Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to provide the background of transfer pricing rules from both the theoretical and practical points of view. The arm’s length principle is considered a key pillar of the rules; therefore, great emphasis is placed on explaining these rules as well as their history and practical application. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (hereafter TP Guidelines) provide guidance for applying the arm’s length principle to pricing for tax purposes and to cross-border transactions between associated enterprises; therefore, the chapter provides a detailed explanation of the TP Guidelines, particularly a comparability analysis, which is considered the core issue in the application of the arm’s length principle, transfer pricing methods, and documentation requirements and administrative approaches to transfer prices. However, TP Guidelines make no direct distinction between types or sizes of multinational enterprises; i.e., all enterprises, regardless of their size, are subject to the same principles and recommendations. Therefore, the chapter also focuses on transfer pricing rules in relation to SMEs, critical concerns in transfer pricing and compliance costs issues. The last part focuses on recommendations, namely, an introduction of safe harbour and common (consolidated) corporate tax base.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
OECD: Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital.
- 2.
The treaty protection under Article 9(1) is applied to both actual and virtual double taxation. In contrast, a corresponding adjustment under Article 9(2) is only available with respect to actual double taxation. For further details, see Solilova and Steindl (2013).
- 3.
For more details see paras 4.32–4.39 of the TP Guidelines (OECD 2017) and para 11 of the Commentary on Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention.
- 4.
For more details see OECD Commentary on Article 9(2), para 6, 2010a and TP Guidelines, para 4.35, 2017.
- 5.
For more details see Wittendorf (2010), part 2 and 3.
- 6.
Currently, the corresponding adjustment is not mandatory.
- 7.
Currently, on the basis of the last revision in 2014, only four member states, namely, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy and Slovenia, have a reservation with respect to Article 9(2) OECD Model Convention. Furthermore, Australia has a general reservation on Article 9 OECD Model Convention. Moreover, there is one observation on Article 9 OECD Model Convention with regard to the thin capitalization made by the United States.
- 8.
United Nations, “Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries”, updated 2011. Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/UN_Model_2011_Update.pdf
- 9.
Only in the US; the US Treasury issued regulations for specific types of intercompany transactions in 1968, which was the motivation for the OECD to publish a guidance of transfer pricing issue.
- 10.
For more details see OECD Commentary 1992, Article 9 para 3.
- 11.
The groundwork for the 1995 and other revisions of the TP Guidelines was laid by the OECD Report 1979 and OECD Mutual Agreement Report from 1984. In 2009, a limited update of TP Guidelines was made to reflect the adoption of update of the Model Tax Convention in the 2008. In the 2010 edition, significant revisions were made; namely, Chapters I–III and a new Chapter IX, on the transfer pricing aspects of business restructurings, was added. Since 2013, the TP Guidelines has been a subject of a huge revision due to the results of individual actions of Base Erosion Profit Shifting project (hereinafter BEPS). Currently, the 2017 edition of the TP Guidelines reflecting a consolidation of the changes resulting from the BEPS project and other changes was released on 10 July 2017.
- 12.
In this fact is relating the static and dynamic approach of interpretation of Tax Conventions. For more details see https://www.wu.ac.at/fileadmin/wu/d/i/taxlaw/institute/staff/publications/langbrugger_australiantaxforum_95ff.pdf, or see Wittendorf (2010), Chap. 3.
- 13.
For more details see last part of this Section.
- 14.
One year previously, the first tax treaty was signed with an allocation norm for business income between associated enterprises in the form of the arm’s length principle.
- 15.
Aggressive tax planning involves taking advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems to reduce tax liability. For more details, see Commission Recommendation of 6 December 2012 on aggressive tax planning, C(2012) 8806 final.
- 16.
- 17.
For more details see: European Parliamentary Research Service Aggressive corporate tax planning under scrutiny http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/571345/EPRS_ATA(2015)571345_EN.pdf
- 18.
The EU confirmed support for work within the BEPS project in May 2013, see Council document 9405/13
- 19.
