Taxpayers sometimes report an operating loss at the end of the financial year. The State Revenue Service (SRS) perceives this as a key risk that gives grounds for launching a control measure, particularly for taxpayers within a multinational group, citing the transfer pricing (TP) impact on profitability as the main cause of the loss. This article discusses the idea that losses may have an objective economic justification and other legitimate business strategy reasons, with associated risks materialising in the financial year, as well as looking at ways to offer explanations and dispel the myth that TP is the cause of the taxpayer’s operating loss.

We have written earlier about the State Revenue Service (SRS) pointing out significant errors in transfer pricing (TP) files and focusing on the lack of financial data segmentation, the tested party or its financial data, and the benefit test (i.e. evidence of services). This article explores some other common breaches.

It’s been a while since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) drafted its Pillar I report dealing with various issues around the growing economic globalisation and digitalisation. It’s also increasingly difficult to determine countries’ rights to charge corporate income tax on the profits of multinational enterprise groups. While the project is basically geared towards digital business, one of the solutions the OECD offers may simplify transfer pricing (TP) for a particular group of transactions: baseline marketing and distribution activities.

On 22 February 2024 the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) published a draft report that includes proposals for a transfer pricing (TP) directive drafted by the European Commission. The ECON draft report generally supports the Commission’s proposal to align the TP requirements across the EU, yet it recommends a number of crucial amendments. This article explores the ECON amendments that could affect Latvian TP requirements, too.

Recent years have seen the State Revenue Service (SRS) increasingly focus on transfer pricing (TP) risks, particularly management services and business support services rendered within a multinational enterprise (MNE) group. These services between related companies aim to promote a group member’s business, to cut costs it would have incurred in performing the particular functions on its own, or to offer some other comparable benefit from the synergy of doing business together. Yet there is also the other side of the coin – TP and corporate income tax (CIT) risks may arise if the recipient of services is unable to prove they were actually received and the fee was justified.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has been increasing its key interest rates since June 2022 to mitigate the high inflation caused by Covid-19. Taxpayers have good reason to debate whether they should revise the interest rates historically applied in their long-term financing transactions between related parties and apply new rates that are arm’s length and reflect the current economic conditions. This article explores the vision of the State Revenue Service (SRS) and recommendations for mitigating potential transfer pricing (TP) risks.

Setting an arm’s length fee for your intragroup services is one of the transfer pricing (TP) challenges you might face. In 2018 Latvia decided to offer relief for low value-adding services (LVAS) to facilitate this process for companies. If certain criteria are met, LVAS can be analysed under a simplified procedure, meaning the service provider can apply a 5% markup on costs without undertaking a detailed benchmarking study. This article serves to remind you of a key requirement when it comes to taking the simplified approach to LVAS.

We have written before about the profit split method (PSM) and its potential in transfer pricing (TP) analysis, looking at the essence of this method and the scope for using it. This article explores PSM’s advantages and disadvantages.

We have analysed the CIT treatment of doing business with companies on the blacklist of uncooperative tax havens earlier. This article explores new changes to the list and how they affect transfer pricing (TP).

It’s been quite a while since Latvia adopted new transfer pricing (TP) rules, yet the State Revenue Service (SRS) did not issue guidelines on charging fines for breaches of requirements for duly submitting or preparing TP files until late September 2023 (approved by SRS order No. 201 of 11 September 2023). This article explores the new guidelines.

On 12 September 2023 the European Commission published its proposal for a transfer pricing (TP) directive to align TP requirements across the EU. While most of the member states, including Latvia, are to some extent applying recommendations made by the OECD TP guidelines, the European Commission is proposing the directive and calling on the member states to adopt the same TP standards in order to secure a level playing field. If the new rules are approved in their current version, they will be passed into the member states’ national law by 31 December 2025 and applicable from 1 January 2026.

We have written before about the directive on the multinational enterprise (MNE) group’s public country-by-country report (CbCR) and how this is being passed into the national laws of EU member states. In this article we will look at Latvia’s progress in passing the directive and find out what aspects Latvian taxpayers need to consider and what issues and challenges they may face.

A directive requiring multinational enterprise (MNE) groups to prepare public country-by-country reports (“CbCR”) was published in the EU Official Journal in December 2021. The member states had until 22 June 2023 to pass the directive into their national laws. In this series of articles we will look at the progress made by Latvia and other member states and will explore the directive’s history, goals, potential benefits and taxpayer challenges.

Transfer pricing (TP) experts of the State Revenue Service (SRS) have agreed to meet up with Latvian TP consultants on several occasions in late September to debate some pressing TP concerns and to set out the SRS opinion on how to solve current and future TP problems. In this article we will outline SRS comments on TP validation and look at some of the topics and questions put up for debate with the SRS.

Latvia’s current transfer pricing (TP) rules came into force back in 2018, bringing changes to the structure of TP documentation (TPD) and to materiality thresholds that require taxpayers to prepare a specified form of TPD. Many taxpayers are still confused about the right way to measure the amount of a controlled financial transaction, which results in an obligation to prepare, or to prepare and file, a specified form of TPD if the taxpayer has no other types of controlled transactions. This article explores the procedure for determining the controlled transaction amount (CTA) for various types of financial transactions according to Latvian TP rules and international law, as well as looking at the practice in Lithuania and Estonia, the most similar economies to Latvia.