Benchmarking Analysis and Economic Reality in Egypt

Benchmarking analyses are a core component of transfer pricing documentation, representing the most widely used tool to demonstrate compliance with the arm’s length principle as set out in national tax laws and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. In practice, benchmarking is often the primary starting point for any comprehensive transfer pricing study. However, the experience arising from tax audits in recent years; particularly in emerging economies such as Egypt has revealed the limits of this approach when applied in isolation from the actual economic reality of the activity under review. Practical experience shows that benchmarking results, no matter how technically or statistically robust they may appear, lose much of their defensive value when they lack a genuine connection to the operational nature of the business, the decision-making structure, and the location where value is created within the group.

The practice of the Egyptian Tax Authority (ETA) has clearly demonstrated that a purely formal reliance on profit ranges derived from databases is not, on its own, sufficient to protect taxpayers from tax adjustments, especially where such results conflict with observable economic indicators. Where benchmarking outcomes are disconnected from the actual role performed by the local entity, the level of risk it effectively assumes and controls, or the market conditions in which it operates, the transfer pricing study becomes vulnerable to challenge and, in some cases, outright rejection. In this context, the key question in tax audits is no longer whether profits fall within a benchmark range, but rather whether those profits genuinely reflect the economic value created locally.

Against this background, this article seeks to highlight the structural weaknesses inherent in benchmarking-driven transfer pricing studies and to analyze the reasons behind the shift in audit focus from abstract numerical ranges to an examination of economic substance. This includes the actual conduct of related parties, the mechanisms for risk control, and the consistency between reported financial results and operational reality. The article also aims to underscore the growing need for a more integrated approach to transfer pricing documentation, one that strikes a balance between formal compliance requirements and the economic considerations that now govern the ETA’s assessment of such studies.

Benchmarking and Its Practical Limits

Benchmarking, particularly when applying profit-based methods such as the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), is founded on a theoretical assumption that an arm’s length profit range can be identified by comparing the results of related parties with those of independent companies assumed to perform similar functions and bear comparable levels of risk. This assumption forms the cornerstone of many transfer pricing studies, as it provides a methodological framework for assessing whether intercompany transactions are consistent with the arm’s length principle. Yet, despite its theoretical coherence, this framework encounters significant limitations in practice that constrain its accuracy and its ability to reflect actual economic reality.

On the one hand, benchmarking databases typically rely on historical financial data that reflect past economic conditions and do not necessarily capture current developments, particularly in environments characterized by high inflation, exchange rate volatility, and rapid changes in operating costs and market structures. This reliance on time-lagged data creates a gap between benchmark outcomes and the real conditions under which the tested entity operates during the years under tax audit.

On the other hand, the scarcity of truly comparable independent companies; whose functions and risk profiles closely match those of the tested party forces preparers of transfer pricing studies to rely on broad assumptions regarding comparability. These assumptions may relate to the nature of the activity, the scope of responsibilities, or the level of risks assumed or controlled. In many cases, such assumptions lead to an expansion of the comparable set at the expense of economic precision, producing results that are closer to rough estimates than to an accurate reflection of operational reality. This limitation becomes particularly pronounced where the tested entity forms part of a complex business model or performs a specialized role within the group that has no clear counterpart among independent companies.

In light of the above, benchmarking may yield results that appear methodologically sound from a formal perspective, yet remain insufficient to accurately capture the true role of the tested entity within the group or its actual contribution to value creation. This explains the growing skepticism of tax authorities toward studies that merely present benchmarking results without embedding them in a deeper economic analysis that reflects the nature of the activity, the boundaries of risk, and the specific market conditions in which the tested entity operates.

Common Shortcomings in Transfer Pricing Studies

Audit experience at the Egyptian Tax Authority shows that many transfer pricing studies suffer from a mechanical treatment of benchmarking, where it is approached as the ultimate objective of the study rather than as a tool within a broader economic analysis. In numerous cases, the focus is limited to extracting statistical profit ranges from databases and demonstrating that the tested party’s results fall within those ranges, without providing an economic explanation linking those results to the actual business activity or the real role performed by the entity within the group. This formalistic approach strips benchmarking of its analytical substance and weakens its ability to withstand a substantive audit that goes beyond abstract figures.