For the transfer pricing issue, only two deliverables of BEPS project focus on it: Action plan 8–10 “Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation” and Action plan 13 “Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting”. Based on the Action Plan 13, all enterprises are required to report information relating to their economic activity such as revenues, profits, taxes paid and certain measures of economic activity, and to articulate their consistent transfer pricing positions through this standardized approach of reporting. Thus, a new reporting obligation is required for the current transfer pricing documentation. Based on the Action plan 8–10, in the area of transfer pricing analysis and determination of transfer prices, a correct application of the arm’s length standard demands an understanding of the value drivers and relevant risks involved and how responsibility for those risks is attributed among the associated enterprises in the context of their commitment to creating value jointly. For the level and assumption of risk are economically relevant characteristics that can be significant in determining the outcome of a transfer pricing analysis.
- 20.
Only one part is waiting on the revision, particularly the section related to the profit split method, due to on-going work.
- 21.
Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures (Controlled foreign company (CFC) rule, switchover rule, exit taxation, interest limitation, and general anti-abuse rule) which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning. It creates a minimum protection for all Member States’ corporate tax systems by transposition of the OECD BEPS measures into their national systems in a coherent and coordinated fashion and ensures a fairer and more stable environment for business. Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.
- 22.
See COM(2016)24final, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0024
- 23.
For more details see: European Parliamentary Research Service Aggressive corporate tax planning under scrutiny http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/571345/EPRS_ATA(2015)571345_EN.pdf
- 24.
The term “degree of comparability” is defined as the comparability between controlled and uncontrolled transactions.
- 25.
For more details see para 1.33, and section D.1.2., Chapter 1 TP Guidelines, OECD 2017.
- 26.
The significance of a risk depends on the likelihood and size of the potential profits or losses arising from the risk.
- 27.
The identification of an associated enterprise(s) assuming risks is usually set out in written contracts between the parties to a transaction involving these risks. A contractual assumption of risk constitutes an ex ante agreement to bear some or all of the potential costs associated with the ex post materialization of downside outcomes of risk in return for some or all of the potential benefit associated with the ex post materialization of positive outcomes. It must be highlighted that an ex ante contractual assumption of risk should provide clear evidence of a commitment to assume risk prior to the materialization of risk outcomes. Such evidence is a very important part of the tax administration’s transfer pricing analysis of risks in commercial or financial relations.
- 28.
Financial capacity in this area means the access to funding to take on the risk or to lay off the risk, to pay for the risk mitigation functions and to bear the consequences of the risk if the risk materializes. If the financial capacity to assume a risk is lacking, then the allocation of risk requires consideration under step 5 above.
- 29.
Control over risk, as the last essential part of analyzing risks, involves the capability to make decisions to take on, lay off, or decline a risk-bearing opportunity, and the capability to make decisions on whether and how to respond to the risks associated with the opportunity. Day-to-day mitigation is not necessary to be performed in order to have control of the risks; i.e., these activities can be outsourced.
- 30.
The TP Guidelines now use the term “risk management”, which refers to the function of assessing and responding to risk associated with commercial activity. Risk management means taking on both the upside and downside consequences of the risk with the result that the party assuming a risk will also bear the financial and other consequences if the risk materializes. Risk management is addressing the impact of volatility on profits and value; therefore, associated enterprises must identify the source and impact of volatility on their business to manage risks better.
- 31.
For more details see TP Guidelines para 3.2, 3.80–3.83, and 3.57 OECD 2017.
- 32.
For more details, EU JTPF report available at: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/jtpf0072017encomps.pdf
- 33.
It is worth noting that percent-based indicators reflecting a maximum share of interest owned in subsidiaries differ significantly among the EU member states, particularly between 20% and 50%.
- 34.
Diagnostic ratios represent certain ratios of balance sheet / profit and losses account items of the tested party, which are compared with those of potential comparables and can help increase valuable input of the comparability analysis, namely, whether the potential comparables match these ratios of the tested party.
- 35.
Currently, the Chapter III, part III, section C—Transactional profit split method, in the TP Guidelines (OECD 2017) is without update due to the on-going work based on the BEPS project. Therefore, the profit split method is not described in detail.
- 36.
For more details see Chapter II TP Guidelines, 2017.
- 37.
For more details see para 2.8., 2.12. TP Guidelines, OECD 2017.
- 38.
Transactions must be similar or the same in terms of product type, contractual terms, design, functionality and quality, geographic market, level of market, functions performed, assets used and risks assumed, etc.
- 39.
EU JTPF: Guidelines on Low Value Adding Intra-Group Services, 2011.
