In an earlier MindLink article we evaluated transfer pricing (TP) challenges facing distributors in multinational groups and the scope for using Berry ratios in assessing whether the value of a controlled transaction is arm’s length. In this article we look at a practical example of how Berry ratios can be used, as well as discussing requirements and conditions you need to consider when it comes to segmenting your financial data.
In our previous articles we discussed the transfer pricing (TP) aspects of guarantees and looked at methods that can be used to arrive at an arm’s length price. We will close out this series of articles with key insights from international case law and compare how the tax authorities treat the validation of guarantee transactions in a TP file.
Our experience suggests that intragroup services represent the most common centralised activities in a multinational enterprise (MNE) group and they are also transactions being scrutinised by the tax authority.
Our previous article looked at the need for a taxpayer’s transfer pricing (TP) file to support his guarantee transactions, and explored a general approach to assessing whether a guarantee transaction is arm’s length. In this article we are discussing aspects to consider when the substance of guarantee transactions is analysed, and we are taking a closer look at methods used in analysing such transactions.
On 5 July 2022 the Regional Court passed ruling No. A420275316 on whether interest rates charged on loans between related parties are arm’s length. The ruling emphasises the significance of the economic substance approach and strengthens the understanding of whether the Bank of Latvia (BOL) statistics are suitable for analysing transfer prices (interest rates).
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.
Latvian transfer pricing (TP) rules provide that a company’s transactions with related parties must be arm’s length, whether the parties are Latvian or foreign tax residents. The arm’s length principle dictates that a company making comparable transactions under comparable conditions must receive comparable revenue, whether the transaction is with a related or an unrelated party. Basically companies know and understand this, yet there are various facts and circumstances that make this requirement difficult to enforce in real time. This is because before or during the transaction, companies often lack sufficient information on arm’s length prices that unrelated parties apply in comparable transactions. This is where companies can use a TP adjustment, which is not always so painful as it might originally seem. This article explores what TP adjustment a company can make by adjusting its taxable base for corporate income tax (CIT) purposes.
Taxpayers involved in cross-border transactions with related parties widely use globally recognised methods of analysis to show that their prices match market values. Selecting the most accurate method depends on the economic substance of a transaction and on the availability of credible information. Having limited access to a comparable data set often becomes an insurmountable obstacle to applying a particular method. This article explores some problems with data use, as well as international practice and potential solutions where the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method is used.
In November the OECD published the 2021 statistics for the mutual agreement procedure (MAP) covering 127 jurisdictions and practically all MAP proceedings around the world. This article explores global MAP trends in 2021, looks at Latvian statistics and analyses how last year’s statistics in Latvia compare to global trends.
Multinational enterprise groups tend to centralise their functions, such as support functions in a region that is economically important and advantageous. Particularly interesting cases of transfer pricing (TP) determinations and valuations involve a group’s distributors (intermediaries) that make centralised purchases of goods from the group manufacturers and sell them on to the group wholesalers. This article looks at TP challenges in such economically linked transactions within the same global supply chain.
Several sections of the Taxes and Duties Act define a taxpayer’s obligations. Section 15.2 requires the taxpayer to prepare a local transfer pricing (TP) file within 12 months after the end of the financial period and, depending on the circumstances, to submit it to the State Revenue Service (SRS) for the financial period:
Situation 1 – within 12 months after the end of the financial period; or
Situation 2 – within one month after receiving a request from the SRS.
This article is meant just for you if you are interested in learning more about a crucial relief in Situation 2. The taxpayer has the right to revise his local TP file every three years if he satisfies a certain condition and meets one annual requirement.
Amendments to the Taxes and Duties Act that require taxpayers to prepare and file a specified form of transfer pricing (TP) documentation with the State Revenue Service (SRS) took effect back in 2018, yet we had not seen any active enforcement steps from the SRS until the end of this summer, when several Latvian companies received an informational report on the submission of TP documentation via the SRS’s e-filing system (“EDS”). These reports imply that the SRS is checking the companies’ obligation to file TP documentation for 2020 and urging them to do so by the deadline stated in the report or to explain why they should not file TP documentation. This article reminds you of the TP documentation preparation and filing requirements and of the SRS’s activities in enforcing them, and we also suggest steps your company might take after receiving such a report.
Our experience suggests that the State Revenue Service (SRS) has recently focused on checking how Latvian corporate taxpayers fulfil their obligation under transfer pricing (TP) legislation, i.e. (1) whether they have prepared TP documentation in the prescribed form by the statutory deadline and (2) whether their documentation gives all the required information to verify that their controlled transactions are arm’s length.