Transfer mispricing

Last updated

Transfer mispricing, also known as transfer pricing manipulation or fraudulent transfer pricing, [1] refers to trade between related parties at prices meant to manipulate markets or to deceive tax authorities. The legality of the process varies between tax jurisdictions; most regard it as a type of fraud or tax evasion.

Contents

Generally, if two independent, unrelated parties negotiate with one other for a financial transaction and eventually reach a price, a transaction in correct market price will take place. According to the arm's length principle, the price at which the transaction occurs is preferred for tax purposes, as it is a fair reflection of the value of the goods or services. [2]

However, when the parties that negotiate a transaction are related, they may set an artificially lower price with the intention to minimise their taxes. Because of these tax benefits, transfer mispricing is favored by a majority of large enterprises. [3]

Examples

Assume company A, a multinational which produces a product in Africa and sells it in the United States, processes its produce through three subsidiary companies: X (in Africa), Y (in a tax haven, usually an offshore financial center) and Z (in the US), each of which acts under instruction from A. Company X sells its product to Company Y at an artificially low price, resulting in a low profit and a low tax for Company X in Africa. Company Y then sells the product to Company Z at an artificially high price, almost as high as the retail price at which Company Z then sells the final product in the US. As a result, Company Z also records a low profit and, therefore, a low tax. Most of the apparent profit is made by Company Y, even though it acts purely as a middleman without adding much (if any) value to the product (it is likely that the products never pass the country Y, but are shipped directly from X to Z) Because Company Y operates in a tax haven, it pays very little tax, leading to increased profits for the parent Company A. Both jurisdictions of companies X and Z are deprived of tax income, which they would have been entitled to if the product had at each stage been traded at the market rate. [4]

In the previous example it is not a coincidence that the selected country was from Africa. Although the amount of empirical analysis about transfer pricing is quite small, it is clear that the amount of trade mispricing occurring in African exports is higher than that of the developed world, since in Africa there is the insufficient implementation of OECD guidelines and generally less air-tight laws.

About 60% of capital flight from Africa is from improper transfer pricing. [5] Such capital flight from the developing world is estimated at ten times the size of aid it receives and twice the debt service it pays. [6] [7] The African Union reports estimates that about 30% of Sub-Saharan Africa's GDP has been moved to tax havens. [8] One tax analyst believed that if the money were paid, most of the continent would be "developed" by now. [9]

Another example is for instance some company producing cars, which has its HQ in Japan and its subsidiary in India. Suppose that the Japanese operations have losses whereas the Indian subsidiary has profits. Even though the Indian subsidiary shows profits, because of the purchases of a component from Japan parent company for an unreasonable high price, the profit of the Indian operations will come down. Therefore, its tax outgo will come down, which is great for the company as a whole. Similarly, the loss of the Japanese firm declines, because of receiving this additional money for the component from Indian subsidiary. The result is that the company producing cars, which composes of the HQ and the subsidiary, has benefited by paying less taxes. [10]

Connection to rational asymmetric development

In general, there is some connection between globalization and concerns about unbalanced development, due to the fact that transfer mispricing has also contributed to rational asymmetric development, according to Asongu: “it refers to unfair practices of globalisation adopted by advanced nations to the detriment and impoverishment of less developed countries”. [11]

Another natural and generalizing example of wrong pricing, which lay stress on rational asymmetric development and the fact that the pricing throughout countries incorrectly varies significantly explains Stiglitz : “The average European cow gets a subsidy of $2 a day; more than half of the people in the developing world live on less than that. It appears that it is better to be a cow in Europe than to be a poor person in a developing country…… Without subsidies, it would not pay for the United States to produce cotton; with them, the United States is, as we have noted, the world's largest cotton exporter” [12]

Avoiding transfer mispricing

This issue of prices, for which good and services are sold between the connected persons is addressed by the OECD Guidelines in accordance with international agreements to avoid double taxation. Since in the second half of the 20th century, transfer mispricing had started to become a major problem and therefore, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) needed to unify regulatory frameworks to efficiently combat this phenomenon. Also, since this issue is concerning various countries, it can only be solved by meticulous cooperation between countries, so the international agreements needed to be made to set forth regulatory guidelines.

