In this edition of the newsletter, you will find the most important national and global developments in tax law that are (closely) related to the transfer pricing world.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
In the past month, we successfully completed several challenging and noteworthy projects, including:
If you would like to know more about these topics, please feel free to contact us.
On 22 April, the Australian Taxation Office updated its practical compliance guideline (PCG) 2019/1 on transfer pricing for inbound distribution arrangements. The update for example tightens APA references, clarifies ATO’s view on value-creating activities, and introduces a “white zone” for lower-risk scenarios (link here).
On 15 April, the tax authorities updated their guidelines on mutual agreement procedures (MAP) and advance pricing arrangements (APA), including clarifications on amended tax return MAP requests and retroactive APA rollbacks.
On 13 April, the Finnish Tax Administration issued new guidance on how to apply the Pillar Two safe harbour provisions and the transition rule for groups in the initial phase of international activity. It explains when simplified calculations can be used instead of full top-up tax computations. It also sets out the key conditions and the filing approach at the jurisdictional level (link here).
The Italian Revenue Agency challenged a cost deduction, arguing that the invoices and supporting documentation were too generic to demonstrate the actual provision of the services, as well as their relevance and reasonableness. An Italian company deducted consultancy costs charged by its parent company under an intra-group services agreement covering consultancy, organisational support, banking relations, and contract planning.
The Italian Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Revenue Agency, holding that the existence of an intra-group agreement and invoices alone was insufficient to support deductibility. The Court confirmed that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the actual services rendered and the connection between the costs incurred and the business activity.
On 13 April, the Tax Administration for Direct Taxes introduced the OECD Amount B simplified transfer pricing approach for baseline marketing and distribution activities in covered jurisdictions. It applies to fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2025
On 16 April, the OECD published its Secretary-General Tax Report to the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, outlining recent developments in international tax cooperation, including progress on BEPS minimum standards, the global minimum tax framework, and tax transparency initiatives.
The following updates has been provided by our network partner, BTTP.
In recent years, Polish tax authorities have been paying closer attention to intra-group settlements, especially those involving group services. The judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszow of 24 October 2024, case no. I SA/Rz 380/24, demonstrates that for transfer pricing purposes it is not enough to have transfer pricing documentation, invoices or internal cost allocation matrices. The taxpayer must be able to demonstrate that services were actually performed, that they brought a specific benefit to the Polish company and that the allocation method accurately reflects the actual use of the services. If such evidence is absent, the payment may not only be challenged as a tax-deductible expense but may also be treated as a disguised dividend paid to the shareholder, which may trigger withholding tax obligations (link here).
When assessing transfer pricing documentation obligations, the full value of cash flows within a given arrangement will not always be decisive. What matters is the actual nature of the transaction between the related parties. This approach was confirmed in the latest individual interpretation of the Director of the National Revenue Information Service (hereinafter: KIS) concerning a model in which a related party coordinated foreign exchange transactions with an unrelated bank. The tax authority agreed that, for TP documentation threshold purposes, the value of the controlled transaction may be limited to the fee due to the related party for its coordination service, rather than the full value of the foreign exchange turnover. This is an important distinction from classic financial transactions, such as loans, where the transaction value is generally determined by reference to the principal amount, not merely the interest. However, the key point is that the related party must genuinely act as an intermediary or coordinator, without financing the transaction, earning from the underlying transaction value or assuming significant risks (link here).
In Poland, subsequent changes to an exit fee in an intra-group restructuring will not always be treated as a transfer pricing adjustment. A recent individual interpretation of the Director of KIS shows that simply including a clause allowing for a future review of the fee is insufficient to meet the requirements of Article 11e of the CIT Act. If the exit fee is reduced at a later stage based on an updated valuation, actual financial results and new forecasts, the tax authority may conclude that it is not a TP adjustment to be settled retrospectively, but an ordinary cost adjustment to be recognised on a current basis, in the period in which the correcting document is received. This is an important signal for groups planning reorganisations in Poland: the design of the exit fee adjustment mechanism and the timing of the adjustment may have a direct impact on the tax treatment of the costs (link here).
Joint participation in a project should not automatically be treated as creating related party status for transfer pricing purposes. The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that entering into a consortium agreement between independent entities does not mean that settlements between the consortium members become controlled transactions. For TP obligations to arise, specific links defined in the CIT Act must be identified, rather than merely the existence of cooperation or the allocation of tasks, costs or revenues within a joint project. This is an important ruling for sectors where consortium structures are commonly used, particularly in construction, infrastructure, and energy. The judgment is a useful reminder that TP documentation obligations should follow from the actual relationship between the parties, not merely from the legal form used to organise the project (link here).
On 24 April, the Ministry of Finance published in the Official Gazette the rulebook on setting at arm’s length interest rates for 2026, which is effective as of 2 May. It confirms that taxpayers can either apply the rulebook or use the OECD-based arm’s length methods and apply them consistently across all intercompany loans.
On 30 April, the South African Revenue Service published draft notices for public comments on its new bilateral APA programme. The drafts cover who can apply, the fees, rejection criteria, application processes and requirements, the content of a preliminary APA, and the procedures for operating the programme. The due date for comments is 29 May 2026 (link here).
On 8 April, the Turkish Revenue Administration published draft return and notification forms for the Global Minimum Top-up Tax under Pillar Two (link here).
On 7 April, the Swiss Federal Tax Administration confirmed that the OECD Pillar Two Side-by-Side package safe harbours apply in Switzerland. The Simplified ETR safe harbour applies for fiscal years starting 31 December 2025, other safe harbours from 1 January 2026, and the Transitional CbC safe harbour is extended to fiscal years beginning on 31 December 2027 and ending by 30 June 2029.
On 24 April, HMRC updated its Intangible Assets Manual to reflect changes made by the Finance Act 2026. The changes apply to transfers and grants of rights in intangible assets made on or after 1 January (link here).
Thank you for taking the time to read this edition of our newsletter. I hope you found the insights and updates valuable. Do you have any questions or need further information? Contact us today to get expert advice on worldwide transfer pricing matters and developments.
If you have not already done so, subscribe to our Quantera Global newsletter here and join over 2,000 finance and tax leaders in receiving our newsletter, webinar invitations, latest trends, and sneak peeks into the world of transfer pricing in your inbox every month.
Best regards,
Adriaan van der Heijden
Partner at Quantera Global
On 13 May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) released its judgment in the Stellantis Portugal case. The case addresses a topic that has been debated for years within multinational groups, transfer pricing teams, and indirect tax specialists alike: Can a transfer pricing adjustment trigger VAT? At first sight, this may […]
In this edition of the newsletter, you will find the most important national and global developments in tax law that are (closely) related to the transfer pricing world. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Quantera Global news, developments, and blogs Quantera Global Specialties In the past month, we successfully completed several challenging and noteworthy projects, including: […]
In a recent episode of The Transfer Pricing Method, host Adriaan van der Heijden spoke with Katrine Ernest Haunstrup of Censio Tax and Emile Monfils of Quantera Global about transfer pricing controversy management. Their discussion explored why transfer pricing audits arise, what makes documentation truly audit-ready, and how multinational groups can better prepare for scrutiny from tax authorities. Below are the key takeaways for tax and finance leaders looking to […]