Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
As businesses adapt to the UAE’s Corporate Tax framework, attention is now turning to ensuring compliance with tax filing requirements.
One critical element is the preparation and submission of the Transfer Pricing Disclosure Form (“TP Form”) as part of the Corporate Tax Return.
The TP Form requires taxpayers to disclose transactions with Related Parties and/or Connected Persons.
To comply with UAE regulations, businesses must align their transfer pricing practices with the arm’s length principle before the close of the financial year to avoid discrepancies.
This article provides an overview of the TP Form’s requirements and highlights key issues UAE corporate taxpayers should consider to meet their compliance obligations.
The TP Form is a mandatory disclosure document under the UAE transfer pricing rules.
It must be submitted alongside the annual Corporate Tax Return no later than nine months after the end of the relevant tax period.
Taxpayers are required to:
The TP Form serves as a self-assessment tool, placing the responsibility on taxpayers to confirm compliance with the arm’s length principle.
Businesses should review their transactions during the financial year and make any necessary transfer pricing adjustments to ensure accurate reporting.
As the financial year draws to a close, businesses should assess whether their internal processes and documentation meet UAE requirements and support the values reported in the TP Form.
The Federal Tax Authority (FTA) has provided additional details about the TP Form, which reveal several considerations for UAE taxpayers:
With limited time remaining in the financial year, businesses should take the following steps to ensure compliance:
Compliance with UAE Transfer Pricing Disclosure requirements is essential for all corporate taxpayers.
A good understanding of the TP Form should mean that businesses can avoid potential penalties and ensure smooth filing of their Corporate Tax Return.
If you have any queries about this article on UAE transfer pricing rules or tax matters in the UAE, please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UAE and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
India is making substantial changes to its transfer pricing rules, with the aim of making its tax system more competitive and easier to navigate for multinational corporations.
These reforms are expected to simplify compliance and attract more foreign investment.
Transfer pricing refers to the rules governing how related companies price goods, services, or intellectual property transferred across borders.
Transfer pricing is the method by which goods, services, or intellectual property are priced when they are transferred between different entities within the same multinational group.
These prices can significantly affect the tax liabilities of companies in different jurisdictions, as shifting profits between countries with different tax rates can lower a company’s overall tax burden.
India has traditionally had a complex and burdensome transfer pricing system, which has led to a high volume of tax disputes between multinational companies and the Indian tax authorities.
The new reforms aim to simplify the system, reducing the risk of disputes and encouraging foreign businesses to invest in India.
The reforms also bring India closer in line with the OECD’s guidelines on transfer pricing, which are used by many countries around the world.
One of the most significant changes is the introduction of bilateral APAs.
This allows companies to agree on transfer pricing rules with the Indian tax authorities in advance, providing more certainty and reducing the likelihood of future disputes.
The reforms also streamline the documentation requirements for businesses, making it easier for them to comply with the rules and avoid penalties.
Clearly, by implementing these changes, India hopes to make the country more attractive for foreign investment.
If you have any queries about this article on transfer pricing, or tax matters in India, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in India and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Transfer pricing has always been a complex area for multinational companies, as it involves setting the prices for transactions between related entities in different countries.
The UK tax authority, HMRC, has recently issued new guidelines on transfer pricing risks, which have been hailed as a “game changer” by tax experts.
These guidelines aim to provide clearer guidance to businesses, helping them manage the risks associated with transfer pricing and avoid costly disputes.
Transfer pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, and intellectual property that are traded between companies under common ownership.
For example, a UK-based subsidiary of a multinational company might buy raw materials from a related company in another country.
The price at which these goods are traded—known as the transfer price—needs to be set at an “arm’s length” rate, meaning it should be the same as if the transaction were between unrelated parties.
In practice, transfer pricing has been a contentious issue for tax authorities, as companies can manipulate these prices to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, thereby reducing their overall tax liability.
HMRC’s latest guidelines focus on identifying and addressing key transfer pricing risks.
These include areas such as the valuation of intangibles (e.g., patents and trademarks), the provision of management services, and the pricing of goods and services traded between related entities.
One of the main changes in these guidelines is HMRC’s focus on risk-based assessments.
