Legal Aspects of Transfer Pricing and Profit Allocation
Legal aspects of transfer pricing explain low tax burdens. The relatively low tax burden borne by some multinational corporations, despite generating billions in revenues, often raises widespread public concern and leads many to assume that such outcomes result from illegal practices or outright tax evasion. In reality, the situation is far more complex. Many of these practices operate within the existing legal framework and are consistent with international tax rules applied in most countries. This is largely attributable to the cross-border nature of multinational business activities, differences among national tax systems, and the rules governing the allocation of profits among companies within the same corporate group.
Transfer pricing constitutes the primary mechanism explaining these outcomes. It governs how prices are determined for transactions conducted between related entities within the same multinational group. These transactions include the sale of goods, provision of services, transfer or licensing of intellectual property, as well as internal financing arrangements such as intercompany loans. Since such transactions do not take place between independent parties, tax laws intervene to prevent price manipulation aimed at shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
Globally, transfer pricing regulations are based on the Arm’s Length Principle, which requires that transactions between related parties be conducted under terms comparable to those that would apply between independent parties in similar circumstances. In theory, this principle seeks to ensure tax fairness and prevent the erosion of countries’ tax bases. However, its practical application involves a high degree of judgment and professional discretion, particularly in relation to pricing intangible assets and high value-added services.
Although these practices may be legal from a strictly technical standpoint, their outcomes often generate significant political and social debate, especially when the taxes actually paid are compared with profits earned or total revenues. This debate has increased pressure on governments and international organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), to introduce stricter rules and enhance transparency and disclosure requirements. As a result, transfer pricing has evolved beyond a purely technical tax issue to become a central economic and political topic in the global discussion on tax justice and the allocation of taxing rights among countries.
The Role of Intellectual Property and Royalty Payments
Intellectual property and royalty payments represent some of the most influential tools used by multinational corporations to structure their tax arrangements and shift profits across jurisdictions. Typically, high-value intangible assets—such as software, patents, trademarks, and pharmaceutical formulas—are held by subsidiaries located in jurisdictions with low tax rates or preferential tax regimes. These assets are often regarded as the primary drivers of profitability, particularly in innovation- and knowledge-based industries.
Under this model, operating subsidiaries in high-tax countries pay royalties for the use of these intellectual property assets. Such payments are treated as tax-deductible expenses, thereby reducing the taxable base in high-tax jurisdictions, while royalty income is taxed at lower rates in the jurisdictions where the intellectual property is held. Consequently, a substantial portion of profits is legally shifted from high-tax to low-tax countries in principle.
This mechanism is widely used in the technology, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical sectors, where intangible assets constitute a significant share of corporate value. The main challenge lies in determining the fair value of these assets, given their unique nature and the lack of comparable market transactions. This uncertainty allows considerable room for judgment in setting royalty rates.
Although these arrangements comply with international tax rules when they adhere to the arm’s length principle, the subjective nature of intellectual property valuation gives companies significant flexibility to justify royalty levels that may substantially reduce local tax liabilities. For this reason, royalty payments related to intellectual property receive heightened scrutiny from tax authorities and are among the most closely examined areas of transfer pricing audits.
The imposition of management fees and intragroup service charges is another common strategy employed by multinational corporations to organize operations and shift profits among affiliated entities. In many cases, companies centralize key functions—such as strategic planning, information technology services, human resources, marketing, risk management, or regulatory compliance—within a single entity, often referred to as a shared services center. From an operational perspective, this approach aims to enhance efficiency and reduce costs by pooling expertise and resources.
Under this structure, subsidiaries operating in other countries pay fees to access these services, which are treated as tax-deductible expenses and thus reduce taxable income in the jurisdictions where the subsidiaries operate. This practice is particularly prevalent in highly regulated and knowledge-intensive industries, such as pharmaceuticals, where specialized experts coordinating clinical research or regulatory compliance are centralized within one entity serving the entire group.
Although tax laws permit charges for services actually rendered in line with the arm’s length principle, this area remains one of the most controversial aspects of transfer pricing. Disputes typically arise when the nature of the services is unclear, when it is difficult to verify that services were actually provided, or when the fees charged are disproportionate to the economic benefit received by the subsidiary. As a result, tax authorities increasingly scrutinize intragroup service fees and often require detailed documentation demonstrating the nature of the services, the pricing methodology, and the benefits derived by each affiliated entity.
Internal Financing and Interest as a Tax Deduction
Internal financing through intercompany loans represents another key mechanism for shifting profits within multinational groups. Instead of borrowing from external banks or financial institutions, subsidiaries in high-tax jurisdictions may obtain funding from related entities within the same group that are located in low-tax jurisdictions or benefit from preferential tax regimes. This approach is often part of a broader financial strategy aimed at managing liquidity and reducing financing costs at the group level.
The tax significance of this approach lies in the fact that interest paid on intercompany loans is generally deductible for tax purposes, thereby reducing taxable profits in the borrowing jurisdiction. Conversely, interest income is taxed at lower rates in the lending jurisdiction, allowing profits to be shifted legally in principle. This strategy is particularly common in capital-intensive industries, such as pharmaceuticals and technology, where investments in research facilities or data centers require substantial long-term financing.
Although internal financing is permitted under international tax rules, it is typically subject to intense scrutiny by tax authorities. Authorities focus on whether the level of debt and the financing structure reflect what an independent company would accept under comparable circumstances, and whether the interest rate complies with the arm’s length principle. Compliance with interest limitation rules and thin capitalization requirements is also examined in many jurisdictions. Accordingly, internal financing is considered a sensitive area of transfer pricing that requires robust documentation and careful analysis to mitigate tax disputes and regulatory risks.
