file be updated every three years rather than annually. Financial data for the comparables should nonetheless be updated every year in order to apply the arm’s length principle reliably ...

It is recommended that transfer pricing documentation be periodically reviewed in order to determine whether functional and economic analyses are still accurate and relevant and to confirm the validity of the applied transfer pricing methodology. In general, the master file, the local file and the Country-by-Country Report should be reviewed and updated annually. It is recognised, however, that in many situations business descriptions, functional analyses, and descriptions of comparables may not change significantly from year to year ...

Because the tax administration’s ultimate interest would be satisfied if the necessary documents were submitted in a timely manner when requested by the tax administration in the course of an examination, the way that documentation is stored – whether in paper, electronic form, or in any other system – should be at the discretion of the taxpayer provided that relevant information can promptly be made available to the tax administration in the form specified by the local country rules and practices ...

Taxpayers should not be obliged to retain documents beyond a reasonable period consistent with the requirements of domestic law at either the parent company or local entity level. However, at times materials and information required in the documentation package (master file, local file and Country-by-Country Report) may be relevant to a transfer pricing enquiry for a subsequent year that is not time barred, for example where taxpayers voluntarily keep such records in relation to long-term contracts, or to determine whether comparability standards relating to the application of a transfer pricing method in that subsequent year are satisfied. Tax administrations should bear in mind the difficulties in locating documents for prior years and should restrict such requests to instances where they have good reason in connection with the transaction under examination for reviewing the documents in question ...

For purposes of Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines, the Country-by-Country Report should include all tax jurisdictions in which the MNE group has an entity resident for tax purposes, regardless of the size of business operations in that tax jurisdiction ...

A number of countries have introduced in their transfer pricing documentation rules simplification measures which exempt small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from transfer pricing documentation requirements or limit the information required to be provided by such enterprises. In order not to impose on taxpayers costs and burdens disproportionate to the circumstances, it is recommended to not require SMEs to produce the amount of documentation that might be expected from larger enterprises. However, SMEs should be obliged to provide information and documents about their material cross-border transactions upon a specific request of the tax administration in the course of a tax examination or for transfer pricing risk assessment purposes ...

Not all transactions that occur between associated enterprises are sufficiently material to require full documentation in the local file. Tax administrations have an interest in seeing the most important information while at the same time they also have an interest in seeing that MNEs are not so overwhelmed with compliance demands that they fail to consider and document the most important items. Thus, individual country transfer pricing documentation requirements based on Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines should include specific materiality thresholds that take into account the size and the nature of the local economy, the importance of the MNE group in that economy, and the size and nature of local operating entities, in addition to the overall size and nature of the MNE group. Measures of materiality may be considered in relative terms (e.g. transactions not exceeding a percentage of revenue or a percentage of cost measure) or in absolute amount terms (e.g. transactions not exceeding a certain fixed amount). Individual countries should establish their own materiality standards for local file purposes, based on local conditions. The materiality standards should be objective standards that are commonly understood and accepted in commercial practice. See paragraph 5.18 for the materiality standards applicable in completing the master file ...

Taxpayers should not be expected to incur disproportionately high costs and burdens in producing documentation. Therefore, tax administrations should balance requests for documentation against the expected cost and administrative burden to the taxpayer of creating it. Where a taxpayer reasonably demonstrates, having regard to the principles of these Guidelines, that either no comparable data exists or that the cost of locating the comparable data would be disproportionately high relative to the amounts at issue, the taxpayer should not be required to incur costs in searching for such data ...

Each taxpayer should endeavour to determine transfer prices for tax purposes in accordance with the arm’s length principle, based upon information reasonably available at the time of the transaction. Thus, a taxpayer ordinarily should give consideration to whether its transfer pricing is appropriate for tax purposes before the pricing is established and should confirm the arm’s length nature of its financial results at the time of filing its tax return ...

Annex III to Chapter V of these Guidelines contains a model template for the Country-by-Country Report together with its accompanying instructions ...

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 ...

The Country-by-Country Report requires aggregate tax jurisdiction-wide information relating to the global allocation of the income, the taxes paid, and certain indicators of the location of economic activity among tax jurisdictions in which the MNE group operates. The report also requires a listing of all the Constituent Entities for which financial information is reported, including the tax jurisdiction of incorporation, where different from the tax jurisdiction of residence, as well as the nature of the main business activities carried out by that Constituent Entity ...

