Quantera Global Newsletter – September 2026
9 September 2026
12 min read
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
- On 13 August, we published a blog prepared by our network partner TPS Romania on Romania’s new and stricter transfer pricing documentation requirements. The blog covers the revised thresholds, mandatory SPV filing for large taxpayers, content requirements and new benchmarking rules. You can read the blog here.
- On 17 August, we published a blog prepared by Enodo Advisors on how individuals can fall within the scope of transfer pricing rules in Poland. The blog covers when transactions involving individuals may qualify as controlled transactions, the relationships that can trigger transfer pricing obligations and the related documentation and reporting requirements. Read the blog here.
- Quantera Global is proud to announce the following new strategic alliances within its global network, further strengthening its worldwide transfer pricing capabilities:
Would you like to know more about our international alliance network? Visit our website here, where you can also find our recently published testimonials.
Quantera Global Specialties
In the past month, we successfully completed several challenging and noteworthy projects, including:
- A loan pricing grid,providing the global finance team with a pragmatic approach to setting at arm’s length interest rates for numerous new loan transactions to be issued throughout the year.
- We have finalised an IP transfer valuation study that was initially drafted by our client with severe help from AI. Through close collaboration, we were able to bring the study up to the quality standard we aim to achieve. One of the main pitfalls was that some statements appeared to present facts but were not yet supported by the underlying materials. We also identified certain AI-generated conclusions that were not supported by the report at that stage or by other studies and materials. The main issue, however, was that the initial valuation outcome was not sufficiently robust to be accepted by the transferee. Overall, it was a valuable opportunity to enhance the report together and to see how far AI has developed in such a short period of time.
If you would like to know more about these topics, please feel free to contact us.
News from around the world
Chile
On 24 August, the Chilean tax authority (SII) published the results of its 2025 transfer pricing audit activities. The report highlights increased use of data analytics and risk-based audit selection, with a particular focus on financial transactions, related-party services, royalties, intangibles and business restructurings. The SII also released new statistical indicators on international related-party transactions and Country-by-Country Reporting (“CbCR”) data.
India
- On 10 August, the Delhi High Court considered whether the Bright Line Test could be used to determine a transfer pricing adjustment for Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP”) expenses. Following its earlier decisions in the Sony Ericsson and Maruti Suzuki cases, the Court reaffirmed that the Bright Line Test is not a legally sanctioned method for determining transfer pricing adjustments in respect of AMP expenses and dismissed the appeals filed by the tax authorities. The Court noted, however, that any future Supreme Court ruling overturning these precedents would also apply to the case.
- On 10 August, the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution is not binding for tax years not covered by the MAP.
- On 12 August, the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ruled on several transfer pricing adjustments involving Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The tax authorities imposed TP adjustments on advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure, the manufacturing and networking segments, royalty payments and salary paid to expatriate employees.
The Tribunal rejected the tax authorities’ adjustments relating to advertising, marketing and promotion expenditure, concluding that in the absence of an arrangement with the associated enterprise, the expenditure could not be treated as a separate international transaction.
It also rejected the royalty adjustment due to unsuitable comparables presented by the tax authorities under the CUP method. The Tribunal further noted that separately benchmarking royalty payments after accepting the TNMM as the transfer pricing method for the manufacturing segment resulted in an impermissible double adjustment.
The Tribunal also upheld the taxpayer’s approach for its low-risk distribution transaction, based on segregated benchmarking and the use of the Berry Ratio. It concluded that the COGS were merely pass-through costs (based on flash title).
Finally, the expatriate salary disallowance was overturned.
Japan
On 7 August, the Japanese National Tax Agency (NTA) released updated administrative guidance and updated Q&As on Japan’s Pillar Two rules, reflecting the 2025 and 2026 tax reforms. The updates cover the Japanese IIR, UTPR and QDMTT and include guidance on the side-by-side safe harbour, the one-year extension of the transitional CbCR safe harbour, and new Q&As on the UTPR and QDMTT.
Malaysia
On 19 August, the Ministry of Finance made amendments to the Malaysian transfer pricing rules. The amendments update the definition of an MNE group as a group of associated enterprises with business establishments in two or more jurisdictions. They also introduce an offsetting adjustment mechanism, allowing a corresponding adjustment for the other party to a controlled transaction upon request and subject to approval by the Director General. The changes are deemed to apply from the 2023 year of assessment.
Mauritius
On 12 August, the Finance Act 2026 and the Economic and Financial Measures Act were published. The Finance Act clarifies several DMTT rules, including the treatment of investment funds and real estate investment vehicles, and extends the deadline for amended DMTT returns while reducing the penalty for non-payment. The Act also updates the VAT rules for digital and electronic services, including registration exemptions for certain foreign suppliers and changes affecting online marketplaces.
Netherlands
On 20 August, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the tax authorities and denied the deductibility of interest and related costs in connection with a post-acquisition internal financing restructuring involving a debt push-down.
