Posts Tagged ‘comparable uncontrolled price method’

Mexican Transfer Pricing Rules in a Nutshell

May 5, 2014

The Basics of Documentation, Penalties, and Red Flags   Mexico Flag

 

Mexico first enacted transfer pricing documentation requirements in 1997. The Mexican Income Tax Law (MITL) requires application of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines (OECD Guidelines) to the extent consistent with the MITL and any applicable treaty. The transfer pricing rules are included primarily in Articles 86, 215, 216, and 216-BIS of the MITL.1

Article 86 discusses transfer pricing documentation. Article 215 discusses comparability, business cycles, permanent establishments and transfer pricing, tax havens, and OECD Guidelines. Article 215 also states that two or more persons (parties) are deemed to be related when one participates directly or indirectly in the administration, control, or capital stock of the other (person or party).2 Article 216 discusses transfer pricing methods, ranges, and selection of the most appropriate method.

Mexican taxpayers are required to maintain transfer pricing documentation demonstrating that intercompany transactions are conducted at arm’s length. Taxpayers whose revenue in the preceding fiscal year did not exceed MXP 13 million (MXP 3 million for professional services companies) are not required to comply with the documentation requirements, unless the foreign party is located in a preferential tax regime (on audit these smaller companies must still prove intercompany transactions are arm’s length). Transfer pricing documentation must be in place at the time the company files its annual income tax return (typically by March 31 of the following year) and must be kept along with the company’s accounting records for at least five years after the filing of the last tax return for each year.3

Article 86 (Section XII) of the MITL requires taxpayers to include the following elements in transfer pricing documentation (Mexican tax authorities require all documentation to be in Spanish):

  • Name of the company and corporate name
  • Names of the related parties
  • Description of the ownership structure – covering all related parties engaged in transactions of potential relevance
  • Overview of the taxpayer’s business
  • Analysis of economic factors affecting the pricing of intercompany transactions
  • A description of the functions performed, assets employed, and risks borne by each related party to the intercompany transaction (i.e., functional analysis)
  • Annex 9 of the Information Return requires a confirmation of the existence of transfer pricing documentation for each intercompany transaction, the amount of the transaction, the type of transaction, the gross or operating margin obtained by the tested party for one of the transactions, the transfer pricing method used for each transaction4, the taxpayer identification number of the related party, and the country of residence and address at the tax domicile of the related party
  •  Appendix 32 of the Statutory Tax Audit Report (“Dictamen Fiscal”)5 must be completed and filed by June 30, including details of the intra-group transactions carried out by the related party, information on the related party, as well as some details of the analysis
  • Appendix 33 of the Statutory Tax Audit Report must be completed and filed by June 30, including information with regard to whether the taxpayer has documented the arm’s length nature of all domestic and cross-border intra-group transactions
  •  The Questionnaire of Transfer Pricing Matters must be completed by the external auditor filing the Statutory Tax Audit Report. This questionnaire is the auditor’s responsibility, and it covers what the auditor reviewed relating to transfer pricing documentation.

 

Transfer Pricing Penalties

The transfer pricing penalties are included in the Federal Fiscal Code. Article 76 states that if taxpayers do not have documentation supporting the determination of taxable income, and a transfer pricing adjustment is determined by the SAT, penalties could vary from 55% to 75% of the omitted taxes, plus surcharges and inflation adjustments.

When the taxpayers have transfer pricing documentation that supports the determination of taxable income and an adjustment is proposed, the penalty is 27.5% to 37.5% (a 50 percent reduction in the penalty if the taxpayer keeps supporting transfer pricing documentation).

If a transfer pricing adjustment reduces the net operating loss (NOL), the penalty ranges from 30% to 40% of the difference between the determined NOL and the NOL in the tax return, plus surcharges and inflation adjustments. In the case of over-determined NOLs, penalties could be reduced to 15% to 20% of the overstated NOL if the taxpayer has transfer pricing documentation.