This means that HMRC will be targeting businesses that they perceive to be high-risk, particularly those with complex supply chains or significant intangible assets.
By providing clearer guidance on what constitutes high-risk behaviour, HMRC hopes to encourage businesses to take a more proactive approach to transfer pricing compliance.
For multinational companies operating in the UK, these new guidelines represent both a challenge and an opportunity.
On the one hand, the guidelines place a greater burden on companies to ensure that their transfer pricing arrangements are compliant with UK tax law.
On the other hand, by providing clearer guidance, HMRC is helping companies to better understand the risks and avoid costly disputes.
For companies that have traditionally relied on aggressive transfer pricing strategies to minimise their tax bills, these guidelines could force a rethink.
HMRC’s emphasis on transparency and risk-based assessments means that companies will need to ensure that their transfer pricing policies are well-documented and justifiable.
HMRC’s new guidelines on transfer pricing risks are a significant development for multinational companies operating in the UK.
By providing clearer guidance on high-risk areas, HMRC is helping businesses to manage their transfer pricing risks and avoid disputes.
At the same time, these guidelines are likely to result in greater scrutiny of companies’ transfer pricing arrangements, particularly those with complex supply chains and intangible assets.
If you have any queries about this article on HMRC’s transfer pricing guidelines, or tax matters in the UK in general, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UK and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, there is more information on membership here.
Transfer pricing refers to the rules and methods used to determine the prices of transactions between related companies, such as subsidiaries of a multinational corporation.
When one subsidiary of a company sells goods or services to another subsidiary, the price at which this transaction occurs is called the transfer price.
These rules exist to ensure that companies price these transactions fairly and in line with the arm’s length principle, meaning the prices should be similar to what independent companies would charge each other.
Transfer pricing is important because it affects how much tax a company pays in each country where it operates.
If a company sets its transfer prices too low or too high, it can shift profits from high-tax countries to low-tax countries, reducing its overall tax bill.
This practice can lead to base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), where countries lose tax revenue because profits are moved to tax havens.
Governments and tax authorities around the world use transfer pricing rules to prevent this type of tax avoidance and ensure that companies pay their fair share of taxes.
Let’s say a multinational company has a subsidiary in Country A, where the tax rate is high, and another subsidiary in Country B, where the tax rate is low.
The company might try to shift its profits to Country B by setting a low transfer price for goods or services sold from the subsidiary in Country A to the subsidiary in Country B.
This would reduce the profits reported in Country A (where the taxes are high) and increase the profits in Country B (where the taxes are low).
To prevent this, tax authorities require companies to set their transfer prices according to the arm’s length principle.
This means that the price should be the same as it would be if the transaction were between unrelated companies, ensuring that each country gets its fair share of tax revenue.
Transfer pricing is a critical aspect of international tax law because it helps prevent companies from shifting profits to low-tax countries.
By ensuring that transactions between related companies are priced fairly, transfer pricing rules help create a more level playing field for businesses and ensure that governments can collect the taxes they are owed.
If you have any queries about this article, or international tax matters more generally, then please get in touch.
Transfer pricing is a method used by multinational companies to set the prices for goods and services exchanged between their subsidiaries in different countries.
Recently, Coca-Cola has found itself in a major dispute with the US Tax Court over transfer pricing.
The court ruled that Coca-Cola must pay an additional $9 billion in taxes due to transfer pricing adjustments, and the company is now planning to appeal this decision.
Coca-Cola, like many multinational companies, sells products across different countries through its subsidiaries.
The US Tax Court found that Coca-Cola had set the prices for these transactions in a way that shifted profits to lower-tax countries, allowing it to pay less tax in the US.
The court ruled that these pricing arrangements violated the arm’s length principle, which requires transactions between related companies to be priced as if they were between independent companies.
As a result, the court ordered Coca-Cola to pay an additional $9 billion in taxes to the US government.
Coca-Cola argues that its transfer pricing arrangements comply with international tax rules and that the court’s ruling is unfair.
The company plans to appeal the decision, which could result in a lengthy legal battle.
