Article: Transfer Pricing of Financial Guarantees: The Limits of Arm’s Length and a Practical Solution

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW Intertax Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.54648/taxi2023001
A. Hickman, Marcelo Henrique Barbosa Moura
{"title":"Article: Transfer Pricing of Financial Guarantees: The Limits of Arm’s Length and a Practical Solution","authors":"A. Hickman, Marcelo Henrique Barbosa Moura","doi":"10.54648/taxi2023001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explains that current practical approaches to the pricing of intra-group financial guarantees attribute economic significance to group affiliation that diverges from common approaches and depends on a refined independence hypothesis that is not universally applied and risks suggesting uncertainties about the wider application of the arm’s length principle. Guidance has not assimilated recent revisions to the OECD guidance on control of risk, advocates complex and unsatisfactory valuation methods, and unconvincingly refers to implicit support that unhelpfully disguises active functions. With the benefit of revised guidance, circumstances similar to those in the General Electric case could be resolved differently. Intra-group financial guarantees epitomize the challenges faced when dealing under the arm’s length principle with how associated enterprises are capitalized. It is inappropriate to subject the arm’s length principle to the contortions and divergence described in this article when the guarantee derives from deliberate choices of the guarantor about how the subsidiary is capitalized. Treating creditworthiness within a multinational group as indivisible and collective is a practical solution, either on principled grounds or as a safe harbour, thereby eliminating the need to consider intra-group guarantee fees for transfer pricing purposes.\nFinancial guarantees, transfer pricing, arm’s length principle, creditworthiness, implicit support","PeriodicalId":45365,"journal":{"name":"Intertax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intertax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explains that current practical approaches to the pricing of intra-group financial guarantees attribute economic significance to group affiliation that diverges from common approaches and depends on a refined independence hypothesis that is not universally applied and risks suggesting uncertainties about the wider application of the arm’s length principle. Guidance has not assimilated recent revisions to the OECD guidance on control of risk, advocates complex and unsatisfactory valuation methods, and unconvincingly refers to implicit support that unhelpfully disguises active functions. With the benefit of revised guidance, circumstances similar to those in the General Electric case could be resolved differently. Intra-group financial guarantees epitomize the challenges faced when dealing under the arm’s length principle with how associated enterprises are capitalized. It is inappropriate to subject the arm’s length principle to the contortions and divergence described in this article when the guarantee derives from deliberate choices of the guarantor about how the subsidiary is capitalized. Treating creditworthiness within a multinational group as indivisible and collective is a practical solution, either on principled grounds or as a safe harbour, thereby eliminating the need to consider intra-group guarantee fees for transfer pricing purposes. Financial guarantees, transfer pricing, arm’s length principle, creditworthiness, implicit support
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文章:金融担保的转让定价:一臂之遥的局限性及实用解决方案
本文解释说,目前集团内部财务担保定价的实际方法将经济意义归因于与一般方法不同的集团隶属关系,并依赖于一种并非普遍适用的精炼的独立性假设,并且存在风险,表明对公平原则的更广泛应用存在不确定性。指南没有吸收经合组织风险控制指南的最新修订,倡导复杂而不令人满意的评估方法,并令人难以置信地提到隐性支持,这无助于掩盖积极的功能。得益于修订后的指导方针,类似于通用电气案例的情况可能会得到不同的解决。集团内部财务担保体现了在与关联企业保持一定距离的原则下如何融资时所面临的挑战。当担保源于保证人对子公司资本化方式的刻意选择时,不适宜将公平原则置于本文所述的扭曲和分歧之下。将跨国集团内部的信誉视为不可分割和集体是一种实际的解决办法,无论是基于原则还是作为一种安全港,从而消除了为转让定价而考虑集团内部担保费用的需要。金融担保、转让定价、公平原则、信誉、隐性支持
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Intertax
Intertax LAW-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
(In)congruence Between Taxation, Spending, and Representation: The Ambiguous Character of Tax-based Contributions Taxing Powers of the European Union Judicial Review of the EU Own Resources Decision by the ECJ Protecting EU Financial Interests in the Collection of Tax-Based Own Resources Article: Conflicts between Directives that Require Taxation of Income and Tax Treaties: The Effectiveness of the EU Primacy-based Conflict Rule
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1