 

Red Flags

Mexican tax authorities are focusing audits on the following transfer pricing areas:

  • Business Restructuring – The following business structures are high risk from an audit perspective: limited risk structures, migration of intangible property and centralization of functions and risks in favorable tax jurisdictions, highly leveraged structures, and cost-sharing agreements
  • Headquarter Service Fees – The Mexican tax authority Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT) is challenging service fees paid to a foreign related party. A frequent concern is lack of sufficient evidence to establish that the services were provided, and that there was a business reason to pay for them. Taxpayers must show that the following tests are met:
  1. The “strictly indispensable deductibility criteria”
  2. The service was actually received
  3. The service received carried an economic benefit
  4. The service is not duplicative
  5. The service is not stewardship
  • Certain Industries – Offshore drilling, mining, pharmaceuticals, automotive, retail, and tourism industries are under high scrutiny
  • Aggregation of Intercompany Transactions – Mexican tax authorities are challenging the grouping of products and different types of transactions. Also, the aggregation of operating results to test transactions is being disallowed, resulting in required separate analyses of purchases, sales, royalties, etc., rather than accepting overall operating results.

 

Footnotes:

Article 216-BIS of the Mexican Income Tax Law sets out the conditions under which a foreign related party with maquiladora operations in Mexico is considered to have a permanent establishment in that country. However, the foreign related party may be exempt of a permanent establishment if an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) is obtained with the tax authority. A discussion of rules relating to maquiladoras and APAs are outside the scope of this article.

2 The is no specific threshold for the entities to be considered related parties (even if there is a 1 percent ownership of the shares, the entities are considered related).

3 It is important for the taxpayer to have five years of transfer pricing documentation on hand since the statute of limitations on the assessment of transfer pricing adjustments is five years from filing date of the tax return. When the tax authority requests a taxpayer’s transfer pricing documentation, the taxpayer has 15 business days to submit it to the SAT.

4 Article 216 of the Mexican Income Tax Law defines six transfer pricing methods allowed for analysis of transactions between related parties. These methods are consistent with those defined in the OECD Guidelines: Comparable Uncontrolled Price, Resale Price, Cost Plus, Profit Split, Residual Profit Split, and Transactional Operating Profit (equivalent to the Transactional Net Margin Method in the OECD Guidelines). According to the Mexican regulations, companies must apply the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method in their transfer pricing analysis unless they are able to demonstrate that this method is not appropriate to determine that the transactions were conducted at arm’s length. Profit-based methods are to be applied if the CUP, Cost Plus, and Resale Price methods are not applicable.

5 According to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ guide “International Transfer Pricing 2013/14”, the following taxpayers must file a dictamen fiscal:

  • Companies that obtained gross receipts in excess of MXN 34,803,950 during the prior fiscal year (approximately USD 2.9 million)
  • Companies or groups of companies whose net worth (calculated pursuant to the Mexican Assets Tax Act) during the prior fiscal year exceeded MXN 69,607,920 (approximately USD 5.8 million)
  • Companies with at least 300 employees in every month of the prior fiscal year (1 January – 31 December)
  • PEs that fall in any of the above scenarios described under (1), (2) or (3)
  • Companies involved in or arising from a corporate division or a merger during the year of the transaction and during the subsequent year
  • Entities authorised to receive deductible charitable contributions
  • Companies in the liquidation period if they had the obligation during the prior fiscal year

Please feel free to use this contact form for any questions or further explanation on “Mexican Transfer Pricing Rules in a Nutshell”

Advertisements

Featured Article – Changes to Australia’s Transfer Pricing Rules

December 18, 2012

Australian-flag-waving

Transfer Pricing NEWS:

An exposure draft of legislation was released on November 22, 2012, “Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill 2013: Modernisation of transfer pricing rules—proposing changes to Australia’s domestic transfer pricing rules,” to introduce new Australian transfer pricing rules with significant self assessment and documentation requirements. The start date for these new rules has not been announced, but it is expected to be the date of Royal Assent of the amending legislation.