If the appeal is successful, Coca-Cola could avoid paying the $9 billion in additional taxes.
However, if the court upholds the original ruling, it could set a precedent for other multinational companies, making it harder for them to shift profits to low-tax countries.
This case is being closely watched by other multinational companies, especially those that rely on complex transfer pricing arrangements.
If Coca-Cola loses the appeal, it could encourage tax authorities in other countries to take a closer look at how companies set their transfer prices.
For multinational companies, this means that they may need to review their transfer pricing policies and ensure they comply with international tax rules to avoid similar disputes.
Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing dispute highlights the challenges that multinational companies face in navigating complex international tax rules.
The outcome of the appeal will have significant implications for both Coca-Cola and other businesses, as it could reshape how transfer pricing is enforced around the world.
If you have any queries about this article on Coca-Cola to Appeal $9B Transfer Pricing Adjustment, or US tax matters in general, then please get in touch
Singapore is a major hub for international business, with many multinational companies setting up regional headquarters there.
To ensure that these companies pay their fair share of taxes, Singapore has strict transfer pricing rules. These rules govern how companies set the prices for transactions between their subsidiaries in different countries.
In 2024, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) updated its transfer pricing guidelines to reflect the latest international standards.
The updated guidelines include several key changes:
For multinational companies operating in Singapore, the updated transfer pricing guidelines mean they need to be more diligent in how they document their transactions.
The guidelines are designed to prevent companies from using transfer pricing to shift profits out of Singapore and avoid paying taxes.
The changes also align Singapore’s rules with international standards set by the OECD. This is important because it helps Singapore maintain its reputation as a transparent and compliant tax jurisdiction.
As Singapore continues to update its tax policies, companies operating in the country will need to stay up-to-date with the latest changes.
The updated transfer pricing guidelines are part of Singapore’s broader efforts to ensure that multinational companies contribute their fair share of taxes.
Singapore’s updated transfer pricing guidelines represent a significant step forward in ensuring that companies pay their fair share of taxes.
For businesses, this means more work to ensure compliance, but it also creates a fairer tax system that benefits everyone.
If you have any queries about this article on Singapore Updates Transfer Pricing Guidelines, or any other tax matters in Singapore, then please get in touch.
Transfer pricing refers to the rules that govern how multinational companies set the prices for transactions between their subsidiaries in different countries.
These rules exist to prevent companies from artificially lowering their taxable income by shifting profits to low-tax countries.
Brazil is undergoing a major reform in its transfer pricing laws to align itself with international standards, specifically those set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The reform aims to reduce tax avoidance by ensuring that companies operating in Brazil pay their fair share of taxes.
In 2024, Brazil passed Law No. 14596, which introduced new transfer pricing rules. These rules are designed to bring Brazil in line with OECD standards and the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project.
This reform is essential because, historically, Brazil had unique transfer pricing rules that were inconsistent with global norms, which created confusion and made it easier for companies to shift profits.
One of the key changes in the new law is the arm’s length principle. This principle ensures that transactions between related parties (such as a parent company and its subsidiary) are priced as if they were between independent parties.
By applying the arm’s length principle, Brazil hopes to ensure that companies aren’t manipulating prices to reduce their tax liabilities.
The reform has significant implications for companies operating in Brazil.
Under the new rules, companies must provide more detailed documentation to prove that their transfer pricing arrangements comply with the arm’s length principle. Failure to do so could result in hefty fines and back taxes.
For multinational companies, this means they need to review their transfer pricing policies and ensure they comply with Brazil’s new rules.
The reform also creates more work for tax professionals, as they will need to help companies navigate the new requirements.
Brazil’s transfer pricing reform is part of a broader trend towards greater tax transparency and cooperation among countries.
By aligning its rules with OECD standards, Brazil is sending a message that it is serious about cracking down on tax avoidance.
This reform is expected to improve Brazil’s relationships with other countries and make it easier for foreign companies to invest in Brazil.
Brazil’s transfer pricing reform is a significant step forward in the fight against tax avoidance.
By adopting the arm’s length principle and aligning its rules with international standards, Brazil is making it harder for companies to shift profits and avoid taxes.
