Quantera Global Newsletter – April 2026
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 is pleased to announce the first edition of the Transfer Pricing Summit, an invitation-only event in Amsterdam, which will bring together a select group of international partners and senior transfer pricing professionals from the Quantera Global Network. The focus will be on practical knowledge exchange, meaningful conversations, and strengthening collaboration.
- Our international alliance network is open to new partners. We welcome transfer pricing specialists and independent professionals, along with accounting, audit, tax, and legal firms, and other like-minded organisations that value quality, clarity, and care.
More information is available here, including the option to schedule an introductory call.
Quantera Global Specialties
In the past month, we successfully completed several challenging and noteworthy projects, including:
- Being appointed as preferred supplier by one of the most prestigious Magic Circle international tax and law firms. We are grateful and proud to have achieved this position with this highly valued business partner.
- We have supported several clients directly affected by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, helping them to navigate the related transfer pricing implications, which differ depending on industry, operating model, and geographic footprint. While this development is highly disruptive, proper transfer pricing guidance can help relieve some of the immediate pressure and support the next practical steps.
- We delivered approximately 15 benchmark studies for one client across multiple regions worldwide, covering different PLIs and completed them on time and to the desired quality.
If you would like to know more about these topics, please feel free to contact us.
News from around the world
Australia
- On 3 March, the ATO published the filing instructions, updated guidance and the approved form for Australia’s public CbC reporting regime, which applies for reporting periods starting on or after 1 July 2024. Disclosures are based on the GRI 207: Tax 2019 standard and must reconcile to the reporting entity’s audited consolidated financial statements. Additionally, the ATO confirmed that public CbC reporting is separate from confidential CbC reporting and that groups may need to complete both.
- On 12 March, the ATO updated its guidance on how the Pillar Two global and domestic minimum tax rules apply, as well as how they interact with Australia’s corporate tax system. These updates expand the discussion of joint arrangements, including the treatment of GloBE joint ventures and related accounting points.
- On 18 March, the government updated the list of jurisdictions with qualifying Pillar Two taxes to align with the OECD central record. This adds jurisdictions with a qualified IIR, a qualified QDMTT, or QDMTT safe harbour status for a fiscal year (link here).
- On 26 March, the Treasury Department amended the domestic minimum tax provisions. These include clarification on the treatment of stateless entities and tax consolidated groups and addresses reverse hybrid and hybrid entities. Additionally, they provide guidance on converting foreign-currency top-up tax amounts into Australian dollars using the exchange rate on the last day of the fiscal year (link here).
Belgium
- On 17 March, the Belgian tax authorities issued clarification on the currency conversion rules for Pillar Two global minimum tax purposes. The guidance is based on the OECD consolidated commentary of May 2025 (link here).
- On 19 March, Belgium updated its transfer pricing guidance to align with OECD Pillar One Amount B, introducing a simplified pricing framework for routine distribution activities (effective 1 Jan 2025). It provides a standardised margin matrix (based on sector and cost/asset intensity) to simplify arm’s length pricing for qualifying distributors. The scope is limited to routine low-risk distribution/agency functions, excludes complex or high-risk transactions, and applies only with “covered jurisdictions” and tax treaties to avoid double taxation.
- On 23 March, the Belgian tax authorities published an updated draft domestic top-up tax return for assessment years 2024 and 2025 for information purposes, stating that it is still subject to change until its publication in the Belgian Official Gazette. The update also includes draft XSD schemas, an updated test XML tool, and draft explanatory notes to support first-time filings in 2026 (link here).
Brazil
The following update has been provided by our network partner Castro Barros.
- Brazil Promulgates New Tax Agreements with Poland and Chile
In March 2026, Brazil published Decree No. 12,865, promulgating the Double Tax Agreement (“Poland DTA”) signed with Poland on September 20, 2022, and Decree No. 12,863, promulgating the Second Protocol to the 2001 Brazil-Chile DTA (“Chile Protocol”), signed on March 3, 2022.
The agreements align with the OECD/G20 BEPS framework and introduce a coordinated set of anti-abuse measures. A Limitation on Benefits (LOB) clause restricts agreement access to residents with a genuine economic connection to the contracting state. The Permanent Establishment rules were equally modernized under BEPS Action 7, with anti-fragmentation provisions and an expanded dependent agent concept.
On withholding taxes, the Poland DTA introduces a standalone Technical Services provision under Article 13, capping the withholding tax rate on technical service fees at 10% (below the 15% rate under Brazilian domestic law). The Chile Protocol achieves a comparable outcome through a different mechanism by assimilating royalties into the concept of technical and administrative assistance services under Article 12, it subjects most royalty payments to the same 10% cap. Although the Chile Protocol contains no standalone provision on technical services, the reduction of the royalty withholding rate produces the same practical effect for most cross-border payments.
As for royalties specifically, both instruments distinguish between industrial or commercial trademark royalties (subject to a 15% rate) and all other royalties (capped at 10%). In the case of the Chile Protocol, this represents a reduction from the prior flat 15% rate that applied regardless of royalty type under the 2001 treaty.