- 40.
For more details see section C, Chapter II, TP Guidelines, OECD 2017. Unfortunately, this section does not cover 2017 update due to ongoing work on this part, its update is expecting based on the results of BEPS project, as well as it was performed in case 2017 update TP Guidelines.
- 41.
For more details see section B.3, part III—Chapter II—Transfer pricing methods, TP Guidelines, OECD 2017. For example by new entrants, competitive position, market shares, management efficiency, business strategies, substitute products, costs structures, differences in the cost of capital, nature of business, whether the business is in a start-up phase, the degree of business experience, etc.
- 42.
Berry ratios are defined as ratios of gross profit to operating expenses. For more details see Chapter II, part III, section B.3.5, TP Guidelines, OECD 2017.
- 43.
- 44.
Range from the 25th to the 75th percentile of the results derived from the uncontrolled transactions resulted into the 50% of observations which are closest to the median are considered as a reliable range of arm’s length results. The extreme results (first 25% and last 25% of observations) are excluded from the results.
- 45.
For more details, EU JTPF report available at: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/jtpf0072017encomps.pdf
- 46.
The routine entities do not assume complex functions and risks within the group, respectively bear little or no risk, perform a few functions and generate stable operating profit, see Bakker (2009).
- 47.
Total cost ratio is determined as Operating profit or loss/Total costs. Total costs are calculated by subtracting Operating profit and loss from Operating Revenue/Turnover.
- 48.
For more details about EU Member States with/without statutory documentation requirements see Sect. 2.5.
- 49.
- 50.
Similar results were found in the case of SMEs, for details about compliance costs of transfer pricing see Chap. 4.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
Mutual agreement procedure—For more details see TP Guidelines, Chapter IV, OECD 2017. The MAP procedure can be opened through the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital 2014, Article 25, 2014, or EC Arbitration Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (90/463/EEC).
- 54.
Advance pricing arrangements—Through an APA the taxpayer provides detailed information regarding the proposed transaction and its proposed transfer price to the tax authorities, and in return, if the tax authorities approve the proposed transfer price, the taxpayer can be certain not to be subject to primary adjustments of transfer prices and consequently of double taxation. APAs can be unilateral (where agreed between one tax administration and a taxpayer), bilateral (where agreed between two tax administrations with the taxpayer) and multinational (involving more than two tax administrations). The world’s first APA as a prevention of disputes was concluded between the United States and Australia for Apple in 1991. For more details see also TP Guidelines, Chapter IV, OECD 2017.
- 55.
For more details about compliance costs of transfer pricing in case of SMEs, see Chap. 4.
- 56.
- 57.
At 4 May 2017. For more details see http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/country-by-country-exchange-relationships.htm
- 58.
European Commission (2016b), for more details see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0881&from=en
- 59.
For more details see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0034&from=EN
- 60.
For more details see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:176:0338:0436:En:PDF
- 61.
European Commission (2016a), for more details see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0198&from=EN
- 62.
For more details see http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/CBC2012.pdf
- 63.
For more details see: http://www.eurodad.org/files/pdf/1546745-eight-reasons-why-public-country-by-country-reporting-is-good-for-business-in-europe-1493799184.pdf. And Impact assessment of public CbCR http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0117&from=EN
- 64.
TP Guidelines, OECD 2017, namely in section C, Chapter III., section E, Chapter IV. and section B and D, Chapter V.
- 65.
There is highlighted that SMEs as companies with no cross-border activities have often neither the means nor the possibilities to develop a tax optimization strategy at the international level and therefore their aggressive tax planning possibilities are fewer. Moreover, they pay on average 30% higher tax than similar companies with the international activities. For more details see Impact assessment of public CbCR, SWD(2016) 117final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0117&from=EN
- 66.
For more details about compliance costs of taxation, namely transfer pricing see Chap. 4.
- 67.
In accordance with the OECD survey from 2011 and 2012 was emerged that 80% of respondent countries have transfer pricing simplification measures in place and 75% of measurements are directed to SMEs, small transactions and low value adding intra-group services. For more details see OECD: Multi-country analysis of existing transfer pricing simplification measures, 2011, 2012, available at:
- 68.