Concerning this topic, OECD has newly in July 2017 published new consolidated version of the OECD Guidelines called OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2017, which includes the revised guidance on safe harbours adopted in 2013, as well as some corrections of the BEPS Actions Plan. The keystone of this OECD Guideline is the Arm's Length Principle, defined in the Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention as "conditions are made or imposed between the two enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ from those which would be made between independent enterprises, then any profits which would, but for those conditions, have accrued to one of the enterprises, but, by reason of those conditions, have not so accrued, may be included in the profits of that enterprise and taxed accordingly." [13]

Governments have also devised many measures to avoid the misuse of transfer pricing thanks to these OECD publications, which outline several methods that may be used to assess legitimacy of a given transaction. Exactly there are 5 extensively used methods: The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, The Resale Price method (RPM), The Cost Plus (C+) method, The Profit Split Method (PSM) and The Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Transactional Net Margin Method is the most commonly used method to verify the correctness of transfer pricing to make sure that it is not case of transport mispricing. One advantage of this method is that all information necessary for application of this method are freely available from all public and commercial databases. [14]

Solutions include corporate “country-by-country reporting” where corporations disclose activities in each country and thereby prohibit the use of tax havens where real economic activity occurs. [5] Progress is being made in this direction, as documented on a map. [15] Whereas appropriate transfer pricing of tangible goods can be established by comparison with prices charged for similar goods to unrelated parties, transfer pricing of intangible goods, products of intellectual efforts, rarely has comparable equivalents. Transfer prices then have to be established based on expectations of future income. [16] Mispricing is rife.[ citation needed ] Khadija Sharife and John Grobler, writing for the World Policy Journal, [17] exposed $3.5 billion minimum in transfer mispricing of African diamonds from Angola and DRC, through the use of intra-company valuation, shell companies and tax havens, notably Dubai and Switzerland.

In Sweden (a high-tax country) it was popular in 2005–2010 to have "interest loops", where simple loans or investments were placed between a Swedish company and a tax haven company in both directions, and where the interest rate was mispriced to create a tax deduction in Sweden. This loophole was closed in 2013.

See also

Related Research Articles

Corporate haven, corporate tax haven, or multinational tax haven is used to describe a jurisdiction that multinational corporations find attractive for establishing subsidiaries or incorporation of regional or main company headquarters, mostly due to favourable tax regimes, and/or favourable secrecy laws, and/or favourable regulatory regimes.

A multinational corporation (MNC) – also called a multinational enterprise (MNE), transnational enterprise (TNE), transnational corporation (TNC), international corporation, or stateless corporation, with subtle but contrasting senses – is a corporate organization that owns and controls the production of goods or services in at least one country other than its home country. Control is considered an important aspect of an MNC, to distinguish it from international portfolio investment organizations, such as some international mutual funds that invest in corporations abroad simply to diversify financial risks. Black's Law Dictionary suggests that a company or group should be considered a multinational corporation "if it derives 25% or more of its revenue from out-of-home-country operations".

Transfer pricing refers to the rules and methods for pricing transactions within and between enterprises under common ownership or control. Because of the potential for cross-border controlled transactions to distort taxable income, tax authorities in many countries can adjust intragroup transfer prices that differ from what would have been charged by unrelated enterprises dealing at arm’s length. The OECD and World Bank recommend intragroup pricing rules based on the arm’s-length principle, and 19 of the 20 members of the G20 have adopted similar measures through bilateral treaties and domestic legislation, regulations, or administrative practice. Countries with transfer pricing legislation generally follow the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations in most respects, although their rules can differ on some important details.

Tax avoidance is the legal usage of the tax regime in a single territory to one's own advantage to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. A tax shelter is one type of tax avoidance, and tax havens are jurisdictions that facilitate reduced taxes. Tax avoidance should not be confused with tax evasion, which is illegal. Both tax evasion and tax avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system.

Double taxation is the levying of tax by two or more jurisdictions on the same income, asset, or financial transaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland</span> Irish corporate tax regime

Ireland's Corporate Tax System is a central component of Ireland's economy. In 2016–17, foreign firms paid 80% of Irish corporate tax, employed 25% of the Irish labour force, and created 57% of Irish OECD non-farm value-add. As of 2017, 25 of the top 50 Irish firms were U.S.–controlled businesses, representing 70% of the revenue of the top 50 Irish firms. By 2018, Ireland had received the most U.S. § Corporate tax inversions in history, and Apple was over one–fifth of Irish GDP. Academics rank Ireland as the largest tax haven; larger than the Caribbean tax haven system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation in the Republic of Ireland</span> Irish tax code

Taxation in Ireland in 2017 came from Personal Income taxes, and Consumption taxes, being VAT and Excise and Customs duties. Corporation taxes represents most of the balance, but Ireland's Corporate Tax System (CT) is a central part of Ireland's economic model. Ireland summarises its taxation policy using the OECD's Hierarchy of Taxes pyramid, which emphasises high corporate tax rates as the most harmful types of taxes where economic growth is the objective. The balance of Ireland's taxes are Property taxes and Capital taxes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arm's length principle</span> Parties to a transaction are on an equal footing

The arm's length principle (ALP) is the condition or the fact that the parties of a transaction are independent and on an equal footing. Such a transaction is known as an "arm's-length transaction".

