High quality comparables are crucial when it comes to setting an arm’s length price in a transfer pricing (TP) analysis. A key factor in this process is making an informed choice about the dataset size, i.e. using comparable financials for one year or multiple years. This article explores key risks and factors to consider in setting an arm’s length price of transactions and using comparables for one or more years. We will be referring to the general rules of Latvian law and the TP guidelines issued by the OECD, with an example from case law.
Transfer pricing (TP) rules laid down by section 15.2 of the Taxes and Duties Act effective from 1 January 2018 require that a taxpayer’s master file and local file, or only his local file, provide evidence that the TP applied in a related-party transaction (the “controlled transaction”) is arm’s length. Although there is no publicly available information about amounts the State Revenue Service (SRS) has charged for the lack or incompliance of TP documentation/ analysis of controlled transactions over the last three years, we are aware that those are being evaluated, mainly as part of the “Advise First!” principle, as we have written earlier. This article explores common substantial errors in TP documentation pointed out by an SRS official who attended a seminar the Latvian Chamber of Commerce and Industry organised in May 2021.
In July 2021 the OECD released Latvia’s Stage 2 Peer Review Report findings obtained in peer-reviewing its progress with implementing the Minimum Standard of BEPS Action 14 for improving tax dispute resolution mechanisms. Stage 2 aims to monitor the implementation of recommendations arising from Latvia’s Stage 1 Peer Review Report. Overall the Stage 2 report finds that Latvia has eliminated most of the flaws found in the Stage 1 report.
We have recently written about the OECD Inclusive Framework proposals for taxing the digitalised economy that will help OECD members find a common basis for agreeing on taxation of global enterprises that is acceptable to all OECD members and jurisdictions. Despite the large number of participating members (139 members and jurisdictions pursuing different interests and representing various sizes of economy), all stakeholders understand the significance of this reform and are interested in agreeing on the urgent issues and implementing the common taxation of the digitalised economy as soon as possible. This article explores the ambitious goals of this agreement and the deadlines for concluding and implementing it, which are even more ambitious.
As the tax system evolves, the regulatory authorities have been rearranging their priorities around transfer pricing risks and focusing on increasingly complex cases in recent years. The transfer pricing aspects of intangible assets are climbing up the agenda, so we will be posting a few articles to explain the significance of related-party transactions involving the use of intangibles, as well as looking at transfer pricing trends, common risks, and relevant case law.
The legal form, meaning the contract between related parties and its provisions, has always been among the factors that come into play when assessing whether prices applied in controlled transactions are arm’s length. This article discusses why the legal form of a transaction is important, looks at a common approach to preparing intragroup contracts, and explores some rules that should be followed when drafting those contracts to mitigate transfer pricing risks.
Section 15.2 of the Taxes and Duties Act requires a taxpayer to meet requirements for the timeliness of information included in their transfer pricing (“TP”) documentation and for regular updates to reflect the present situation. During a period of calm in preparing and filing TP documentation, we asked the State Revenue Service (“SRS”) to answer some confusing questions about updating comparable data and revising financial data, including the scope for taking the roll forward approach.
When doing a transfer pricing analysis of financial transactions, we need to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness before setting an interest rate. To evaluate the risk associated with an intragroup financial transaction and determine an arm’s length interest rate for taking credit risk, the lender should evaluate the likelihood of the borrower defaulting, i.e. creditworthiness, and the probability of recovering the loan. This article explores a credit rating model that multinational enterprises often create to determine the creditworthiness of particular units.
In the modern age of large corporations, the business value chain, which usually comprises a range of functions such as devising and implementing a business strategy, research and development, production, marketing, sales and logistics, spans a number of group companies operating in different countries. This apportionment is based on business needs and national rules for permanent establishments. Since an enterprise group involves multiple companies, they conduct intragroup transactions and charge transfer prices, giving rise to tax risks.
In April 2021 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) published the Third Peer Review Report on Treaty Shopping, which reflects progress in implementing the BEPS Action 6 minimum standard. This standard on preventing the grant of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances is one of the four BEPS minimum standards that all members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework have committed to implement (over 125 jurisdictions collaborating on the implementation of the BEPS package). This article explores the main findings of the OECD peer review.
The Cabinet of Ministers’ Rule No. 677 has been amended with effect from 18 February 2021 on ways of applying the profit split method (“PSM”) in analysing transactions between related parties. This article offers a flowchart to help taxpayers evaluate the possibility of using PSM for economic validation of prices applied in their transactions, with a practical example of profit split.
Many multinational enterprises have suffered losses from a drop in demand, a supply chain delay or extraordinary operating costs during the period of Covid-19 restrictions. The allocation of such losses and extraordinary costs between related companies is likely to attract the tax authority’s scrutiny so these issues require special attention. This article explores the allocation of losses and Covid-19 specific costs in the light of the OECD’s Guidance on the transfer pricing implications of the Covid-19 pandemic.
While some taxpayers may face challenges in applying their advance pricing agreements (“APAs”) with the tax authorities under the economic conditions resulting from the pandemic, all existing APAs and their terms should be respected unless a critical assumption is breached. This article provides an overview of how COVID-19 affects APAs in the light of the OECD’s “Guidance on the transfer pricing implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
As we carry on exploring the OECD’s Guidance on the transfer pricing implications of the Covid-19 pandemic (the “Guidance”) this article offers an overview of how government assistance programmes affect transfer pricing analysis.
For e-commerce businesses. Effective 1 July 2021.
PwC specialists share their experience on topical tax issues.
PwC offers a brief video on the impact of COVID-19 on Transfer Pricing in Central and Eastern Europe.