Safe harbour approach was mentioned in reports Transfer Pricing and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, 2011 and Guidelines on Low Value Adding Intra-Group Services, 2010. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/docs/body/jtpf_020_rev3_2009.pdf
- 69.
Based on the para 4.102 of TP Guidelines, OECD 2017, safe harbour is defined as “A safe harbour is a provision that applies to a defined category of taxpayers or transactions and that relieves eligible taxpayers from certain obligations otherwise imposed by a country’s general transfer pricing rules. A safe harbour substitutes simple obligations, for those under the general transfer pricing regime. Such a provision could, for example, allow taxpayers to establish transfer prices in a specific way, e.g. by applying a simplified transfer pricing approach provided by the tax administration. Alternatively, a safe harbour could exempt a defined category taxpayers or transactions from the application of all or part of the general transfer pricing rules. Often, eligible taxpayers complying with the safe harbour provision will be relieved form burdensome compliance obligations, including some or all associated transfer pricing documentation requirements.” For more details about safe harbor see Chap. 5.
- 70.
At 16 May 2013 the OECD Council approved the Revised Section E on Safe Harbours in Chapter IV of the TP Guidelines as a partial solution of the project about administrative aspects and compliance issues of transfer pricing.
- 71.
Decree 334—Communication by the Ministry of Finance in respect of the scope of transfer pricing documentation.
- 72.
Guidelines for auditing transfer prices for tax inspectors issued in 2014.
- 73.
Transfer Pricing Manual Guidelines.
- 74.
Based on the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, section 35A inserted by the Irish Finance Act 2010.
- 75.
Via definition stated in the EC Recommendation 2003.
- 76.
Based on the Taxation (International and Other provisions) Act 2010. A list of qualifying territories is available in International Manual at INTM412090.
- 77.
The term of dormant is defined in section 1169 of the Companies Act of 2006.
- 78.
Defined as companies that (i) employ fewer than 250 persons and (ii) have an annual turnover not exceeding DKK 250 million or an annual balance sheet not exceeding DKK 125 million.
- 79.
According to the Corporate Income Tax, Article 18(3) and 18(5). Further, definition of small enterprise is mentioned in the Act on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and the Support Provided to Such Enterprises known as SME Act.
- 80.
Such as, a transaction with the APA decision, cost recharge transactions under specific conditions, transaction not exceeding the threshold of HUF 50 million, stock exchange transactions, or transaction with the state-dictated prices or any prices determined in a legal regulation, transactions between domestic PE and its associated party if tax base is determined on the basis of tax treaties, and in entity in which the Hungarian state has direct or indirect majority control or public-benefit non-profit organizations.
- 81.
In accordance with new Corporate Income Tax Act effecting from 1 January 2017.
- 82.
SMEs are defined as an entity having less than 250 employees, turnover lower than EUR 50 million or total assets less than EUR 43 million via EC Recommendation 2003/361.
- 83.
SMEs defined as enterprises with an annual turnover of less than EUR 50 million.
- 84.
In accordance with Tax Agency regulations (SKVFS 20017:1) transactions relating to the sale or purchase of goods with a total market value of a max. SEK 27 million (630 basis), and other transactions of a total aggregated market value of a max. SEK 5 million (125 basis).
- 85.
For more details see amendment of the Income Tax Code by law 4410/2016.
- 86.
See No. 1093/22.4.2015 at 22.4.2015 and 1142/2015 providing that legal entities that are exempted from income tax are also exempted from transfer pricing documentation obligations e.g. portfolio investment companies.
- 87.
In accordance with Article 18.3 of the Corporate Income Tax Law 27/2014 of 27 November 2014.
- 88.
Via EC Recommendation 2003/361.
- 89.
Based on the Article 17.1. of the Government Decision 529/2007 concerning the APA, the APA fee is normally EUR 10,000 and EUR 20,000 in the case of large taxpayers. For more details about APA see Government Decision 529/2007 and Romania Tax Procedure Code.
- 90.
Based on the section 178a of the General Tax Code, the APA fee is normally EUR 20,000.
- 91.
It is defined in section 6 para 2 of the Decree Law on transfer pricing documentation issued in 2003.
- 92.
Based on the Official bulletin of the tax administration SJ-REC-20-30-20,120,912.
- 93.
SMEs are defined as an entity having less than 250 employees, turnover lower than EUR 50 million or total assets less than EUR 43 million via EC Recommendation 2003/361.