Annex II to Chapter V of these Guidelines sets out the items of information to be included in the local file ...

In contrast to the master file, which provides a high-level overview as described in paragraph 5.18, the local file provides more detailed information relating to specific intercompany transactions. The information required in the local file supplements the master file and helps to meet the objective of assuring that the taxpayer has complied with the arm’s length principle in its material transfer pricing positions affecting a specific jurisdiction. The local file focuses on information relevant to the transfer pricing analysis related to transactions taking place between a local country affiliate and associated enterprises in different countries and which are material in the context of the local country’s tax system. Such information would include relevant financial information regarding those specific transactions, a comparability analysis, and the selection and application of the most appropriate transfer pricing method. Where a requirement of the local file can be fully satisfied by a specific cross-reference to information contained in the master file, such a cross-reference should suffice ...

Annex I to Chapter V of these Guidelines sets out the information to be included in the master file ...

Taxpayers should present the information in the master file for the MNE as a whole. However, organisation of the information presented by line of business is permitted where well justified by the facts, e.g. where the structure of the MNE group is such that some significant business lines operate largely independently or are recently acquired. Where line of business presentation is used, care should be taken to assure that centralised group functions and transactions between business lines are properly described in the master file. Even where line of business presentation is selected, the entire master file consisting of all business lines should be available to each country in order to assure that an appropriate overview of the MNE group’s global business is provided ...

The information required in the master file provides a “blueprint” of the MNE group and contains relevant information that can be grouped in five categories: a) the MNE group’s organisational structure; b) a description of the MNE’s business or businesses; c) the MNE’s intangibles; d) the MNE’s intercompany financial activities; and (e) the MNE’s financial and tax positions ...

The master file should provide an overview of the MNE group business, including the nature of its global business operations, its overall transfer pricing policies, and its global allocation of income and economic activity in order to assist tax administrations in evaluating the presence of significant transfer pricing risk. In general, the master file is intended to provide a high-level overview in order to place the MNE group’s transfer pricing practices in their global economic, legal, financial and tax context. It is not intended to require exhaustive listings of minutiae (e.g. a listing of every patent owned by members of the MNE group) as this would be both unnecessarily burdensome and inconsistent with the objectives of the master file. In producing the master file, including lists of important agreements, intangibles and transactions, taxpayers should use prudent business judgment in determining the appropriate level of detail for the information supplied, keeping in mind the objective of the master file to provide tax administrations a high-level overview of the MNE’s global operations and policies. When the requirements of the master file can be fully satisfied by specific cross-references to other existing documents, such cross-references, together with copies of the relevant documents, should be deemed to satisfy the relevant requirement. For purposes of producing the master file, information is considered important if its omission would affect the reliability of the transfer pricing outcomes ...

This approach to transfer pricing documentation will provide tax administrations with relevant and reliable information to perform an efficient and robust transfer pricing risk assessment analysis. It will also provide a platform on which the information necessary for an audit can be developed and provide taxpayers with a means and an incentive to meaningfully consider and describe their compliance with the arm’s length principle in material transactions ...

In order to achieve the objectives described in Section B, countries should adopt a standardised approach to transfer pricing documentation. This section describes a three-tiered structure consisting of (i) a master file containing standardised information relevant for all MNE group members; (ii) a local file referring specifically to material transactions of the local taxpayer; and (iii) a Country-by-Country Report containing certain information relating to the global allocation of the MNE’s income and taxes paid together with certain indicators of the location of economic activity within the MNE group ...

It may often be the case that the documents and other information required for a transfer pricing audit will be in the possession of members of the MNE group other than the local affiliate under examination. Often the necessary documents will be located outside the country whose tax administration is conducting the audit. It is therefore important that the tax administration is able to obtain directly or through information sharing, such as exchange of information mechanisms, information that extends beyond the country’s borders ...

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 ...

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 ...

While ideally taxpayers will use transfer pricing documentation as an opportunity to articulate a well thought-out basis for their transfer pricing policies, thereby meeting an important objective of such requirements, issues such as costs, time constraints, and competing demands for the attention of relevant personnel can sometimes undermine these objectives. It is therefore important for countries to keep documentation requirements reasonable and focused on material transactions in order to ensure mindful attention to the most important matters ...

