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.
TPG2022 Chapter V paragraph 5.2
Category: A. Introduction | Tag: Administrative-/compliance burden, Burden of proof (Onus), Facilitating tax examinations, Transfer pricing documentation
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter V paragraph 5.14In 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...
- TPG2022 Chapter V paragraph 5.9While 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...
Related Case Law
- Japan vs Manufacturing Co. March 2013, Tokyo High Court, No 19A 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...
- Sweden vs AB Tetra Pak, April 2015, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 1168-14An 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,...
- Israel vs Kontera and Finisar, April 2018, Supreme Court, Case No. 943/16In 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...
- Denmark vs. ECCO A/S , October 2020, High Court, Case No SKM2020.397.VLRECCO 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...
- Mexico vs “TP doc-Lawsuit”, June 2019, Supreme Court, Case No. 14039/17-17-10-3/2502/18-PL-07-04In 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...