Legal Compliance and Ongoing Controversy
These practices—whether involving intellectual property royalties, management service fees, or internal financing—are legal in many cases because they operate within the framework of international tax rules, particularly the arm’s length principle. Tax law does not prohibit companies from organizing their operations or choosing their operational and financial structures, provided that transactions between related parties are conducted on terms comparable to those agreed between independent parties. On this basis, companies may justify significant deductions or profit reallocations across borders if supported by appropriate documentation and economic analysis.
Nevertheless, controversy persists because the practical effect of these arrangements can significantly reduce government tax revenues relied upon to fund public services and infrastructure. They may also create perceptions of unfairness, as purely domestic companies—operating within a single jurisdiction and lacking complex international structures—do not have the same ability to reallocate profits across borders, placing them at a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, the reliance on complex legal and financial structures and subjective valuations, particularly in relation to intangible assets and services, makes it difficult for tax authorities to swiftly and conclusively assess the fairness of pricing.
As a result, tax authorities worldwide have intensified scrutiny of related-party transactions, strengthened documentation and disclosure requirements, and developed risk assessment tools to identify cases most susceptible to manipulation. Many countries have also supported international initiatives aimed at curbing aggressive tax planning and enhancing transparency, such as measures to combat base erosion and profit shifting, improve information exchange among tax authorities, and expand reporting requirements for multinational groups. Consequently, transfer pricing has become a point of intersection between legal compliance on the one hand and political and social debate on tax justice on the other.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that transfer pricing constitutes a pivotal legal tool for regulating transactions between related entities within multinational groups and plays a fundamental role in allocating profits among countries in accordance with international tax rules, foremost among them the arm’s length principle. Although mechanisms such as the use of intellectual property, the charging of intragroup management service fees, and internal financing are, in essence, legitimate practices when they meet fair pricing and proper documentation requirements, their practical effects often extend beyond the technical sphere and become the subject of broad economic and political debate.
The core challenge lies in striking a balance between companies’ right to structure their operations efficiently within the boundaries of the law and states’ right to protect their tax bases and ensure the fairness of the tax system. With the intensification of tax audits and the development of international initiatives aimed at combating base erosion and profit shifting, transfer pricing has become a dynamic area that requires a high level of transparency, governance, and compliance from businesses. Accordingly, transfer pricing is no longer merely a matter of formal compliance; it has evolved into a strategic element of tax risk management and the achievement of legal and financial sustainability for multinational groups in an increasingly complex and tightly regulated global tax environment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is transfer pricing legal for multinational companies?
+
Yes, transfer pricing is legal as long as it complies with international tax rules, especially the arm’s length
principle. Tax laws allow related companies within a group to transact with each other, provided prices and terms
are comparable to those used between independent parties. The controversy arises not from the existence of transfer
pricing itself, but from how it is applied and whether it leads to aggressive profit shifting and very low effective
tax rates that trigger political and social debate.
How do royalty payments reduce corporate taxes?
+
Royalty payments can reduce corporate taxes when operating subsidiaries in high-tax countries pay for the use of
intellectual property held in low-tax jurisdictions. These royalties are treated as tax-deductible expenses, lowering
the taxable income where the business operates. At the same time, the royalty income is taxed at a lower rate where
the intellectual property is legally owned, allowing profits to be shifted within the group in a way that is often
technically legal but closely scrutinized by tax authorities.
What is the role of intellectual property in tax planning?
+
Intellectual property is a key tool in tax planning because high-value intangibles like software, patents, trademarks,
and pharmaceutical formulas can be centralized in low-tax or preferential regimes. Since these assets often drive most
of the group’s profitability, charging royalties for their use creates large deductible expenses in high-tax countries
and corresponding income in low-tax ones. The main challenge is valuing these unique assets under the arm’s length
principle, which leaves room for judgment and dispute between companies and tax authorities.
How do tax authorities audit management service fees?
+
Tax authorities audit management service fees by examining whether the services were actually provided, whether they
generated real economic benefit for the subsidiary, and whether the fees are consistent with what independent parties
would have paid. They often request detailed documentation describing the nature of the services, allocation keys used,
staff involved, and the pricing method applied. Disputes frequently arise when services are vaguely defined, appear
duplicative, or seem disproportionate to the benefits received.
How do intercompany loans affect taxable profits?
+
Intercompany loans affect taxable profits by allowing interest payments to be deducted in the borrower’s jurisdiction,
thereby reducing its taxable income. When the lender is in a low-tax country, the interest income is taxed more lightly,
so profits effectively move from high-tax to low-tax locations. Tax authorities therefore scrutinize whether the loan
terms, interest rate, and level of debt reflect what an independent lender would accept, and whether thin capitalization
and interest limitation rules are respected in the relevant jurisdictions.
Why is transfer pricing central to global tax justice?
+
Transfer pricing is central to global tax justice because it determines how profits are allocated among countries and
how much tax each jurisdiction collects from multinational groups. Even when rules are followed, outcomes can lead to
very low tax burdens in some countries, prompting public debate about fairness and the erosion of national tax bases.
This tension has driven international initiatives on base erosion and profit shifting, stronger documentation rules,
and greater transparency to balance legal business flexibility with the protection of states’ taxing rights.
To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com
Contact Us
