Depending on the method being used to establish an arm’s length charge for intra-group services, the issue may arise whether it is necessary that the charge be such that it results in a profit for the service provider. In an arm’s length transaction, an independent enterprise normally would seek to charge for services in such a way as to generate profit, rather than providing the services merely at cost. The economic alternatives available to the recipient of the service also need to be taken into account in determining the arm’s length charge. However, there are circumstances (e.g. as outlined in the discussion on business strategies in Chapter I) in which an independent enterprise may not realise a profit from the performance of services alone, for example where a supplier’s costs (anticipated or actual) exceed market price but the supplier agrees to provide the service to increase its profitability, perhaps by complementing its range of activities. Therefore, it need not always be the case that an arm’s length price will result in a profit for an associated enterprise that is performing an intra-group service.
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.35
Category: B. Main issues | Tag: Cost base, Cost plus method, Intra-group services, Service fee, Services
« Prev |
Next » Related Guidelines
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.36For example, it may be the case that the market value of intra-group services is not greater than the costs incurred by the service provider. This could occur where, for example, the service is not an ordinary or recurrent activity of the service...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.34When an associated enterprise is acting only as an agent or intermediary in the provision of services, it is important in applying a cost based method that the return or mark-up is appropriate for the performance of an agency function rather than for...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.33Where a cost based method is determined to be the most appropriate method to the circumstances of the case, the analysis would require examining whether the costs incurred by the group service provider need some adjustment to make the comparison of the controlled...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.31The method to be used to determine arm’s length transfer pricing for intra-group services should be determined according to the guidelines in Chapters I, II, and III. Often, the application of these guidelines will lead to use of the CUP or a cost-based...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.25The allocation should be based on an appropriate measure of the usage of the service that is also easy to verify, for example turnover, staff employed, or an activity based key such as orders processed. Whether the allocation method is appropriate may depend...
- TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.17These services may be available on call and they may vary in amount and importance from year to year. It is unlikely that an independent enterprise would incur stand-by charges where the potential need for the service was remote, where the advantage of...
Related Case Law
- Italy vs KAI S.r.l. (Shell Italia Aviazione), March 2026, Supreme Court, Case No 5753/2026KAI S.r.l. (formerly Shell Italia Aviazione s.r.l.) is an Italian company operating in the oil sector, specifically in the marketing of aviation fuel (jet fuel) for the Shell Italia group. It was wholly owned by Shell Italia Holding S.p.A. The dispute concerned the...
- Peru vs “Airline S.A.”, September 2024, Tax Court, Case No 08970-8-2024The case concerns a number of expenses claimed by “Airline S.A.” as deductible payments for intra-group services, in particular aircraft leasing and related costs, which the company argued should be deductible under the transfer pricing rules. “Airline S.A.” claimed that these costs were...
- Peru vs “Metal S.A.”, February 2023, Tax Court, Case No 01428-1-2023Following an audit, the tax authorities found that “Metal S.A.” had not been remunerated at arm’s length for its distribution activities. In addition, the intra-group services received by “Metal S.A.” were considered to be low value-added services for which the margin could not...
- Tanzania vs Amadeus Global Travel Distribution Limited, March 2026, Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2025Amadeus Global Travel Distribution Limited is a Tanzanian branch of a Kenya-resident entity, itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Amadeus ITG based in Madrid, Spain. The appellant's business consists of commercialising the Amadeus GDS system in Tanzania. The dispute concerned the income year...
- Tanzania vs PE of Aggreko International Projects Ltd, December 2025, Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No 182 of 2025, 2025 TZCA 1258A Tanzanian branch of UK-incorporated Aggreko International Projects Limited claimed deductions for head office and Dubai regional hub costs allocated on a pro rata revenue basis for 2018 and 2019. The Tanzania Revenue Authority disallowed the expenses citing insufficient documentation and failure to...