Louis Dreyfus Company B.V. (LDC), also called the Louis-Dreyfus Group, is a French merchant firm that is involved in agriculture, food processing, international shipping, and finance. The company owns and manages hedge funds, ocean vessels, develops and operates telecommunications infrastructures, and it is also involved in real estate development, management and ownership. Along with Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and Cargill, the Louis-Dreyfus Group is one of the four "ABCD" companies that dominate world agricultural commodity trading.

A tax haven is a term, sometimes used negatively and for political reasons, to describe a place with very low tax rates for non-domiciled investors, even if the official rates may be higher.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Double Irish arrangement</span> Irish corporate tax avoidance tool

The Double Irish arrangement was a base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) corporate tax avoidance tool used mostly by United States multinationals since the late 1980s to avoid corporate taxation on non-U.S. profits. It was the largest tax avoidance tool in history and by 2010 was shielding US$100 billion annually in US multinational foreign profits from taxation, and was the main tool by which US multinationals built up untaxed offshore reserves of US$1 trillion from 2004 to 2018. Traditionally, it was also used with the Dutch Sandwich BEPS tool; however, 2010 changes to tax laws in Ireland dispensed with this requirement.

Formulary apportionment, also known as unitary taxation, is a method of splitting the total pre-tax profit earned by a multinational between the tax jurisdictions where it does business. It is an alternative to separate entity accounting, under which a branch or subsidiary within the jurisdiction is accounted for as a separate entity, requiring prices for transactions with other parts of the corporation or group to be assigned according to the arm's length standard commonly used in transfer pricing. In contrast, formulary apportionment attributes a portion of a multinational’s total worldwide profit to each jurisdiction, based on factors such as the proportion of sales, assets or payroll in that jurisdiction.

Taxes in Germany are levied by the federal government, the states (Länder) as well as the municipalities (Städte/Gemeinden). Many direct and indirect taxes exist in Germany; income tax and VAT are the most significant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">OECD</span> Intergovernmental economic organisation

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is an intergovernmental organisation with 38 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. It is a forum whose member countries describe themselves as committed to democracy and the market economy, providing a platform to compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practices, and coordinate domestic and international policies of its members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Base erosion and profit shifting</span> Multinational tax avoidance tools

Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) refers to corporate tax planning strategies used by multinationals to "shift" profits from higher-tax jurisdictions to lower-tax jurisdictions or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, thus "eroding" the "tax-base" of the higher-tax jurisdictions using deductible payments such as interest or royalties. For the government, the tax base is a company's income or profit. Tax is levied as a percentage on this income/profit. When that income / profit is transferred to another country or tax haven, the tax base is eroded and the company does not pay taxes to the country that is generating the income. As a result, tax revenues are reduced and the government is detained. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) define BEPS strategies as "exploiting gaps and mismatches in tax rules". While some of the tactics are illegal, the majority are not. Because businesses that operate across borders can utilize BEPS to obtain a competitive edge over domestic businesses, it affects the righteousness and integrity of tax systems. Furthermore, it lessens deliberate compliance, when taxpayers notice multinationals legally avoiding corporate income taxes. Because developing nations rely more heavily on corporate income tax, they are disproportionately affected by BEPS.

The Tax Attractiveness Index (T.A.X.) indicates the attractiveness of a country's tax environment and the possibilities of tax planning for companies. The T.A.X. is constructed for 100 countries worldwide starting from 2005 on. The index covers 20 equally weighted components of real-world tax systems which are relevant for corporate location decisions. The index ranges between zero and one. The more the index values approaches one, the more attractive is the tax environment of a certain country from a corporate perspective. The 100 countries include 41 European countries, 19 American countries, 6 Caribbean countries, 18 countries that are located in Africa & Middle East, and 16 countries that fall into the Asia-Pacific region.