To eliminate double taxation, the agreements adopt the credit method, allowing taxes paid at source to be offset against the liability in the residence state.
These developments follow an already active period, considering that in 2025 Brazil promulgated the DTA with Norway and protocols updating the agreements with India and China, continuing the expansion and modernization of its treaty network.
Brazil’s accession to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI) in October 2025 further underscores this trajectory. Once ratified by Congress, the MLI is expected to modernize up to 26 of Brazil’s existing treaties simultaneously.
Notwithstanding this progress, several agreements remain pending. The DTA with the United Kingdom, signed in 2022, still awaits congressional approval. The DTA with Colombia and the protocols updating the treaties with Singapore and Sweden, in turn, are pending executive promulgation through presidential decrees.
Bulgaria
On 16 March, the OECD officially announced that Bulgaria joined the International Compliance Assurance Programme (ICAP). This demonstrates Bulgaria’s commitment to enhancing tax certainty for MNE groups. ICAP is a voluntary programme that improves coordination between tax administrations and MNEs on tax risk assessments.
Canada
- On 25 March, the Tax Court of Canada ruled, in line with previous case law, that taxpayers cannot obtain downward transfer pricing adjustments through the courts. Such adjustments require prior discretionary approval from the Minister of National Revenue. Without this approval, the courts lack jurisdiction to grant relief. The Court noted that the taxpayer had not yet applied to the Minister and that if the Minister were to refuse, the company’s recourse would be the Federal Court.
- On 26 March, Bill C-15 received Royal Assent and enacted many 2025 federal budget tax measures. The package includes an overhaul of Canada’s transfer pricing rules and documentation requirements. These changes apply to taxation years beginning after 4 November 2025.
Chile
On 25 March, Chile’s Ministry of Finance announced updates to the procedure for Advanced Pricing Agreements (APA) related to the import of goods via the official Gazette. Under the updated framework, APAs for imported goods must be filed jointly with Chile’s tax (SII) and customs (SNA) authorities, with the SII leading the process. Following an optional pre-filing stage, the authorities have 12 months to issue a joint decision, with internal coordination taking place early in the process.
European Union
On 10 March, the EU provided an update on administrative cooperation, noting that several Member States had not yet completed the transposition of DAC9 (Pillar Two information exchange) ahead of the 31 December 2025 deadline. The Member States yet to do so were Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal and Spain.
Finland
On 24 March, the Finnish Official Gazette published amendments to the Minimum Tax Act. These incorporate parts of the OECD side-by-side package, including the SbS safe harbor, the UPE safe harbor, the substance-based tax incentive safe harbour, and an extension of the transitional CbC safe harbour. The simplified ETR safe harbour is not yet included. The law also expands domestic advance rulings and introduces a Pillar Two anti-avoidance rule from fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2027. Most changes apply for fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2024, while the new safe harbours apply for fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2026.
Georgia
Gorgia’s Ministry of Finance has introduced a new reporting requirement for international controlled transactions, requiring taxpayers to report such transactions where the annual aggregate value exceeds GEL 500,000. This obligation applies to all categories of international controlled transactions and must be reported annually in the corporate income tax return for the March reporting period. The amendments apply from the 2025 reporting period onwards.
Greece
- On 12 March, the Independent Authority for Public Revenue issued the format and content of the notifications that Greek constituent entities must submit under the Pillar Two rules, including notifications relating to the filing of the GloBE Information Return.
- On 23 March, a ministerial decision published in the Official Gazette confirmed that the Transitional CbC Reporting Safe Harbour and the UTPR Safe Harbour apply for fiscal years starting on or after 31 December 2023.
- On 27 March, the Ministry of National Economy and Finance opened a public consultation on draft legislation implementing DAC9. The draft introduces a standard electronic format for the GloBE Information Return, aligned with the OECD template, to support automatic exchange within the EU. It also adds Pillar Two top-up tax to the list of non-deductible expenses in the Greek Income Tax Code. The consultation ran until 14 April 2026.
India
On 31 March, India published via the official Gazette that it enacted the Finance Act 2026. The Act incorporates various proposals including, amongst others, on CIT, transfer pricing and tax measures concerning International Financial Services Centre.
Ireland
On 24 March, the Irish Revenue published updated Pillar Two guidance on the application of the Irish minimum tax rules. It covers orphan and securitisation entities. It also addresses UTPR allocation within Ireland, intragroup financing, and when loss-related DTAs can be treated as adjusted covered taxes. On the same date, Irish Revenue updated its administrative guidance. It reflects compliance and reporting requirements, including updates linked to DAC9 and the GIR MCAA. The guidance also clarifies when local GAAP may be used for QDMTT purposes in specific cases.
Italy
On 25 March, Italy’s supreme court ruled in two related cases, confirming that a transfer pricing adjustment must be supported by coherent and well-substantiated comparability analysis. The Court also reaffirmed that appellate review does not re-evaluate factual assessments where the lower courts have provided clear and reasoned judgments. Ultimately, the tax authority’s appeals in the case were dismissed because it failed to meet its burden of proof under the arm’s length principle.