This compliance objective may be supported in two important ways. First, tax administrations can require that transfer pricing documentation requirements be satisfied on a contemporaneous basis. This would mean that the documentation would be prepared at the time of the transaction, or in any event, no later than the time of completing and filing the tax return for the fiscal year in which the transaction takes place. The second way to encourage compliance is to establish transfer pricing penalty regimes in a manner intended to reward timely and accurate preparation of transfer pricing documentation and to create incentives for timely, careful consideration of the taxpayer’s transfer pricing positions. Filing requirements and penalty provisions related to documentation are discussed in greater detail in Section D below ...

By requiring taxpayers to articulate convincing, consistent and cogent transfer pricing positions, transfer pricing documentation can help to ensure that a culture of compliance is created. Well-prepared documentation will give tax administrations some assurance that the taxpayer has analysed the positions it reports on tax returns, has considered the available comparable data, and has reached consistent transfer pricing positions. Moreover, contemporaneous documentation requirements will help to ensure the integrity of the taxpayers’ positions and restrain taxpayers from developing justifications for their positions after the fact ...

Each of these objectives should be considered in designing appropriate domestic transfer pricing documentation requirements. It is important that taxpayers be required to carefully evaluate, at or before the time of filing a tax return, their own compliance with the applicable transfer pricing rules. It is also important that tax administrations be able to access the information they need to conduct a transfer pricing risk assessment to make an informed decision about whether to perform an audit. In addition, it is important that tax administrations be able to access or demand, on a timely basis, all additional information necessary to conduct a comprehensive audit once the decision to conduct such an audit is made ...

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 following discussion identifies three objectives of transfer pricing documentation rules. The discussion also provides guidance for the development of such rules so that transfer pricing compliance is more straightforward and more consistent among countries, while at the same time providing tax administrations with more focused and useful information for transfer pricing risk assessments and audits. An important overarching consideration in developing such rules is to balance the usefulness of the data to tax administrations for transfer pricing risk assessment and other purposes with any increased compliance burdens placed on taxpayers. In this respect it is noted that clear and widely adopted documentation rules can reduce compliance costs which could otherwise arise in a transfer pricing dispute ...

Since then, many countries have adopted transfer pricing documentation rules and the proliferation of these requirements, combined with a dramatic increase in the volume and complexity of international intra¬group trade and the heightened scrutiny of transfer pricing issues by tax administrations, has resulted in a significant increase in compliance costs for taxpayers. Nevertheless tax administrations often find transfer pricing documentation to be less than fully informative and not adequate for their tax enforcement and risk assessment needs ...

This chapter provides guidance for tax administrations to take into account in developing rules and/or procedures on documentation to be obtained from taxpayers in connection with a transfer pricing enquiry or risk assessment. It also provides guidance to assist taxpayers in identifying documentation that would be most helpful in showing that their transactions satisfy the arm’s length principle and hence in resolving transfer pricing issues and facilitating tax examinations ...

This chapter provides guidance for tax administrations to take into account in developing rules and/or procedures on documentation to be obtained from taxpayers in connection with a transfer pricing enquiry or risk assessment. It also provides guidance to assist taxpayers in identifying documentation that would be most helpful in showing that their transactions satisfy the arm’s length principle and hence in resolving transfer pricing issues and facilitating tax examinations ...

In order to assist tax administrations in conducting an informed examination of the taxpayer’s transfer pricing practices, taxpayers should provide reliable evidence and document, as part of their transfer pricing documentation, the price-setting policy for commodity transactions, the information needed to justify price adjustments based on the comparable uncontrolled transactions or comparable uncontrolled arrangements represented by the quoted price and any other relevant information, such as pricing formulas used, third party end-customer agreements, premia or discounts applied, pricing date, supply chain information, and information prepared for non-tax purposes ...

Moreover, MNE groups retain the freedom to apply methods not described in these Guidelines (hereafter “other methods”) to establish prices provided those prices satisfy the arm’s length principle in accordance with these Guidelines. Such other methods should however not be used in substitution for OECD-recognised methods where the latter are more appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case. In cases where other methods are used, their selection should be supported by an explanation of why OECD-recognised methods were regarded as less appropriate or non- workable in the circumstances of the case and of the reason why the selected other method was regarded as providing a better solution. A taxpayer should maintain and be prepared to provide documentation regarding how its transfer prices were established. For a discussion of documentation, see Chapter V ...