The OECD G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project is an OECD/G20 project to set up an international framework to combat tax avoidance by multinational enterprises ("MNEs") using base erosion and profit shifting tools. The project, led by the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs, began in 2013 with OECD and G20 countries, in a context of financial crisis and tax affairs. Currently, after the BEPS report has been delivered in 2015, the project is now in its implementation phase, 116 countries are involved including a majority of developing countries. During two years, the package was developed by participating members on an equal footing, as well as widespread consultations with jurisdictions and stakeholders, including business, academics and civil society. And since 2016, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS provides for its 140 members a platform to work on an equal footing to tackle BEPS, including through peer review of the BEPS minimum standards, and monitoring of implementation of the BEPS package as a whole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Apple's EU tax dispute</span> Tax dispute involving Apple, Ireland, and the EU

Apple's EU tax dispute refers to an investigation by the European Commission into tax arrangements between Apple and Ireland, which allowed the company to pay close to zero corporate tax over 10 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ireland as a tax haven</span> Allegation that Ireland facilitates tax base erosion and profit shifting

Ireland has been labelled as a tax haven or corporate tax haven in multiple financial reports, an allegation which the state has rejected in response. Ireland is on all academic "tax haven lists", including the § Leaders in tax haven research, and tax NGOs. Ireland does not meet the 1998 OECD definition of a tax haven, but no OECD member, including Switzerland, ever met this definition; only Trinidad & Tobago met it in 2017. Similarly, no EU–28 country is amongst the 64 listed in the 2017 EU tax haven blacklist and greylist. In September 2016, Brazil became the first G20 country to "blacklist" Ireland as a tax haven.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global minimum corporate tax rate</span> Proposed international tax scheme

The global minimum corporate tax rate, or simply the global minimum tax, is a minimum rate of tax on corporate income internationally agreed upon and accepted by individual jurisdictions. Each country would be eligible to a share of revenue generated by the tax. The aim is to reduce tax competition between countries and discourage multinational corporations (MNC) from profit shifting to achieve tax avoidance.

References

  1. ↑ "Transfer Pricing". Tax Justice Network. Taxjustice Network. Archived from the original on 2012-10-13. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  2. ↑ "How transfer mispricing works". The Daily Star. Star Business Desk. 15 July 2012. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  3. ↑ Juranek, Steffen; Schindler, Dirk; Schjelderup, Guttorm (February 2018). "Transfer pricing regulation and taxation of royalty payments". Journal of Public Economic Theory. 20 (1): 67–84. doi:10.1111/jpet.12260. hdl: 10419/168118 . S2CID   157870981.
  4. ↑ "How transfer mispricing works". The daily star. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
  5. 1 2 Sharife, Khadija (2011-06-18). "'Transparency' hides Zambia's lost billions". Al-Jazeera . Retrieved 2011-07-26.
  6. ↑ Kristina Froberg and Attiya Waris (2011). "Introduction". Bringing the billions back: How Africa and Europe can end illicit capital flight (PDF). Stockholm: Forum Syd Forlag. ISBN   9789189542594 . Retrieved 2012-07-26.[ permanent dead link ]
  7. ↑ "Africa losing billions in tax evasion". aljazeera.com. 16 January 2012. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
  8. ↑ Mathiason, Nick (2007-01-21). "Western bankers and lawyers 'rob Africa of $150bn every year'". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2011-07-05.
  9. ↑ "Africa losing billions in tax evasion". Al Jazeera. 16 January 2012. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
  10. ↑ TOJO, José (16 May 2015). "What is mean by transfer pricing and transfer mispricing? - IndianEconomy.net". Indian Economy. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  11. ↑ Asongu, S. A. (2015). "Rational Asymmetric Development, Piketty and the Spirit of Poverty in Africa". African Governance and Development Institute. Yaoundé. (15/006).
  12. ↑ Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2007). Making globalization work ([Pbk. ed.]. ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN   978-0393330281.
  13. ↑ OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10 July 2017. doi:10.1787/tpg-2017-en. ISBN   9789264262737.
  14. ↑ OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10 July 2017. doi:10.1787/tpg-2017-en. ISBN   9789264262737.
  15. ↑ Atlas Fiscalisten N.V.: Status of country-by-country reporting in the BEPS-participating countries (OECD and G20), update: February 2, 2016.
  16. ↑ Gio Wiederhold (2013): Valuing Intellectual Capital, Multinationals and Taxhavens Chapter 4; Springer Verlag, New York, August 2013.
  17. ↑ http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/winter2013/kimberleys-illicit-process
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.