This shortcoming often extends to functional and risk analyses, which are frequently drafted in generic or standardized language based on contractual arrangements, rather than on a thorough examination of actual conduct. Insufficient attention is paid to identifying who truly exercises decision-making authority, who bears economic risks, and who effectively controls those risks in practice. The disconnect between contractual wording and operational reality is one of the most common weaknesses identified by the tax authority.

These weaknesses become particularly evident where entities characterized as limited-risk entities report financial results that contradict that characterization, such as recurring losses or unusually stable profit margins, despite operating in markets marked by volatility and uncertainty. In such cases, the ETA views the financial outcomes as a strong indicator of a fundamental flaw in the functional characterization, rather than as a temporary deviation that can be justified by benchmarking alone.

Moreover, the failure to properly account for local factors such as conditions in the Egyptian market, regulatory pressures, and sharp increases in operating costs driven by inflation and exchange rate movements results in studies that appear detached from the real economic environment. In these circumstances, the tax authority considers the reported financial results to be evidence of a substantive defect in the study, undermining its credibility and opening the door to recharacterization or adjustment based on the authority’s assessment of the true economic substance.

The Perspective of the Egyptian Tax Authority and Its Implications

In response to these practices, the Egyptian Tax Authority has increasingly adopted a substance-over-form approach in evaluating transfer pricing studies. Assessment is no longer limited to verifying whether results fall within benchmark ranges; instead, it now involves a deeper examination of whether those results are consistent with the economic value actually created in Egypt. In this context, particular attention is given to the genuine role played by the local entity within the group, its contribution to revenue generation, its involvement in key decision-making processes, and its control over economic risks. Financial results are therefore assessed not as abstract figures, but as indicators of the realism of the functional characterization adopted in the study.

Where the ETA concludes that the level of profitability does not correspond to the local economic role or to the risks effectively borne by the entity, it does not hesitate to take corrective measures. These may include recharacterizing the tested entity or adjusting profit margins to higher points within the benchmark range, such as the median or upper quartile. In many cases, such adjustments also extend to the disallowance of certain intercompany expenses, most notably management and service fees where the economic benefit is not clearly demonstrated or where sufficient evidence of their linkage to the local activity is lacking. These approaches expose taxpayers to heightened tax risks, including significant tax adjustments, penalties, late payment interest, and prolonged disputes that impose substantial financial and administrative burdens on audited companies.

Toward Transfer Pricing Studies More Aligned with Economic Reality

In this context, it becomes clear that benchmarking is now only one element within a broader defensive framework that must be grounded in an integrated economic analysis reflecting the actual business reality. Studies capable of withstanding tax audits are no longer those that merely demonstrate formal compliance with benchmark ranges, but rather those that establish a clear and coherent link between numerical results and the real functions performed by the local entity, supported by a precise explanation of decision-making processes and mechanisms for controlling economic risks. This linkage is critical in persuading the tax authority that the reported financial outcomes are not the product of arbitrary numerical alignment, but a logical reflection of the entity’s true role within the group.

Equally important is the study’s ability to explain unusual results, such as recurring losses or sharp fluctuations in profitability, by linking them to tangible economic factors such as changes in demand, cost pressures, or specific local market conditions. The more effectively a transfer pricing study presents a coherent economic narrative explaining deviations from expected averages or patterns, the greater its ability to address the concerns of the Egyptian Tax Authority and to reduce the risk of recharacterization or tax adjustment based on an alternative view of economic substance.

Conclusion

Benchmarking remains an essential and indispensable element of transfer pricing studies; however, it is no longer sufficient on its own as a tax defense mechanism in light of the evolving audit practices in Egypt. Tax acceptance of a transfer pricing study is now contingent on its ability to reflect the actual economic reality of the activity under review and to demonstrate consistency between achieved profitability and the value genuinely created in the local market. Mere formal adherence to benchmark ranges derived from databases is no longer persuasive where the logical link between reported figures and the true economic role of the tested entity is absent.

Accordingly, transfer pricing studies that successfully integrate rigorous technical analysis with a coherent economic narrative and a deep understanding of the local context are far better positioned to withstand audits by the Egyptian Tax Authority and to mitigate the risks of adjustment or recharacterization. By contrast, studies that treat benchmarking as an end in itself; without embedding it in an analysis of actual conduct and operating conditions remain vulnerable to challenge and fail to provide adequate protection in an audit environment that increasingly prioritizes economic substance over procedural form.

Frequently Asked Questions

To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com

Contact Us