<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=959086704153666&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">

Tax audits within transfer pricing – beginning with the end in mind

‹ Back to the articles

PwC-skatteradgivning-FormWe see a growing scrutinity and increasing sophistication of tax authories and a growth in audit activity. Preparing the company on an on-gong basis for a future audit can often save both money and resources when an audit actually takes place. It’s worth remembering that it can also be difficult to re-create documentary evidence and calculations for several years back in time.

Arrangements that are likely to attracte greater tax authority scrutinity include:

  • Business restructuring (particularly where valuable intagibles have been transferred),
  • Intra-group financial arrangements,
  • Loss-making entities,
  • Groups with a low efficitve global tax rate,
  • Dealings with tax haven jurisdictions, and
  • Services in low cost jurisdictions i.e. where location savings are arguably derived.

We note that the tax authorities are presenting more detailed questions and the following preparatory measures can be of major importance in the context of a future audit and reduces the likelyhood of a tax authority adjustment.

  • In respect of actual behaviour, ensure that the company is able to evidence that the functions and risk profile of the various entities are correctly reflected in the behaviour of the employees.
  • Being able to evidence that intra-group agreements are actually complied with and that the risk allocation described in the agreement between the parties is also applied, in practice.
  • Being able to provide evidence of the commercial nature of a given measure or procedure, and that it is not tax reasons that has resulted in the change. Ensuring, based on documentation (minutes of board meetings or mapping of decisions taken) that the company is able to evidence how decision-making and risk assumption is handled as regards to the key functions within the operations.
  • Financial analyses and reports from third parties can provide an objective market perspective.

In certain cases, it can be appropriate to request an advance pricing agreement, ”APA”, from the relevant competent authority in order to prevent future double taxation in a dispute with the tax authorities. This applies, not the least, in situations where subjective assessments must be made or when it is uncertain if all of the countries involved have the same interpretation and application of the arm’s length principle.

When a dispute arises, a mutual agreement procedure, ”MAP” can serve as an alternative to a court process. The aim of a mutual agreement procedure is that the competent authorities that are concerned can, through negotiations with each other, mitigate the double taxation.

Read more about audit preparedness in the following article.

Do you have any questions on corporate taxation?

Maria Plannthin & Anders Forslund

Maria Plannthin & Anders Forslund

Maria Plannthin och Anders Forslund arbetar på PwC:s kontor i Stockholm. Maria och Anders är skatterådgivare och arbetar med internprissättning.
Maria: 072-353 06 71, maria.plannthin@pwc.com
Anders: 076-869 52 76, anders.forslund@pwc.com

Leave a comment

Related articles

Read the article

Public CbCR: Romania leads the way but Sweden is not far behind

In 2021, the EU Directive on Public Country-by-Country Reporting (“CbcR”) obligation came into force, by making it mandatory for certain ...

Read the article
Read the article

Pillar II - draft bill submitted to the Legal Council

OECD and G20 have been working on a project within the Inclusive Framework regarding a global minimum tax (Pillar II) for a number of ...

Read the article
Read the article

Update of OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct are a set of recommendations directed at multinational ...

Read the article