Japan
On 27 March, the National Tax Agency released an explanatory note on its administrative guidance for Japan’s UTPR and QDMTT rules, introduced under the 2025 tax reform. The note confirms that the rules should be interpreted in line with OECD GloBE materials. It also confirms that the measures will apply for fiscal years beginning on or after 1 April 2026.
Poland
The following update has been provided by our network partner, BTTP.
- Personal links and the power to influence business decisions
Personal links remain one of the most disputed issues in transfer pricing, especially where formal ownership relationships do not reflect the actual structure of influence within a group. This was confirmed by the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, case no. III SA/Wa 2093/25. The court held that a company and its shareholder may be treated as related parties, if the same individual sits on the management board of the shareholder and, at the same time, on the supervisory board of the company. According to the court, related party status does not depend on the ability to make decisions independently, nor on holding of 25% of the voting rights. Instead, it depends on whether a person has the actual ability to influence key business decisions. (link here).
- In TP disputes, the tax authority cannot rely solely on its own benchmark
In Poland, a transfer pricing adjustment may be challenged where the tax authority relies primarily on its own benchmark while failing to adequately address the taxpayer’s evidence, comparability analysis and specific objections. This was confirmed by the Polish Supreme Administrative Court, case no. II FSK 1097/22. The case concerned the arm’s length markup for clinical trial-related services and the scope of costs included in the cost base under a cost-plus model. The company argued that certain recharged costs, including medicinal products, travel expenses and investigators’ remuneration, should not be subject to the markup. The judgment emphasizes that the decisive issue in TP disputes is not only the benchmark’s outcome, but also the reliability of the comparability analysis and the completeness and proper evaluation of the evidentiary record. The tax authority must engage with all relevant evidence and cannot disregard competing analyses without justification (link here).
- Not Every Post-APA Correction Qualifies as a TP Adjustment
A correction resulting from an APA procedure should not be treated as a transfer pricing adjustment within the meaning of Article 11e of the Polish CIT Act where the transaction did not meet the arm’s length standard ex ante, i.e. the actual allocation of risks and financial outcomes (including losses and the absence of compensating adjustments) did not reflect what independent parties would have agreed under comparable market conditions. If the arm’s length condition is not satisfied at the outset, a subsequent correction falls outside the TP adjustment regime and should instead be recognized in accordance with the general tax rules. This position is confirmed by an individual ruling issued by the Polish tax authorities (link here).
- National Tax Information (KIS) on annual transfer pricing adjustments and VAT
The Polish tax authorities have increasingly taken the view that year-end profitability adjustments between related parties should, as a rule, remain outside the scope of VAT, provided that they are not linked to specific invoices, supplies or individual services, but instead serve as a general adjustment of profitability to an arm’s length level.
Recent individual interpretations of the Director of KIS show that this approach is being applied across various intra-group business models. One ruling confirms that a year-end adjustment may remain outside of VAT in the case of low value-adding services invoiced during the year on the basis of forecast data and later verified under a true-up / outcome testing model (link here). Another ruling concerns a contract manufacturer whose profitability is aligned through a residual fee mechanism (link here). The same reasoning has also been accepted for a limited-risk distributor whose year-end result is adjusted to achieve a target market margin (link here), as well as for shared service centre arrangements remunerated under a cost-plus model, where the year-end adjustment is made to bring the overall profitability of the services to an arm’s length level (link here). The common point in all of these cases is that the adjustment is annual, aggregate and made ex post, with reference to overall profitability rather than the price of specific transactions. On that basis, the Director of KIS has confirmed that such adjustments may be treated as VAT-neutral and documented by way of an accounting note rather than a VAT invoice.
- Cash Pooling as a Controlled Transaction
The latest individual interpretation of the Director of KIS confirms that participation in a cash pooling structure, including a virtual (notional) cash pooling model, may itself constitute a controlled transaction for Polish transfer pricing purposes. As a result, taxpayers should assess not only the commercial and treasury aspects of such arrangements, but also whether the relevant transfer pricing documentation thresholds are met and whether any statutory exemptions may apply. The ruling is therefore an important reminder that cash pooling should not be viewed solely as a liquidity management tool, but also as an area that may trigger transfer pricing compliance obligations.
Singapore
On 6 March, Singapore’s tax authority expanded the scope of its Country-by-Country reporting exchange network under the CbC MCAA by adding several jurisdictions. The updated list now includes Mongolia, Serbia and Vietnam (effective from financial years starting 1 December 2023), Montenegro (effective from 1 January 2024), and Armenia (effective from 1 January 2025).
Tanzania
On 24 March, the Tanzanian Court ruled that under the TNMM, taxpayers cannot exclude relevant cost items, even if these are finance costs, when they are connected to the controlled transaction.
United Kingdom
On 17 March, the UK tax authority announced updates on the Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) guidance. These updates include new guidance on registering for and submitting CbCR reports, as well as revised instructions on determining reporting obligations. Notably, agents must now be formally authorised to file reports on behalf of clients, using the required “digital handshake” process.
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