Apparently, these new rules are a response by the Australian Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) to recent losses in tax court. The most prominent example is the SNF case last year. In that case the Commissioner unsuccessfully argued for the use of the transactional net margin method of adjusting transfer prices over the comparable uncontrolled price method. It looks like the Commissioner is convincing the Federal Government to legislate the Commissioner’s interpretation of the old rules as the new rules.

The Exposure Draft proposes the repeal of Australia’s existing transfer pricing rules in Division 13 of Part III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the insertion of their replacements, as Subdivisions 815-B to 815-E of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Specifically:

  • 815-B: Arm’s length principle for cross-border conditions between entities
  • 815-C: Arm’s length principle for permanent establishments
  • 815-D: Record keeping requirements (Documentation)
  • 815-E: Special rules for trusts and partnerships.

This blog post will only focus on Subdivisions 815-B and 815-D. Of the four, I see these two as having relatively more consequence for taxpayers. For more information on 815-C and 815-E, please refer to the Exposure Draft (link to Exposure Draft at end of posting).

The new transfer pricing rules will operate on a self-assessment basis, unlike the old rules, which required the Commissioner to make a determination of an assessment. This burden has shifted to the taxpayer, who will need to assess its own transfer pricing arrangements to determine whether they comply with the new rules. If a taxpayer identifies that it has a non arm’s-length arrangement creating a ‘tax benefit’ in Australia, it should self-assess a transfer pricing adjustment to increase Australian taxable income to reflect an arm’s-length result (downward adjustments are not permitted under the proposed rules).

Arm’s Length Conditions

The draft legislation focuses on the ‘conditions’ that exist between entities and whether these are consistent with the ‘arm’s length conditions’. Arm’s length conditions are the conditions that may be expected between independent entities dealing wholly independently with one another in comparable circumstances. In identifying arm’s length conditions, regard must be had to the economic substance of what was actually done. Where the economic substance of what was done does not match the legal form, it is the economic substance that determines the ‘arm’s length conditions’.

The arm’s length conditions are to be determined using the most appropriate and reliable method. The method must be selected based on the comparable data available, and a comparability analysis must be performed. Five comparability factors (the comparability factors in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines) must be considered in this analysis. The five comparability factors are:

  1. Characteristics of property or services
  2. Functional analysis
  3. Contractual terms
  4. Economic circumstances
  5. Business strategies

An arrangement could be considered non-arm’s length if it does not contain a condition that third parties would have normally included in a comparable arrangement. Likewise, if a related party arrangement contains a condition that third parties would not normally agree to, this may also constitute a non-arm’s length arrangement. Note: There is great uncertainty as to how the Commissioner will apply this test in practice.

Transfer Pricing Benefit

There will be a ‘transfer pricing benefit’ where arm’s length conditions are applied and one of the following three outcomes would arise:

  1. The Australian entity’s taxable income for the income year is greater than actual conditions
  2. The Australian entity’s loss is less than actual conditions
  3. The Australian entity’s tax offsets are less than actual conditions

 Reconstruction

The draft Explanatory Memorandum states that the Commissioner can substitute actual dealings or arrangements if “independent entities would not have done what was actually done given the options that are realistically available to them.” Basically, the Commissioner is granted broad power to reconstruct transactions when the arrangements are not considered “substantially similar” to what would have occurred between independent parties, given the options realistically available to the Australian taxpayer. This statement in the Explanatory Memorandum is somewhat of a departure from the OECD Guidelines, which state:

“[r]estructuring of legitimate business transactions would be a wholly arbitrary exercise the inequity of which could be compounded by double taxation created where the other tax administration does not share the same views as to how the transaction should be structured.”

Unlike the OECD guidelines, the proposed rules do not require the existence of ‘exceptional circumstances’ before undertaking a reconstruction.