The economically relevant characteristics or comparability factors that need to be identified in the commercial or financial relations between the associated enterprises in order to accurately delineate the actual transaction can be broadly categorised as follows: The contractual terms of the transaction (D.1.1). The functions performed by each of the parties to the transaction, taking into account assets used and risks assumed, including how those functions relate to the wider generation of value by the MNE group to which the parties belong, the circumstances surrounding the transaction, and industry practices (D.1.2). The characteristics of property transferred or services provided (D.1.3). The economic circumstances of the parties and of the market in which the parties operate (D.1.4). The business strategies pursued by the parties (D.1.5). This information about the economically relevant characteristics of the actual transaction should be included as part of the local file as described in Chapter V in support of a taxpayer’s analysis of its transfer pricing ...

The Danish Tax administration had made an estimated assessment due to a insufficient TP documentation. In the assessment goodwill amortizations were included when comparing the operating income of the company to that of independent parties in a database survey. The Tax Tribunal found that the tax administration was not entitled to make an estimated assessment under Article 3B (3) of the current Tax Control Act. 8 (now paragraph 9) and section 5 3, where the TP documentation provided a sufficient basis for assessing whether prices and terms were in accordance with the arm’s length principle. According to the Tax Tribunal goodwill amortizations should not be included when comparing the operating income of the company to the operating income of independent parties in a database survey. Hence the assessment was reduced to DKK 0. The case has been appealed to the Danish National Court by the tax authorities. Click here for translation ...

The Spanish Tax administration made an income adjustment of Citresa (a Spanish subsidiary of the Schweeps Group) Corporate Income Tax for FY 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, resulting in a tax liability of €38.6 millon. Citresa entered into a franchise agreement and a contract manufacturing agreement with Schweppes International Limited (a related party resident in the Netherlands). The transactions between the related parties were not found to be in accordance with the arm’s length principle. In the parent company, CITRESA, the taxable income declared for the years 2003 to 2005 was increased as a result of an adjustment of market prices relating to the supply of certain fruit and other components by Citresa to Schweppes International Limited. In the subsidiary, SCHWEPPES, S.A. (SSA), the taxable income declared for the years 2003 to 2006 was increased as a result of adjustment of market prices relating to the supply of concentrates and extracts by the entity Schweppes International Limited, resident in Holland, to SSA. The taxpayer had used the CUP method to verify the arm’s length nature of the transaction while the Spanish Tax administration – due to lack of comparable transactions – found it more appropriate to use the transactional net margin method (TNMM). Prior to 1 December 2006, the Spanish Corporate Income Tax Act (CIT) established three methods of pricing related transactions (the “Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method”, the “Cost Plus Method” and the “Resale Price Method”) and if none were applicable it established the application of the “Transactional Profit Split Method”. Thus, the “Transactional Net Margin Method” was not included at the time the market value of related transactions was established. However, as the Tax Treaty between Spain and the Netherlands was applicable, the Spanish Tax Authorities considered that the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines could be directly applicable. Consequently, as the “Transactional Net Margin Method” was envisaged in the above-mentioned Guidelines, the Spanish Tax Authorities understood that this method could be used as a valid pricing method. The case ended up in Court where Citresa argued that the assessment was in breach of EU rules on freedom of establishment and that the TNM method had been applied by the authorities without any legal basis in Spain for the years in question. Judgement of the Court In regards to the claimed violation of the principle of freedom of establishment cf. TFEU article 49, the Court stated: “….the mere purposes of argument, that there can be no doubt as to the conformity with European Union Law of the regime of related-party transactions in Spain, in the terms in which this infringement is proposed to us, which is what is strictly speaking being postulated in cassation for the first time, it being sufficient to support this assertion to record some elementary considerations, such as that the censure is projected indiscriminately on the whole of the law (that is to say, on the legal regime of related-party transactions), which is to say, on the legal regime of related-party transactions, on the legal regime of related-party transactions regulated by Article 16 of Law 43/1995, of 27 December 1995, on Corporate Income Tax, and then Article 16 of Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004, of 5 March 2004, which approves the revised text of the Law on Corporate Income Tax – TRLIS), while, at the same time and in open contradiction, it advocates the application of the precept to resolve the case, thus starting from its compliance with European Union Law.” In regards to application of the transactional net margin method, the Court stated: “…tax years cover the period from January 2003 to February 2006. Article 16.3 of Law 43/1995, in the wording applicable to the case, and the same provision of the TRLIS, in its original version, established the following: “In order to determine the normal market value, the tax authorities shall apply the following methods: Market price of the good or service in question or of others of similar characteristics, making, in this case, the necessary corrections to obtain equivalence, as well as to consider the particularities of the transaction. The following shall be applicable on a supplementary basis: The sale price of goods and services calculated by increasing the acquisition value or production cost of the goods and services by the margin normally obtained by the taxable person in comparable transactions entered into with independent persons or entities or by the margin normally obtained by companies operating in the same sector in comparable transactions entered into with independent persons or entities. Resale price of goods and services established by the purchaser, reduced by the margin normally obtained by the aforementioned purchaser in comparable transactions arranged with independent persons or entities or by the margin normally obtained by companies operating in the same sector in comparable transactions arranged with independent persons or entities, considering, where applicable, the costs incurred by the aforementioned purchaser in order to transform the aforementioned goods and services. Where none of the above methods are applicable, the price derived from the distribution of the joint result of the transaction in question shall be applied, taking into account the risks assumed, the assets involved and the functions performed by the related parties”. This hierarchical list exhausts the possible methods available to the administration for establishing the market value of the transactions to which it has been applied. It consists of four methods: one of them, which we can call direct or primary, that of the market price of the good or service in question (art. 16.3.a) LIS); two others that the law itself declares to be supplementary, that of the increase in acquisition value and that of the resale price (art. 16.3.b) of the legal text itself); and finally, as a residual or supplementary second degree method, that of the distribution of the joint result of the operation in question (art. 16.3.c) LIS). These obviously do not include the valuation method used by the tax inspectorate in this case, that of the net margin of all transactions, introduced ex novo by Law 36/2006, of 29 November, on measures for the ...

This case relates to sales of crude oil from the Russian company, Dulisma Oil,  to an unrelated trading company, Concept Oil Ltd, registered in Hong Kong. The Russian tax authorities found that the price at which oil was sold deviated from quotations published by the Platts price reporting agency. They found that the prices for particular deliveries had been lower than the arm’s length price and issued a tax assessment and penalties of RUB 177 million. Dulisma Oil had set the prices using quotations published by Platts, which is a common practice in crude oil trading. The contract price was determined as the mean of average quotations for Dubai crude on publication days agreed upon by the parties, minus a differential determined before the delivery date “on the basis of the situation prevailing on the market”. Transfer pricing documentation had not been prepared, and the company also failed to explain the method by which the price had been calculated and how the price differential was determined. In the tax assessment, the tax authorities used the same quotation for comparison in the pricing of the transactions, but adjusted for ESPO M1 differential (added the minimum premium), which was determined at the date closest to the signing of the contract addendum. The court ruled in favor of the Russian tax authorities. In the judgement the court pointed to the fact that there was no transfer pricing documentation supporting the pricing of the transaction as an argument in favor of the transfer pricing method used by the Russian tax authorities. The court did not accept the company’s arguments that the Hong Kong trader was an unrelated party. Counteragents registered in offshore zones are to be treated as related parties according to Russian legislation. Click here for translation ...

The case relates to controlled transactions between a Danish company and its permanent establishment, as well as the calculation of taxable income of the permanent establishment. The Danish Tax Administration was entitled to make tax assessment in accordance with applicable Tax Law. The transfer pricing-documentation provided by the Company lacked a comparability analysis. The assessment was in line with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, but some corrections to the tax assessment were made. Click here for translation ...

An agreement had been entered between AB Tetra Pak and Tetra Pak International, according to which AB Tetra Pak conducted research and development on behalf of Tetra Pak International and was compensated on a cost plus 3 percent basis. The Swedish Tax Agency, after examining four comparable businesses and their profit levels, concluded that the remuneration of AB Tetra Pak should have been cost plus 7 percent. The Administrative Court of Appeal ruled in favor of AB Tetra Pak. The burden of proof for transfer pricing not being at arm’s length was on the tax authorities. The Court refereed to the OECD’s TPG art. 3.38. – decisive for the selection of comparables is whether their activities are sufficiently comparable to the R&D activities conducted by AB Tetra Pak. The Court also referred to TPG art. 2.55 where it is stated that the profit margin in contract research arrangements should reflect the complexity of the activities” Click here for translation ...

