Our 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.