‘Optional’ Transfer Pricing Record Keeping (aka Documentation)

While the Exposure Draft does not make “transfer pricing ‘record keeping’” mandatory, it is in effect mandatory if the taxpayer wants to have a reasonably arguable position. Subdivision 815-D imposes burdensome self-assessment documentation requirements in order for a taxpayer to obtain a RAP. A RAP limits penalties to 10% (non deductible) versus 25% or more otherwise.

Where Taxpayers prepare robust transfer pricing documentation in accordance with the prescribed process, they should be deemed to have a RAP.

Records to satisfy 815-D:

  • Must be contemporaneous
  • Must explain how 815-B applied or did not apply to the entity
  • Must explain why applying 815-B best achieves consistency with the OECD Guidelines
  • Must identify both the ‘actual conditions’ and the ‘arm’s length conditions’
  • Must detail the method used and comparable circumstances relevant to identifying the ‘arm’s length conditions’
  • Must detail the difference, if any, between the ‘arm’s length conditions’ and the ‘actual conditions’

If documentation does not meet the RAP, taxpayers would be subject to a minimum penalty of 25% of the tax shortfall if the Commissioner makes an adjustment, subject to de minimis thresholds (generally $10,000 or 1% of taxable income). The potential penalty with a RAP is 10%.

Transfer Pricing INSIGHTS:

  1. Taxpayers should review their intercompany legal agreements to assess whether legal form and economic substance are aligned, and whether the terms and conditions are consistent with third party agreements.
  2. The Exposure Draft implies that a single set of arm’s-length conditions will exist. In practice, there is rarely a single arm’s-length price or outcome; taxpayers and tax authorities typically seek to identify a range of arm’s-length outcomes. The use of a range is not directly acknowledged in the Exposure Draft. While this is an area of uncertainty, taxpayers could attempt to refer to the OECD Guidelines to support the use of a range.
  3. Subdivision 815-B applies whether the entities are related or not, allowing the Commissioner to attack collusive behavior between unrelated parties, and potentially requiring the taxpayer who wants a Reasonably Arguable Position to document unrelated party transactions to show they are indeed unrelated party transactions.
  4. The Exposure draft gives the Commissioner great power with regard whether or not to make, and how to make, consequential adjustments. Although Subdivision 815-B operates on a self-assessment basis for the primary taxpayer, it does not operate on a self-assessment basis for any other ‘disadvantaged entity’ taxpayer that might be affected by ‘arm’s length conditions’ replacing the ‘actual conditions’. In such cases, the disadvantaged entity will need to ask the Commissioner to make a determination such as reducing its taxable income, increasing its loss, increasing a tax offset, or reducing the withholding tax payable in respect of interest or royalties. The Commissioner is only required to make such a determination where the Commissioner considers it is fair and reasonable to do so.
  5. The proposed de minimis rule does not provide much relief for taxpayers, since it will be necessary for taxpayers to calculate the value of potential transfer pricing adjustment exposures before they can identify whether their dealings fall below the threshold. A simpler approach – which would have been less onerous to the taxpayer – would have been to provide an exemption from penalties for transactions that fall below a certain threshold.
  6. In future transfer pricing cases, the Commissioner may be able to argue that a significant difference between results produced by a transactional method used by the taxpayer (e.g., the comparable uncontrolled price method), and a profit-based method (e.g., the transactional net margin method), suggests there are factors specific to the taxpayer’s situation that are not taken into account by the transactional method. Then, the Commissioner could rely on a profit-based method to defend an assessment of a ‘transfer pricing benefit’ even where the taxpayer is able to use a transactional method to establish that no such benefit exists (as the Commissioner attempted to do in the SNF case).
  7. For certain large and complex intercompany arrangements, I think the added uncertainty for taxpayers resulting from the Exposure Draft, and the additional documentation burden, increases the appeal of APAs.

Links to the Exposure Draft and Explanatory Memorandum:

Exposure Draft

Explanatory Memorandum


%d bloggers like this: