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.
The OECD TP guidelines provide for a simplified approach to intragroup LVAS that allows the service provider to apply a 5% markup without undertaking a benchmarking study. LVAS are usually supplied by one or more members of a multinational enterprise (MNE) group to other members. If the service is to be analysed under a simplified procedure, it must meet the criteria set out below:
The simplified approach to LVAS is intended to ease the administrative burden and mitigate risks for taxpayers and tax authorities.
The simplified approach to LVAS is not mandatory, though, and each country has discretion to pass it into its national TP rules. Latvia applies the simplified approach to LVAS only if the foreign company that supplies the service to or acquires it from a Latvian company is based in a country that has passed the simplified approach into its national law. This requirement is made in paragraph 18.6.2 of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Rule No. 677, “Application of Provisions of the Corporate Income Tax Act”.
Now let’s look at an example to illustrate this.
Y, a Latvian company owning a retail chain with a number of shops, decided to launch a new loyalty programme that accrues bonuses for purchases. Customer purchase data has to be entered and processed for this programme to function efficiently. Company Y acquired administrative services from Z, a related Lithuanian company, which carried out the following activities: data entry, processing and analysis, as well as preparing reports and statements. This administrative service provides essential technical support to ensure the loyalty programme is functioning properly and customers receive bonuses. These services can be treated as LVAS because they are supportive in nature and are not associated with the group’s core business activity – retail.
Company Y can take the simplified approach to LVAS under Latvian TP rules because Lithuanian company Z is allowed to take the simplified approach in its home country. In this case a 5% markup can be justified under a simplified procedure without a benchmarking study of comparable administrative service providers. It’s important to note that if the service provider were based in a country that has not passed the simplified approach, such as France or Spain, Latvian company Y could not take the simplified approach and would have to undertake a benchmarking study to show the markup is arm’s length.
Latvian companies involved in LVAS transactions are advised to verify that their business partners are based in countries that have passed the simplified approach into their national TP rules. The OECD offers a list of member states according to their status of the simplified approach to LVAS:
Simplified approach to LVAS in national law |
|
Passed |
Not passed |
Austria |
Bulgaria |
Belgium |
France |
Croatia |
Greece |
Czechia |
Luxembourg |
Denmark |
Malta |
Estonia |
Portugal |
Finland |
Romania |
Germany |
Slovakia |
Hungary |
Spain |
Ireland |
|
Italy |
|
Latvia |
|
Lithuania |
|
Netherlands |
|
Poland |
|
Slovenia |
|
Sweden |
|
The simplified approach to LVAS can be useful to ease the TP-related administrative burden and minimise costs incurred in preparing benchmarking studies for various types of services. However, Latvian companies wishing to take the simplified approach should be aware of the relevant conditions and verify the status of the simplified approach in the countries of their business partners.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionWe 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.
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.