OECD paper on transfer pricing comparability data for developing countries could be a stretch too far

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

OECD paper on transfer pricing comparability data for developing countries could be a stretch too far

The OECD, last week, produced a paper on “Transfer Pricing Comparability Data and Developing Countries” in response to concerns about the poor quality and lack of availability of financial comparables data that many developing countries have access to.

The document offers four alternative approaches to addressing these concerns:

  • Expanding access to data sources for comparables. For example: improving the range of data contained in commercial databases; expanding developing countries’ access to these databases; and increasing the access to comparables data in those developing countries with a high number of sizeable independent companies.

  • More effective use of data sources for comparables. For example: guidance on the effective use of commercial databases; the selection of foreign comparables; whether and how to make adjustments to foreign comparables to increase reliability; and alternative approaches to finding comparables.

  • Approaches to reducing reliance on direct comparables. For example: guidance on using proxies for arm’s-length outcomes; the profit split method; value chain analysis and safe harbours; application of the so called “sixth method”; and a review of possible anti-avoidance approaches.

  • Advance pricing agreements and mutual agreement proceedings. Including a review of developing countries experiences with pros and cons of APAs and negotiations to resolve transfer pricing disputes as well as guidance on mutual agreement proceedings.

Conclusions

The document concludes that, “developing countries have particular difficulty in obtaining reliable comparables data for the purposes of determining transfer prices” and suggests 15 possible actions in response. These actions include:

  • Expanding access to data sources for comparables. Support could be provided by donors to fund access to commercial comparables databases;

  • More effective use of data sources for comparables. Additional guidance or direct assistance could be provided to developing countries with regard to the effective use of commercial databases;

  • Approaches to reducing reliance on direct comparables. For example, additional guidance from the Secretariat or direct assistance from the OECD Tax and development programme being provided to developing countries with regard to safe harbours; and

  • Advance pricing agreements and mutual agreement proceedings. A review of country approaches to negotiations to resolve transfer pricing disputes and their governance frameworks could be prepared by the Secretariat.

The document notes that, given the long list of possible actions, there should be some prioritisation of those actions based on country needs and the availability of resources.

The OECD is seeking interested parties’ comments by April 11 2014.

Commentary

It may be easy to overlook this document given that it is published at a time when the OECD is consulting on a large number of transfer pricing matters. However, it should not be overlooked.

One potential impact of the proposed country-by-country reporting template disclosures is that many more developing countries will have access to a much broader range of information about multinational companies’ global operations. Consequently, there is likely to be an increasing interest in identifying comparables to assess the arm’s-length nature of the pricing adopted in many developing countries. This document is a good first attempt to address the comparability issues that are likely to arise over the next few years.

The relatively limited treaty network means that many developing countries have increased the risk of double taxation (due to the lack of a MAP) arising from pricing disputes, so this guidance to companies and tax authorities alike should be welcome.

However, the risk is that the OECD is “stretched” too far and does not have sufficient resources to apply to these issues. There is also the risk that donors will not step-up with real financial assistance in what is typically a low profile area of developing country aid.

By Elizabeth Hughes of Grant Thornton UK

elizabeth.hughes@uk.gt.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

But partners at the firm admit that jumping ship to the US would not be as easy as some believe
Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
As GCCs increasingly become strategic hubs, multinationals face heightened risks around permanent establishment and place of effective management
While all options presented ‘drawbacks’, European Commission tax leader Wopke Hoekstra said the controversial US carve-out deal has ‘many benefits’
From tech preparations to competitiveness concerns, Tax Systems’ Russell Gammon addresses the most pressing client considerations arising from the SbS deal
Despite estimates that the US/OECD agreement will cost countries billions, the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan believes the deal is a ‘necessary evil’
The firm’s eye-catching UK launch is a major statement of intent, but it will face stern opposition in its quest to be the top global tax player
The postponement came after industry representatives flagged implementation issues with the registration regime; in other news, firms made key tax partner additions
Gift this article