When it comes to performing a transfer pricing (TP) analysis of financial transactions, attention is usually paid to loans and cash pool transactions. Yet there are some other financial transactions between related parties that often fail to receive a proper assessment in the TP documentation: financial guarantees. The current market environment has more creditors such as banks asking for a guarantee before they lend to customers. In this series of articles we explore TP aspects of guarantees, compare different approaches to determining an arm’s length price of a guarantee, and analyse relevant case law.

Our professional experience suggests that paragraph 3.3.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Rule No. 802, “Transfer Pricing Documentation and Procedures for Entering Into an Advance Pricing Agreement Between the Taxpayer and the Tax Authority for a Transaction or a Type of Transactions”, which states that the taxpayer’s transfer pricing (TP) documentation should include financial information and tables showing how the financial data used in applying the TP method is linked to the financial statements, has taxpayers confused as a maze of legal interpretation.

Assessing compliance with the arm’s length principle in transfer pricing (TP) involves conducting a benchmarking study based on high-quality comparable data. While the taxpayer can use internally available data on his transactions with unrelated parties, it’s common practice to use external data obtained from commercial databases or other sources. Several comparable companies are selected from a database according to certain criteria to build a range of financial results. This often raises the question of which values in that range are acceptable to demonstrate that the taxpayer’s controlled transactions are arm’s length. This article explores how wide an arm’s length range may be used in Latvia and compares how this range is interpreted in Lithuania and Estonia.