It’s been a while since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) drafted its Pillar I report dealing with various issues around the growing economic globalisation and digitalisation. It’s also increasingly difficult to determine countries’ rights to charge corporate income tax on the profits of multinational enterprise groups. While the project is basically geared towards digital business, one of the solutions the OECD offers may simplify transfer pricing (TP) for a particular group of transactions: baseline marketing and distribution activities.
This initiative aims to promote stability and predictability across the international tax system by prescribing a fixed profit margin for baseline marketing and distribution activities, which will not require benchmarking studies or complex TP analyses. The initiative is set out in the OECD’s Pillar I Report on Amount B out on 19 February 2024. The simplified and streamlined approach outlined in the report is expected to improve tax certainty and ease the compliance burden on taxpayers and tax authorities, particularly those in low-capacity jurisdictions facing limited resources.
The report describes and defines a set of transactions qualifying for the simplified and streamlined approach, as well as qualifying distributor characteristics.
Below are the related-party transactions that qualify for the simplified and streamlined approach:
If a transaction is to qualify for the simplified and streamlined approach:
And if these conditions are met, the distributors:
The simplified and streamlined approach forms the basis for a pricing system in which a 3-step process determines a net profit margin for qualifying distributors. The net margin is the default profitability indicator described in two dimensions: industry grouping and factor intensity.
The pricing matrix contains a total of 15 different target profitability indicators ranging from 1.5% to 5.5%.
Not all countries have to adopt the simplified and streamlined approach because it’s optional. A country that does adopt this approach will have two choices:
Jurisdictions will be able to choose to apply the simplified and streamlined approach to qualifying transactions of appropriate baseline distributors for financial years beginning 1 January 2025 or later.
If Latvia chooses to adopt the new approach, it could significantly ease the administrative burden and costs for taxpayers with qualifying controlled transactions in preparing TP documentation and determining TP methodology for those transactions. And a fixed profit margin may create certainty and security in that the SRS will not challenge the TP methodology and the profit indicator applied.
However, this methodology being optional means that companies may not achieve the tax certainty they would have achieved if all the countries were mandated to apply it. Such uncoordinated application may lead to double taxation in a tax dispute if one party is based in a country that adopts the easy approach and the other party’s country rejects it.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionOn 22 February 2024 the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) published a draft report that includes proposals for a transfer pricing (TP) directive drafted by the European Commission. The ECON draft report generally supports the Commission’s proposal to align the TP requirements across the EU, yet it recommends a number of crucial amendments. This article explores the ECON amendments that could affect Latvian TP requirements, too.
Recent years have seen the State Revenue Service (SRS) increasingly focus on transfer pricing (TP) risks, particularly management services and business support services rendered within a multinational enterprise (MNE) group. These services between related companies aim to promote a group member’s business, to cut costs it would have incurred in performing the particular functions on its own, or to offer some other comparable benefit from the synergy of doing business together. Yet there is also the other side of the coin – TP and corporate income tax (CIT) risks may arise if the recipient of services is unable to prove they were actually received and the fee was justified.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has been increasing its key interest rates since June 2022 to mitigate the high inflation caused by Covid-19. Taxpayers have good reason to debate whether they should revise the interest rates historically applied in their long-term financing transactions between related parties and apply new rates that are arm’s length and reflect the current economic conditions. This article explores the vision of the State Revenue Service (SRS) and recommendations for mitigating potential transfer pricing (TP) risks.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.