-
Thin Capitalisation and the Arm’s Length Principle: Lessons from Norway’s Supreme Court
A recent Norwegian Supreme Court case cuts to the heart of a question that does not come up often enough in transfer pricing practice: how do thin capitalisation rules interact with the arm’s length principle when pricing intercompany debt? At first glance, thin cap may feel like a separate discipline. But where it operates through…
-
Working Capital Adjustments in Transfer Pricing: Lessons from a Portuguese Court Case
A recent Portuguese arbitration case cuts to the heart of a question that comes up regularly in transfer pricing practice: when are working capital adjustments appropriate, and how far can a tax authority go in dismissing them? The case involves a limited-risk distributor, a TNMM benchmarking study, and a tax authority that accepted the comparable…
-
Dutch Guidance on the Cost-Plus Method: Key Lessons for Transfer Pricing
This week’s TP update takes us to the Netherlands. The Dutch tax authorities have issued practical guidance that’s worth a close read for anyone applying or defending a cost-plus model. In May 2025, the Dutch Tax Authorities’ Coordination Group Transfer Pricing (CGVP) released practical guidance on applying the cost-plus method, particularly for intra-group supplies that…
-
Kenya’s Pineapple Case: What It Means for Transfer Pricing Globally
Our latest transfer pricing update takes us to Kenya, where a dispute involving the growing and selling of pineapples evolved into a fundamental debate about tested party selection, functional analysis, and the limits of contractual risk allocation under transfer pricing regulations. The case illustrates how tax authorities evaluate controlled transactions, assess transfer pricing risks, and…
-
Indian Transfer Pricing Case Law Update: When “At-Cost” Pricing Prevails Over Mark-Ups
The first transfer pricing update of 2026 takes us to India, where a recent Mumbai Tribunal decision involving Shell offers important guidance for multinational enterprises navigating complex transfer pricing regulations. The case addressed a fundamental question relevant to many controlled transactions: can highly specialized technical services be priced at cost, or must a mark-up always be applied under the arm’s length principle? As the…
-
UK Transfer Pricing Update: HMRC Adopts a “Meet-in-the-Middle” Approach to Transfer Pricing Ranges
In this week’s transfer pricing update, we turn to the United Kingdom, where HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)—the UK’s primary tax authority—has released guidance clarifying how it intends to apply the arm’s-length range when reviewing controlled transactions. Under the arm’s length principle, related-party dealings must reflect prices that unrelated parties would agree under comparable market…
-
Czechia Transfer Pricing Update: Cost-plus Model Doesn’t Automatically Rescue Non-deductible Costs
Transfer Pricing in Czechia This week’s transfer pricing update heads to the Czech Republic, where a recent ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (SAC) has clarified the limits of the cost plus method for intragroup services when it comes to tax deductibility of costs. A subsidiary using a cost plus recharge…
-
Transfer Pricing & StockBased Compensation: Lessons from Ireland’s First TAC SBC Ruling
Ireland’s First Stock-Based Compensation Ruling by the TAC Equity incentives—stock options, restricted shares, or similar instruments—are a staple of compensation packages in multinational groups. But their accounting treatment sometimes clashes with transfer pricing logic, especially when subsidiaries recognize stock basec compensation costs in profit & loss even though they never funded or issued them. A…
-
Transfer Pricing in Argentina: Risks of a Static Tested-Party Approach vs. the OECD Dynamic Model
Argentina diverges notably from the OECD’s recommended transfer pricing framework by enshrining a static tested‑party approach for intercompany pricing—mandating that the local Argentine entity always be the tested party. This stance contrasts sharply with the OECD’s dynamic approach, which aligns tested-party selection with functions, assets, and risks, comparability, and reliability. This misalignment heightens transfer pricing…
-
PepsiCo vs Commissioner of Taxation: A Landmark Ruling on Transfer Pricing Compliance
A recent High Court of Australia decision has set a powerful precedent in the world of transfer pricing compliance. In the closely watched case of PepsiCo vs Commissioner of Taxation, the court sided with the multinational beverage giant in rejecting the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) attempt to extract and reclassify a portion of product sales…