The tax authorities refused the deduction of interest based on Article 10a of the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Act and also denied the deductibility of certain related costs (i.e., RCF and legal fees) that were passed down by the lender to the Dutch Finance company. Additionally, the tax authorities argued that the intercompany price paid for the Dutch operating company was too high and above the arm’s length value.
The taxpayer argued that the shareholder loan was linked to a third-party bank loan (parallelism) and that there were commercial motives behind this set-up. The District Court generally followed the taxpayer’s position, but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled otherwise and in favour of the tax authorities.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the debt was indirectly connected with the acquisition of an interest in an associated entity and fell within the bandwidth of Article 10a(1) of the Dutch Corporate Income Tax Act. Additionally, the rebuttal rule failed as the financial restructuring and set-up was driven by tax motives and the terms of the shareholder loan lacked sufficient parallelism to the third-party bank loan. Additionally, the pass-through of financing costs was rejected.
The reversal of burden of proof to the taxpayer was also applied for the incorrect answer in the tax return regarding the applicability of Article 10a.
The Court did not address the transfer pricing issue concerning the arm’s length value of the acquired company, as this would not have affected the outcome.
OECD
On 24 August, the OECD published the comments it received on its proposed revisions to Chapter VII of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines on intra-group services. Key themes were the application of the benefit test and proportionate documentation requirements. There was also an increased focus on digital and AI-enabled service models.
Poland
The following updates have been provided by our network partner, BTTP.
- TP obligations in a PGK should follow the PGK tax year
A recent individual tax ruling, issued following judgments of the administrative courts, provides important guidance for companies belonging to a Polish tax capital group (PGK) whose tax year differs from their financial year. The Director of the National Revenue Information (KIS) confirmed that transfer pricing obligations should be aligned with the PGK’s tax year: local transfer pricing documentation and TPR information should cover the same period. The same approach applies to the Master File, and the consolidated financial statement included in it. Importantly, KIS clarified that the fact that the PGK’s tax year overlaps with parts of two financial years does not require attaching two consolidated financial statements, as the regulations do not provide a basis for including more than one such statement for a given tax year. This clarification is particularly relevant for PGKs with non-calendar tax years, as it confirms that TP reporting periods should remain consistent across local documentation, TPR and group-level documentation (link here).
- Statutory prices for reimbursed medicines fall outside the TP regime
Regulated pricing rules may significantly reduce transfer pricing obligations in the pharmaceutical sector. KIS confirmed that transactions involving reimbursed medicinal products may fall outside the Polish transfer pricing regime where prices and wholesale margins are determined by the Reimbursement Act and decisions of the Minister of Health. Since related parties have no discretion to set such prices, the exclusion under Article 11b(1) of the Polish CIT Act applies. As a result, these transactions are not subject to ordinary TP documentation requirements, and their value should not be included when assessing the documentation thresholds under Article 11k(2). This is particularly relevant for pharmaceutical groups operating under regulated pricing models (link here).
- TP exemption after a merger assessed at successor level
In another recent ruling, KIS addressed how the transfer pricing documentation exemption should be assessed following a merger by acquisition. The case concerned a merger accounted for under the pooling-of-interests method, without closing the books of the acquired company. KIS confirmed that the acquiring company becomes the tax successor and assumes the transfer pricing obligations relating to transactions carried out by the acquired company before the merger. Importantly, the conditions for applying the exemption under Article 11n(1) of the Polish CIT Act, including the requirement that no tax loss is incurred, should be assessed for the acquiring company’s entire tax year, taking into account the tax results of the acquired company. Consequently, where the acquiring company does not incur a tax loss and satisfies the remaining statutory conditions, the exemption from preparing local transfer pricing documentation may be applied. The ruling is particularly relevant for intra-group reorganisations, as it confirms that the availability of the domestic TP exemption after a merger depends on the successor’s tax position for the full tax year, rather than on a separate assessment of the acquired company for the pre-merger period (link here).
Qatar
On 2 August, the Qatar General Tax Authority launched its Pillar Two registration service through the Dhareeba portal and published related compliance requirements. In-scope MNE groups and JV groups must appoint a Designated Local Entity and register by 2 November, even where no top-up tax is expected. The guidance also clarifies the applicable GIR, DMTT and IIR filing obligations and deadlines.
South Africa
On 7 August, SARS’s guide on the implementation of Advance Pricing Agreements (“APAs”) took effect. The guide covers the pilot phase of South Africa’s APA programme and provides practical guidance on eligibility, pre-application consultations, compliance reporting, and ongoing APA management. Taxpayers may submit requests to participate in the pilot program.
Turkey
On 12 August, the Turkish Tax Inspection Board launched a system for transfer pricing risk analysis. The system uses AI and big data analysis to identify potential profit shifting in related-party transactions and provides risk indicators for centralised analysis. Transactions can currently be analysed with a lag of approximately four days, with sectoral profit margin analyses expected in the second phase.
Final words
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