For businesses, this means more compliance work, but it also creates a fairer tax system.
Final thoughts
If you have any queries about this article on Brazil’s Transfer Pricing Reform, or tax matters in Brazil more generally, then please get in touch.
Transfer pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, or intellectual property exchanged between different parts of a multinational company.
For example, if a subsidiary in Italy sells products to a subsidiary in Germany, transfer pricing rules determine the price at which these transactions take place.
These rules ensure that companies don’t manipulate internal prices to shift profits to low-tax countries and minimise their tax bills.
In August 2024, the Italian Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding transfer pricing that is expected to have significant implications, not only for Italy but also for how other countries enforce their transfer pricing rules.
The case involved a multinational company with subsidiaries in Italy and other European countries.
The company was accused of setting artificially high prices for goods transferred between its Italian subsidiary and subsidiaries in lower-tax jurisdictions.
The Italian tax authorities argued that these inflated prices reduced the profits reported in Italy, allowing the company to pay less tax.
The key issue in the case was whether the company’s transfer pricing arrangements complied with the arm’s length principle, a fundamental rule in transfer pricing law.
This principle states that transactions between different parts of a company should be priced as if they were between independent companies.
The Italian Supreme Court ruled in favour of the tax authorities, finding that the company had violated the arm’s length principle.
The court emphasised that tax authorities should scrutinise transfer pricing arrangements to ensure that companies are not artificially shifting profits out of the country.
The ruling is seen as a victory for tax authorities and a warning to companies that Italy is prepared to take a tougher stance on transfer pricing enforcement.
For companies operating in Italy and beyond, this ruling has important implications:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been working on transfer pricing guidelines for years, as part of its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative.
This initiative aims to prevent companies from using tax loopholes to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
Italy’s ruling is in line with the OECD’s efforts to ensure that transfer pricing is applied consistently across different jurisdictions.
As more countries adopt these guidelines, companies will need to pay closer attention to how they price transactions between subsidiaries.
This ruling is a clear signal that transfer pricing enforcement is becoming more robust.
Companies with operations in Italy—or any other country with strict transfer pricing rules—should review their pricing policies to ensure compliance.
Working closely with tax advisers is essential to avoid costly penalties and ensure that transactions are priced in accordance with the arm’s length principle.
If you have any further queries on this article on Italy’s transfer pricing decision, or tax matters in Italy more generally, then please get in touch.
In a notable ruling, the Irish Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) has decided in favor of a taxpayer in Ireland’s first-ever transfer pricing case.
The case revolved around transfer pricing adjustments proposed by the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue) concerning the supply of services by an Irish subsidiary (Taxpayer) to its US parent company (Parent), particularly focusing on share-based awards (SBAs) granted to the Taxpayer’s employees by the Parent.
The Taxpayer, under intercompany services agreements, performed sales, marketing, and research and development activities for the Parent on a “cost-plus” basis.
This arrangement meant the Taxpayer charged the Parent a fee based on its costs plus a mark-up. Although the Taxpayer’s financial statements included expenses for SBAs as required by Financial Reporting Standard 102 (FRS 102), the intercompany agreement explicitly excluded these expenses from the cost base used to calculate the charges to the Parent.
The Revenue contended that the Taxpayer failed to demonstrate that the intercompany service fees were at arm’s length, arguing that SBA costs should have been included in the cost base for the markup calculation.
Both parties agreed that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was the appropriate transfer pricing method to apply in this case.
The Taxpayer disputed the Revenue’s view, asserting that SBA costs were notional and should not factor into the cost base for determining intercompany charges.
The Taxpayer’s expert witness argued that the economic risk associated with SBAs was borne by the Parent’s shareholders, who effectively diluted their ownership to incentivise the Taxpayer’s employees.
The TAC, relying on OECD guidelines, sided with the Taxpayer.
It considered whether the SBAs created an economic cost for the Taxpayer, ultimately concluding that the Parent bore the risk and administrative burden of the SBAs.
The TAC emphasised that while the accounting treatment of SBAs was correct, it did not reflect the economic reality.
Therefore, the SBAs should be excluded from the Taxpayer’s cost base in accordance with the arm’s length principle.