- 94.
For more detail see Decree of the State Secretary – DGB 2014/3098 dated 3 June 2014.
- 95.
For more details see Article 397 a 398 of Tax Procedure Act.
- 96.
For more details about compliance costs of taxation see Chap. 4.
- 97.
For more details about safe harbours, see Chap. 5.
References
Avi-Yonah RS, Benshalom I (2010) Formulary apportionment – myths and prospects. Empirical Legal Studies Center working paper no. 10-029. University of Michigan Law School
Avi-Yonah RS, Clausing KA (2007) Reforming corporate taxation in a global economy: a proposal to adopt formulary apportionment. The Hamilton Project. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/Reforming_Corporate_Taxation_in_a_Global_Economy-_A_Proposal_to_Adopt_Formulary_Apportionment.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2017
Bakker A (2009) Transfer pricing and business restructurings streamlining all the way. IBFD, Amsterdam
Bartelsman E, Beetsma R (2000) Why pay more? Corporate tax avoidance through transfer pricing in OECD countries. Tinbergen Institute discussion paper no. 00-54/2. http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/wir2006/pricetransfer.pdf. Accessed 02 May 2017
Buus T (2009) Vhodný kalkulační vzorec s ohledem na rozhodování o ceně (transferové ceně) a maximalizaci hodnoty podniku. Český finanční a účetní časopis 4(2):33–45
Carrol MB (1933) Taxation of foreign and national enterprises: vol IV, Methods of allocating taxable income. http://archive.org/stream/taxationofforeig031922mbp/taxationofforeig031922mbp_djvu.txt. Accessed 21 Nov 2012
Chittenden F, Michaelas N, Poutziouris P (2000) Small business taxation: an agenda for growth. Manchester Business School, EDC
Clark D, Mitra A, Mensch J (2008) Considering transfer pricing in tax planning. In: Green G (ed) Transfer pricing manual. BNA International, London, pp 262–282
Cottani G (2016) Transfer pricing. IBFD, online updated at November 2016, IBFD Research Platform
Deloitte (2016) 2016 Global transfer pricing country guide. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/Tax/us-tax-2016-global-transfer-pricing-country-guide-051816.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2017
Durst MC (2010) It’s not just academic: the OECD should reevaluate transfer pricing laws. Tax Analysts, 18 January. https://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Durst_1001_OECD_-_not_just_academic.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2017
Durst MC (2011) The two worlds of transfer pricing policymaking. Tax Notes, 24 January. https://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Durst_1101_Tax_Notes_TP.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2017
EU Council (2006) Code of conduct on transfer pricing documentation for associated enterprises in the European Union (EU TPD), (2006/C176/01). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42006X0728(01)&from=EN. Accessed 21 May 2017
EU JTPF (2005) Report on the activities of the EU joint transfer pricing forum in the field of documentation requirements. DOC: JTPF/020/REV4/2004/EN. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/docs/body/12th-legis_rep_en.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017
EU JTPF (2011) Guidelines on low value adding intra-group services. COM(2011) 16 final. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/transfer_pricing/forum/c_2011_16_en.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2017
EU JTPF (2016) Report on the use of comparables in the EU. DOC: JTPF/007/2016/FINAL/EN. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/jtpf0072017encomps.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2017
European Commission (2001) Company taxation in the internal market. Commission Staff working paper, SEC(2001)1681. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/docs/body/company_tax_study_en.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun
European Commission (2003) Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:124:0036:0041:en:PDF. Accessed 10 Feb 2017
European Commission (2016a) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches. COM(2016) 198 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0198&from=EN. Accessed 20 Jun 2017
European Commission (2016b) Council Directive (EU) 2016/881 of 25 May 2016 Amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0881&from=en. Accessed 15 Jun 2017
European Commission (2016c) Commission Staff working document impact assessment assessing the potential for further transparency on income tax information accompanying the document proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches. SWD(2016) 117 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0117&from=EN. Accessed 15 Jun 2017
European Parliamentary Research Service (2015) Aggressive corporate tax planning under scrutiny. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2015/571345/EPRS_ATA(2015)571345_EN.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2017
Hines JR Jr, Rice EM (1994) Fiscal paradise: foreign tax havens and American business. Q J Econ 109(1):149–182
Huizinga H, Laeven L (2006) International profit shifting within multinationals: a multi-country perspective. European economy, Economic papers 260. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication590_en.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017
IBFD (2017) Transfer pricing. Tax research platform. Selected countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
