We have written before about a taxpayer’s duty to file with the State Revenue Service (SRS) a multinational enterprise group’s country-by-country (CbC) report under section 15(9) of the Taxes and Duties Act or a statement of the reporting company and its tax residence. This article explores how to correctly disclose information in the statement in the case of a non-standard fiscal period.
The criteria requiring a Latvian taxpayer to prepare the CbC report are rarely met. This is mainly an obligation of the group’s parent or surrogate parent company, which are commonly located abroad. However, a Latvian taxpayer who is not the parent, the surrogate parent, nor a unit within the multinational enterprise group liable to prepare the CbC report, is still required to notify the SRS of the reporting company’s identity and tax residence by the last day of the fiscal year.
A statement of the reporting company should be filed in the Electronic Declaration System (EDS) by selecting the document form “Statement of the Company Reporting for the Multinational Enterprise Group” and entering data according to the indicated selection criteria.
According to the Cabinet of Ministers’ Rule No. 397, The Multinational Enterprise Group’s Country-by-Country Reporting, the fiscal year is a 12-month period whose financial and operational results are indicated in the report. However, the EDS document allows the user to select only the relevant calendar year starting 1 January and ending 31 December. The selection of any other 12-month period is technically limited.
Since the multinational enterprise group and the Latvian taxpayer within it will sometimes have a fiscal period that is different from the calendar year and runs, for instance, from 1 April to 31 March, we asked the SRS to explain what steps the taxpayer should take in order to truly indicate the fiscal year when filing the statement in EDS.
In reply to our question, the SRS advised us that where the fiscal period is different from the calendar year, the “Tax Year” field in the EDS document “Statement of the Company Reporting for the Multinational Enterprise Group” should show the year in which the fiscal period ends. For example, if the fiscal period is 01.04.2021–31.03.2022, the fiscal year will be 2022.
To state the reporting period accurately, the SRS suggests giving further details of the taxpayer’s fiscal period in the “Notes” field.
In view of this, we recommend that whenever it is not possible to correctly show data in the automatic fields, the taxpayer should always insert full details in the fields designed for notes and comments to mitigate the risk of filing false information.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionOur experience suggests that taxpayers carrying out the obligation to submit transfer pricing (TP) documentation to the State Revenue Service (SRS) may suddenly find themselves in an awkward situation, as the functionality of the Electronic Declaration System (EDS) prevents them from uploading a screenshot file that supports their benchmarking study because of its size. So the document fails to reach the SRS and puts the taxpayer at risk of defaulting on statutory requirements for information to be included in TP documentation. This article offers a solution to this problem.
We have written before about significant differences in measuring total transactions made with related parties during the financial year, to be reported on line 6.5.1 of the corporate income tax (CIT) return, and controlled transactions that determine whether the taxpayer becomes liable to prepare and file transfer pricing (TP) documentation with the State Revenue Service (SRS).
For many years, challenging the receipt of intragroup services and commercial benefits has been among the most popular grounds for corporate income tax (CIT) assessments made by the State Revenue Service (SRS). Our analysis of one of the latest publicly available transfer pricing court cases leads to the conclusion that such a taxpayer dispute with the SRS has not lost its relevance. This article looks at an example from the Latvian court case – the taxpayer’s dispute with the SRS over missing evidence that the taxpayer has actually received management services from a related foreign company.
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.