Avoiding Costly Errors in Transfer Pricing Comparables
The selection of comparable companies is a fundamental component of transfer pricing studies, as it forms the basis for assessing a company’s compliance with the arm’s length principle. Although this stage is sometimes viewed as a purely technical exercise, it is among the areas most frequently subject to scrutiny and challenge by tax authorities. Weaknesses in this aspect often result in adjustments to taxable profits, leading to additional tax assessments, penalties, and prolonged tax disputes.
Comparable companies refer to independent entities used to assess whether the prices or levels of profitability achieved by the tested company are consistent with those that would be realized by unrelated parties under similar economic circumstances. The objective of this analysis is to accurately replicate free-market behavior. Any failure to satisfy the comparability principle negatively affects the overall reliability of the study and undermines its ability to withstand tax audits.
Overlooking Functional Analysis and Risk Profiles
One of the most significant professional errors is disregarding material differences between the tested company and the selected comparable in terms of functions performed, assets employed particularly intangible assets and the level of economic and commercial risks assumed. These factors are key determinants of appropriate profitability levels. When they are not properly considered, tax authorities often conclude that the returns earned do not reflect economic reality, resulting in upward profit adjustments.
Unjustified Reliance on Industry Classifications
Another common mistake is the excessive reliance on industry classifications as the primary criterion for selecting comparable companies. While such classifications may serve as a useful starting point, they do not necessarily capture fundamental differences in business models, value chains, or revenue drivers. Tax authorities generally focus on the economic substance of activities rather than formal labels or classifications.
Inadequate Treatment of Loss-Making or Exceptional Companies
Additional issues arise when companies with recurring losses or exceptional profits are included without a thorough analysis of the underlying causes. Persistent losses may indicate a lack of comparability, while extraordinary profits are often attributable to exceptional events or temporary circumstances. If these factors are not properly analyzed and professionally documented, tax authorities frequently exclude such companies during audits, leading to an upward shift in the arm’s length range.
Neglecting Geographic and Economic Market Differences
Economic environments, regulatory frameworks, and levels of competition vary from one market to another, directly affecting profitability. Ignoring these differences when selecting comparable companies, or failing to apply appropriate adjustments, represents a common weakness in transfer pricing studies. This often distorts the results of the analysis and increases the likelihood of tax adjustments.
Use of Outdated or Non-Contemporaneous Data
Reliance on sets of comparable companies that do not reflect current economic conditions significantly weakens the credibility of a study. Changes in business models, economic cycles, and market conditions necessitate the use of current and contemporaneous data. Tax authorities tend to reject studies based on outdated or non-representative data.
Deficiencies in Documentation and Methodology
Even where technically appropriate comparable are selected, inadequate documentation or a lack of transparency in presenting the search methodology and selection and rejection criteria may result in the rejection of the study as a whole. In such cases, tax authorities often prepare an alternative analysis using more profitable comparable companies, thereby increasing the tax burden.
Collectively, these errors often lead to additional tax liabilities as tax authorities exclude lower-margin companies, include more profitable benchmarks, and narrow the arm’s length range. The resulting difference is treated as additional taxable income and is commonly accompanied by penalties, late payment interest, and an increased risk of double taxation at the international level.
Strengthening the Defensibility of Transfer Pricing Studies
Mitigating these risks requires an integrated professional approach that begins with a comprehensive functional and risk analysis and includes a careful, well-justified selection of comparable companies, regular updates to studies, and clear, detailed documentation of all technical decisions. These practices are essential to enhancing the defensibility of transfer pricing studies before tax authorities.
Conclusion
The selection of comparable companies is neither a formalistic nor a mechanical exercise; it is the cornerstone of any robust transfer pricing study. The consequences of errors in this area often become apparent only during a tax audit, at which point their financial and regulatory costs can be substantial. Investing in a rigorous, well-documented comparability analysis is a strategic step toward reducing tax risk and avoiding costly disputes in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are comparable companies in transfer pricing?
+
Comparable companies are independent entities used to test whether the prices or profit levels of the
tested company are consistent with what unrelated parties would earn under similar economic
conditions. They are the backbone of the arm’s length analysis. If the selected companies are not truly comparable,
the conclusions of the transfer pricing study become weak and are more likely to be challenged and adjusted by tax
authorities.
Why do tax authorities challenge transfer pricing comparables?
+
Tax authorities often challenge comparables because they look beyond the database search and focus on
economic reality. They typically ask whether:
- The functions, assets (especially intangibles) and risks are truly similar
- Loss makers and highly profitable outliers have been properly analysed and documented
- Geographic markets and economic conditions are comparable or have been adjusted for
- The search strategy and rejection criteria are clearly explained in the documentation
Weaknesses in any of these areas may lead them to reject the set and replace it with more profitable companies,
increasing the taxable income.
How does functional analysis affect comparable selection?
+
A solid
functional and risk analysis is the starting point for selecting comparables. It identifies:
- Functions performed – manufacturing, distribution, services, routine support, etc.
- Assets employed – including valuable intangibles such as trademarks, software or know-how
- Risks assumed – market, credit, inventory, product liability, regulatory, and others
If these elements differ materially between the tested company and the chosen comparables, their profit levels will
not be comparable, and tax authorities may argue that the reported margins do not reflect economic reality.
Should loss making companies be used as transfer pricing comparables?
+
Loss-making companies can sometimes be used as comparables, but only after
careful analysis. You should
assess whether:
- The losses are temporary and linked to normal economic cycles or start-up phases
- They arise from non-recurring events, restructurings, or structural issues that make the company non-comparable
The same applies to companies with
exceptional profits. If these factors are not properly analysed and
documented, tax authorities frequently exclude such companies during audits, which usually pushes the arm’s length
range upward.
Why is outdated data risky in transfer pricing studies?
+
Using
outdated or non-contemporaneous data weakens the credibility of a transfer pricing study because:
- Business models and value chains may have changed over time
- Economic cycles and market conditions evolve and affect profitability
- Regulatory and competitive environments in a market can shift significantly
Tax authorities expect the analysis to reflect the
economic conditions of the tested period. Studies based on
old or non-representative data are more likely to be rejected and replaced by the authority’s own benchmarking.
How can I make my transfer pricing study defensible?
+
A defensible transfer pricing study requires an
integrated professional approach. In practice this means:
- Performing a detailed functional and risk analysis before selecting comparables
- Choosing comparables based on economic substance, not just industry codes or labels
- Analysing and documenting the treatment of loss makers and outliers
- Considering geographic and market differences, or applying appropriate adjustments
- Using current, contemporaneous data that reflects the tested period
- Clearly documenting the search strategy, acceptance and rejection criteria, and all key assumptions
These practices greatly enhance the ability of your transfer pricing study to withstand tax audits and reduce the
risk of profit adjustments, penalties, and double taxation.
To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com
Contact Us