The issue in the case was whether the applicable rates under the cash pool arrangement were on arm’s length, i.e. in accordance with the transfer pricing requirements. The Administrative Tax Court upheld most of the conclusions of the tax authorities. First, the Court found that the tax authorities were allowed to assess an arm’s length rate due to the lack of transfer pricing documentation. Second, the financial service fee of 0.25% was upheld. Third, the Court concluded that the rate on the short-term deposits and the corresponding loans (borrowed due to insufficient liquidity management) should be the same. The Administrative Tax Court observed that there was very little or no creditor risk on these gross corresponding loans/deposits because of the possibility of offsetting the balance. Hence, according to the Court, there was no basis for a spread on the gross balance. However, the rate spread on the net balance of the deposits was lowered from +1.18% to + 1.15%, equal to the borrowing rate spread. The Administrative Tax Court reasoned that the tax authorities had accepted the 1.15% rate spread as the market rate on loans made by the Danish subsidiary and that there were no facts indicating that the deposit rate should be different. The Administrative Tax Court also remarked that the adjustment made by the tax authorities was not a recharacterization, but rather a price adjustment. Click here for translation ...

Asset management Gmbh was a subsidiary of a Luxembourg investment fund management company. The German company paid substantial fees to a Luxembourg service company. Both companies in Luxembourg were wholly-owned by a Luxembourg holding company. Asset management Gmbh was obliged to follow the policies of the fund. These could only be revised by a two-thirds majority resolution of the investors. The German company argued that this restriction meant that its Luxembourg shareholder could not be forced to follow a common business policy with the service provider. Accordingly the two were not related parties within the meaning of the Foreign Tax Act and there was no requirement for it to furnish the extensive transfer pricing documentation in support of its transactions with associated enterprises as required by the Tax Management Act. In any case, the fact that these transfer pricing documentation requirements only applied to cross-border transactions was a restriction on the freedom to provide (receive) services and thus contrary to EU community law. The Supreme Tax Court rejected both contentions and declined bringing the case before the ECJ. The Court found no doubt as to the German transfer pricing documentation provisions. The Foreign Tax Act defines a related party relationship by shareholding at a capital share of more than one-quarter. There is no mention of voting rights or of restrictions on the right of a shareholder to act in respect of its investment. Other parts of the related party definition, such as a relationship by contract, complemented the shareholding criterion, but did not restrict it. Accordingly, an obligation not to set management policy for the German subsidiary against the wishes of the members of the fund did not eliminate a shareholding-based relationship. Even if such an obligation did exist, a breach would not invalidate the measure at issue; it would merely make the Luxembourg shareholder liable for damages. The court emphasised that the reason for the shareholding was also irrelevant; even if the shares were held in trust for the investors in the fund, the company remained the related party of the service provider and was subject to German transfer pricing documentation rules. The court agreed that the application of the transfer pricing documentation rules to foreign relationships was restricting the freedom to provide services. However, this restriction was justified by the need to protect the public revenue from abuses to the tax system. The court also pointed out that 26 of the 28 member states of the EU (Croatia and Cyprus being the exceptions) had introduced comparable rules into their own systems (though, it should be noted, not always exclusively in respect of foreign transactions) without apparent legal problems and that the European Commission had published its own summary explaining and supporting such schemes. Hence, transfer pricing documentation rules were to be regarded as generally acceptable. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A Japanese manufacturing company was issued an estimated tax assessment due to lack of transfer pricing documentation. The District Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. The Court decided that accounts and documents necessary for calculating arms’s length prices should be presented or submitted to the tax authorities without delay. If sufficient documentation is not submitted, the requirement for an estimated taxation is satisfied. Furthermore, in such cases the burden of proof shifts to the taxpayer side. See the transcripts from the district Court below. The case was then appealed by the company to Tokyo High Court, which also ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation See transcripts from the district Court below. Click here for translation – Part 1 Click here for translation – Part 2 Click here for translation – Part 3 ...

The Bundesfinanzhof confirmed the statutory authority of the tax authorities to issue penalties where a taxpayer have not fulfilled transfer pricing documentation requirement. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...