The Revenue objected to the admissibility of the Taxpayer’s expert reports, claiming they were opinions on Irish domestic law rather than expert economic evidence.
However, the TAC found the expert witnesses credible, independent, and helpful in addressing the appeal’s issues.
The TAC accepted the Taxpayer’s evidence on accounting treatment as uncontroversial.
A contentious point was the 2015 tax return and the four-year statutory time limit for Revenue to raise an assessment.
The Revenue argued the time limit did not apply because the return was insufficient, citing flaws in the transfer pricing documentation.
The TAC, however, stated that a “sufficient” return does not need to align with Revenue’s assessment, as long as the taxpayer provided full and true disclosure.
Consequently, the TAC ruled in favour of the Taxpayer.
This decision holds international significance, diverging from rulings in other jurisdictions such as Israel.
For instance, in the Israeli cases of Kontera and Finisar, tax authorities required that SBA costs be included in the cost base for calculating cost-plus remuneration, despite the subsidiaries not incurring these costs.
This TAC ruling, informed by comprehensive expert testimony and aligned with OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, will impact multinational corporations with SBA schemes.
Businesses should consider reviewing their transfer pricing policies in light of this landmark decision.
If you have any queries around this article, the Taxpayer Wins First Transfer Pricing Case, or other tax matters in Ireland, then please get in touch
The Tax Court’s recent ruling in the case of ABD Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (CSARS) has marked a significant shift in how South Africa approaches disputes over transfer pricing.
In today’s global economy, Multi-National Enterprises (MNEs) face the complex challenge of navigating international tax and compliance rules, with transfer pricing being a crucial issue.
Adhering to the “arm’s length principle” is vital for MNEs to avoid penalties for non-compliance, especially when launching new subsidiaries abroad or expanding existing ones.
Despite the well-established international guidelines laid out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), many MNEs face frequent scrutiny through transfer pricing audits.
This often results from insufficient tax and legal structures to support transactions between related entities.
The recent ruling by the Tax Court in the case of ABD Limited v CSARS (14 February 2024) highlights the delicate nature of transfer pricing disputes in South Africa.
In this case, the court ruled in favor of ABD Limited, shedding light on the complexities involved in such legal proceedings.
The core issue was the licensing of Intellectual Property (IP) to subsidiaries, a common practice among MNEs in industries like telecommunications and software.
The dispute involved the royalty payments made by the fourteen Opcos of ABD Limited from 2009 to 2012. ABD Limited charged all its subsidiaries a uniform royalty rate of 1% for the right to use its intellectual property, based on expert advice and supported by a benchmarking study.
The South African Revenue Service (SARS), acting on expert advice, argued that ABD Limited should have charged a variable royalty rate based on the country and the year of assessment.
SARS contended that the differences created by adopting this approach were significant on both a country and year-by-year basis.
They sought a court order under section 129(2)(b) of the Tax Administration Act (TAA) to adjust the additional assessment to reflect the variable rates.
Despite initial challenges from SARS, the court’s ruling validated ABD Limited’s pricing strategy.
The court upheld the flat 1% royalty rate charged to all subsidiaries, as the arm’s length nature of the royalty rate was also supported by the same rate charged to an unrelated entity in Cyprus.
This case underscores the importance of solid legal arguments backed by comprehensive evidence, such as annual transfer pricing documentation (local file and master file) and relevant comparability analyses to substantiate the arm’s length nature of the taxpayer’s cross-border intercompany transactions.
To mitigate the risk of non-compliance and navigate the complexities of transfer pricing regulations, MNEs must assemble a skilled team of tax advisors, legal experts, and financial analysts.
By proactively addressing transfer pricing obligations and implementing best practices, companies can protect their operations from potential audits and ensure alignment with regulatory requirements.
The case of ABD Limited v CSARS highlights a significant development in South Africa’s approach to transfer pricing disputes.
It emphasises the need for MNEs to maintain robust documentation and comprehensive legal strategies to defend their transfer pricing practices effectively.
If you have any queries on the case of ABD Limited v CSARS, or South African tax matters more generally, then please get in touch