Keuschnigg C, Devereux M (2013) The arm’s length principle and distortions to multinational firm organization. J Int Econ 89(2):432–440
King E (2010) Transfer pricing and corporate taxation; problems, practical implications and proposed solutions. Springer, New York
Kratzer C (2008) Transfer pricing methods. In: Green G (ed) Transfer pricing manual. BNA International, London, pp 21–55
Murphy R (2012) Country-by-country reporting, accounting for globalisation locally. Tax Justice Network. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/CBC2012.pdf. Accessed 20 Jul 2017
OECD (1977) Model tax convention on income and capital, condensed version. http://online.ibfd.org/collections/ttmodel/html/tt_o2_02_eng_1977_cm__td1.html#tt_o2_02_eng_1977_cm. Accessed 13 Nov 2012
OECD (1992) Model tax convention on income and capital: condensed version. OECD, Paris
OECD (1997) Transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations. OECD, Paris
OECD (2001) Businesses’ views on red tape. Administrative and regulatory burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises. OECD, Paris
OECD (2010a) Model tax convention on income and capital: condensed version. OECD, Paris
OECD (2010b) Transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations. OECD, Paris
OECD (2011) Multi-country analysis of existing transfer pricing simplification measures. http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/48131481.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2016
OECD (2012) Multi-country analysis of existing transfer pricing simplification measures. http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/50517144.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2016
OECD (2013a) Addressing base erosion and profit shifting report. http://www.oecd.org/tax/addressing-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-9789264192744-en.htm. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
OECD (2013b) Revised Section E on safe harbours in chapter IV of the transfer pricing guidelines. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/Revised-Section-E-Safe-Harbours-TP-Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2017
OECD (2014) Model tax convention on income and on capital 2014 (Full Version). http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-2015-full-version-9789264239081-en.htm. Accessed 17 May 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239081-en
OECD (2015) OECD/G20 base erosion and profit shifting project, explanatory statement. https://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-explanatory-statement-2015.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2017
OECD (2017) Transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations. http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/oecd-transfer-pricing-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises-and-tax-administrations-20769717.htm. Accessed 11 Jul 2017
Owens J (2005) Should the arm’s length principle retire? Int Transfer Pricing J 12(3):99–102
PwC (2015) International transfer pricing 2015/16. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/international-transfer-pricing/assets/itp-2015-2016-final.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017
Rojíček M (2012) Vliv globalizace na fungování mezinárodního obchodu. Politická Ekon 60(2):187–207
Solilová V, Nerudová D (2012) The effects of changes in transfer pricing policy of the business models in 21st century. In: New role of public finance 2012. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Praha, pp 247–257
Solilová V, Nerudová D (2013) Transfer pricing: general model for tax planning. Ekonomický Časopis 61(6):597–617
Solilova V, Steindl M (2013) Tax treaty policy on article 9 of the OECD model scrutinized. Bull Int Tax 67(3):128–136
Swenson LD (2001) Tax reforms and evidence of transfer pricing. Nation Tax J 54(1):7–25
Taylor G, Richardson G, Lanis R (2015) Multinationality, tax havens, intangible assets, and transfer pricing aggressiveness: an empirical analysis. J Int Account Res 14(1):25–57
United Nations (1969) Vienna convention on the law of treaties. http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2012
United Nations (2011) United nations model double taxation convention between developed and developing countries. United Nations, New York. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/documents/UN_Model_2011_Update.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2017
Wells B, Lowell C (2014) Tax base erosion: reformation of Section 482’s arm’s length standard. Florida Tax Rev 15(10):737–797
Wittendorf J (2010) Transfer pricing and the arm’s length principle in international tax law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Acknowledgement
The chapter is the result of the GA ČR no. 15-24867S “Small and medium size enterprises in global competition: Development of specific transfer pricing methodology reflecting their specificities”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Solilova, V., Nerudova, D. (2018). Transfer Pricing Rules for SMEs in the EU. In: Transfer Pricing in SMEs. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69065-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69065-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69064-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69065-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)