Taxpayers sometimes report an operating loss at the end of the financial year. The State Revenue Service (SRS) perceives this as a key risk that gives grounds for launching a control measure, particularly for taxpayers within a multinational group, citing the transfer pricing (TP) impact on profitability as the main cause of the loss. This article discusses the idea that losses may have an objective economic justification and other legitimate business strategy reasons, with associated risks materialising in the financial year, as well as looking at ways to offer explanations and dispel the myth that TP is the cause of the taxpayer’s operating loss.
In general, the main goal of every business is to make a profit. Businesses usually want to make a profit regularly, but sometimes the result is a loss.
Adding notes to its financial statements allows the company to focus on evaluating its result for the year. By disclosing statutory information in the notes, the company can draw up a complete annual report that offers a true, fair and comprehensive business analysis with a concise explanation of the financial result for internal and external users.
Taxpayers do not often use many words to explain the cause of a loss for the year, with the explanation probably saying that next year’s profit will be used to cover the loss.
Unfortunately, such a description of the loss will not be sufficient for the SRS to have a clear picture of the causes, all the more so if the company trades with related parties.
Thus, in the notes to the accounts, the taxpayer can concisely present key facts and arguments to avoid arousing suspicion prima facie and to encourage the SRS accept the transfer prices.
Information on the reporting period in which the taxpayer made an operating loss that is clearly set out in the TP file will help explain to the SRS that the transfer prices are arm’s length and the loss was due to a variety of preconditions and factors and has an objective economic justification and other legitimate business strategy reasons, with associated risks that consequently materialised.
The TP file should include a summary of financial information on the TP methodology. First of all, we need to analyse factors that have adversely affected the business, the financial result for the year and the overall profitability and should be considered in examining the taxpayer’s related-party transactions for arm’s length compliance.
Notes to the accounts should indicate adverse external market conditions if such exist in reality, with a more detailed explanation in the TP file, for example:
It’s advisable to provide information on the taxpayer’s internal factors, i.e. business considerations – strategies, strategic activities carried out, and their impact on the financial result, for example:
Explanations of the taxpayer’s result should be supported by financial data, e.g. making a reference to the company’s policy of monitoring staff remuneration to reflect market conditions, including the rising inflation, with salary levels being regularly (annually) revised, and stating that total labour costs rose in 2023 because external service provider costs were reclassified as labour costs.
Changes in labour costs and headcount
|
2022 |
2023 |
Rise/Drop |
|
Labour costs |
692,341 |
1,142,275 |
↑ |
449,934 |
Average headcount |
22 |
21 |
↓ |
-1 |
If you need help with any of the aspects mentioned in this article, please let us know.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionWe have written earlier about the State Revenue Service (SRS) pointing out significant errors in transfer pricing (TP) files and focusing on the lack of financial data segmentation, the tested party or its financial data, and the benefit test (i.e. evidence of services). This article explores some other common breaches.
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.
On 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.
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.