Good things are worth waiting for. This could be said about the new amendments to Latvian transfer pricing regulations, which this time are especially favourable for taxpayers (hereinafter – “TP”). Changes have come into force that allow local transfer pricing documentation to be prepared in English. This article covers the new changes, the details of their application and possible challenges. 

One of the main conditions for the successful functioning and development of the groups of companies (group) is sufficient funding. However, there is no common model for best financing the economic activities of the group. In some cases, the lending and borrowing functions in the financing of the group companies may be performed by the same undertaking (treasury firm or holder), which attracts third party financing and allocates financial resources to the other members of a multinational group. In such circumstances, the cash company carries out a centralised treasury activity within the group. When assessing transfer pricing issues, it is essential to define the transaction boundaries accurately and to assess in detail the functions and activities implemented by the cash company. This text message discusses the process and purpose of the treasury function and provides guidance on pricing the service provided by the treasury holder. 

Intra-group financing transactions are a way for corporate groups to promote efficient capital allocation, stimulate development and provide more flexibility and control over financial resources than external financing. However, as with all other intra-group business transactions, transfer pricing risks should not be forgotten in financing transactions.

This article discusses an important but sometimes overlooked comparability factor to consider in cross-border financing transactions with related parties: the sovereign risk premium.

This article concludes the discussion from last week’s article.

Companies that operate at a loss for an extended period of time remain in the sights of tax administrations, including the Latvian State Revenue Service, especially if these companies are part of a multinational group of companies and carry out controlled transactions.

This article looks at a number of court cases in European countries that show how complex and difficult it is for companies and tax administrations to scrutinise the transfer pricing of loss-making companies.

In everyday life, companies have to use an option such as borrowing money for various specific purposes. A significant increase in debt can present the company  with challenges that impact balance sheet performance and potential tax risks.

One solution to the problem of increasing debt can be to capitalise the loan – a process whereby the creditor invests its debt rights as a financial asset in the borrower's equity.

This article describes the nature of the loan transaction and its capitalisation with practical examples of possible situations dealing with both corporate income tax (CIT) and transfer pricing (TP) aspects.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is known to be a unique forum and a globally recognised centre of expertise that enables member states, including Latvia, to effectively address matters of interest to it regarding the adequacy of transfer prices.

This article looks at the guidance developed by the OECD on Amount B for associated enterprises performing the function of a distributor of goods within a group of companies.

In the Baltic countries, the format of the transfer pricing (TP) documentation and the scope of the information to be provided therein are largely uniform and in line with the revised TP documentation standard of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). However, the thresholds set by Latvia and its neighbouring countries, above which the corporate taxpayer (CTP) is obliged to prepare and submit TP documentation to the tax administration annually or upon request, differ significantly. In addition, different deadlines have been set for the preparation of TP documentation and the liability for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements. The approach to determining the arm’s length price (market value) is also different in each of the Baltic countries.

To pick up where we left off about preparing transfer pricing (TP) documentation, this article explores the advantages and disadvantages of a decentralised approach.

Transfer pricing (TP) documentation is necessary for companies doing business with related foreign companies to demonstrate that prices applied in their transactions are arm’s length. The preparation of TP files can be either centralised or decentralised. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, and the choice between them depends on the structure and specific needs of the group. In this series of articles, we will look at the pros and cons of the two approaches, which you need to consider when it comes to selecting the best approach to preparing your TP documentation.

In early 2024 the State Revenue Service (SRS) published an advance tax ruling issued to a foreign company’s permanent establishment (PE) in Latvia, in which the SRS assessed the PE’s relationship with its foreign head office and explained whether the PE is liable to prepare and submit a transfer pricing (TP) file for their mutual transactions. In this article we outline what the tax ruling says about PE status, examine Latvian TP rules on documenting relationships and TP, and offer a theoretical example to explain the PE’s obligation to document TP in practice.

Since the current Latvian transfer pricing (TP) rules came into force back in 2018, companies are used to preparing and submitting a TP file in the second half of the current year. For most taxpayers, the financial year is the calendar year, which in conjunction with the TP rules means a TP file for the previous financial year must be submitted by 31 December of the current year.

Communicating with the State Revenue Service (SRS) is certainly the safest way to make sure the interpretation of law we use daily complies with how it was originally intended. Most of the guidelines published by the SRS explain clearly how statutory requirements should be applied. Yet the 2019 guidelines on transfer pricing (TP) documentation offer a formula for computing the amount of a controlled credit-line or cash-pool transaction made in the financial year that gives the taxpayer much more room for interpretation. This alternative formula became the subject of debate again in recent communication between TP professionals and the SRS.

The first year of audit has ended since insurance and reinsurance companies and foreign insurers’ branches started preparing their accounts and consolidated accounts according to International Financial Reporting Standard No. 17, Insurance Contracts (IFRS 17) with significant amendments. The new approach to measuring income from insurance contracts has transformed taxpayers’ accounting records and affected their transfer pricing (TP) policies. As the deadline for submitting TP files for FY23 is approaching, it’s time to assess how IFRS 17 affects insurers’ transactions with related parties.

As technologies keep evolving, we often hear about new tools of artificial intelligence, business intelligence, data processing, analysis or visualisation and the opportunities they offer. These technology solutions can help companies make fast and efficient decisions and manage their processes transparently. Transfer pricing (TP) has been evolving in this respect as well. The opportunities offered by various technology tools can help companies standardise, automate and rationalise their processes associated with TP management and compliance, an area known as operational transfer pricing (OTP). This article explores what the new concept means and what opportunities it offers.