We have written before about a taxpayer’s duty to file with the State Revenue Service (SRS) a multinational enterprise group’s country-by-country (CbC) report under section 15(9) of the Taxes and Duties Act or a statement of the reporting company and its tax residence. This article explores how to correctly disclose information in the statement in the case of a non-standard fiscal period.

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.

A taxpayer assessing his transfer pricing (TP) compliance might find that a transaction with a related party is not arm’s length according to a preliminary comparability analysis. When analysing each case separately, however, we sometimes find that the taxpayer has failed to take all necessary preventive measures to mitigate TP risk. One of those measures involves assessing the need to make comparability adjustments.

Our customers often ask us if transfer pricing adjustments affect VAT. This is an issue that remains unresolved by the VAT directive, the Latvian VAT Act, the Cabinet of Ministers’ rules, or guidelines issued by the State Revenue Service (SRS). Even the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has never dealt with this issue in its rulings. This article explores an opinion expressed by the European Commission’s VAT committee.

In last week’s article on the guidance issued by the State Revenue Service (SRS), we looked at the first two of five key factors the SRS highlights as noteworthy in transfer pricing (TP) determinations for periods affected by the pandemic. This article explores the remaining three factors that are no less important.

The world and things keep changing, and this change is affecting the environment significantly – both positively and negatively, allowing and even forcing us to revise various processes and activities to make them consistent with the reality. These factors are also affecting transfer pricing (TP).

Related companies sometimes make loans to each other, and those must be arm’s length just like any other transaction between related parties. A benchmarking study can use both internal and external comparable data, yet it is not always clear what period those should be selected for. This article explores various types of loan analyses with benchmarking examples based on external sources of information.
 

The global tax scene has undergone some historic changes and keeps changing. This has caused multinational enterprise (MNE) groups to revise their global business models and take steps to stay competitive. Facing the evolution of technology, environmental changes and the impact of the pandemic, MNEs are beginning to revise and transform their value chains to make their business even more efficient and profitable.

Our Flash News editions of 14 May 2019  and 21 May 2019 looked at the significance of working capital in a company’s business. This article explores when and why we need to assess working capital in a transfer pricing analysis.

To compute the price of a controlled support service transaction, we state the total cost incurred in providing the service then add a markup. But some costs are merely recharged without a markup. This article offers an overview of how service fees are set, focusing on so-called flow-through costs that have no element of profit.

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.