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.
The SRS will first check to see if the taxpayer has met his obligation for the last period in which TP documentation had to be prepared and filed (i.e. FY20). However, section 23(1.1) of the Taxes and Duties Act authorises the SRS to assess and adjust the taxpayer’s taxable income (loss) and charge a penalty during a TP audit within five years after the statutory tax payment deadline.
This rule has many clients wondering how to calculate the last five years that are open to a TP audit and how to determine the last year the taxpayer should not forget about.
To work out the last year for which the SRS may adjust your TP, you need to consider the payment deadline for the corporate income tax (CIT) charged according to your final CIT return for the year under the CIT Act.
It’s also important to be aware that the CIT Act effective from 1 January 2018 changed the deadline for paying the tax charge stated on the CIT return. It was brought forward from the 15th day of the fifth month of the following financial period to the 23rd day of the first month of the following financial period.
Let us look at an example of how to determine the years open to TP adjustment.
Suppose a taxpayer’s financial year coincides with the calendar year. At the time of writing this article, the taxpayer had filed his last CIT return for 2021 by 20 January 2022 and paid the tax charge by 23 January 2022. We start off by counting five years back from this tax payment period:
The picture allows us to conclude that the SRS may conduct a TP audit and decide on the audit result (TP adjustment) for transactions made in 2017.
As we have written before, since 2013 the taxpayer has been allowed to apply to the SRS for entering into an advance pricing agreement (APA).
The taxpayer may benefit from an APA in a number of ways. What matters is that during the operation of the APA, the SRS has no right to adjust the agreed arm’s length price for a particular transaction or type of transaction during an audit or any other tax control if the taxpayer has complied with the APA and no change has been made to his business in breach of the APA.
Although an APA is traditionally concluded for the next five financial periods, amendments to section 16.1(11) of the Taxes and Duties Act effective from 1 January 2019 permit the APA procedure to be initiated also for past financial years unless the statutory five-year period of limitation for a TP audit has expired:
If his controlled transactions are material, the taxpayer should consider entering into an APA with the SRS.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionWith the financial year nearing its end, section 15.2 of the Taxes and Duties Act requires many companies to prepare, or to prepare and file with the State Revenue Service (SRS), their transfer pricing (TP) documentation. Since determining related-party status often confuses taxpayers and authorities, this article reminds you who is considered a related party for TP purposes and what transactions require the taxpayer to prepare TP documentation.
In statutory cases, the taxpayer is liable to prepare transfer pricing (TP) documentation and file it with the State Revenue Service (SRS). An examination of TP documentation helps the SRS monitor the correctness of corporate income tax (CIT) payments because the difference between a controlled transaction’s value and market price must be included in the taxable base under the CIT Act. If the taxpayer defaults on the obligation to prepare and file TP documentation, then in addition to the opportunity to start an audit and assess the correctness of the CIT calculation, the SRS may start a data assesment in the field of tax revenue risks and charge a hefty fine on the company if an offence is found. This article explores what offences relating to TP documentation permit the taxpayer to be fined outside an audit and how the SRS should evaluate and justify the size of fine.
In our previous article, we looked at ESG cost categories and said it’s not always right to bear expenses according to the principle of ownership and split them evenly between all companies forming a group. This article continues to examine the reasons.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.