The danger of non-arm’s-length management fees

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


The danger of non-arm’s-length management fees

audit50.jpg

Management fees present particular difficulties for taxpayers. Whenever an asset management service is performed by a resident of one jurisdiction for a recipient in another there are transfer pricing implications.

It is understandable that revenue authorities focus so intently on intra-group management fees consideringthe tax planning opportunities available to taxpayers to lower taxable income by increasing expenses in another jurisdiction.

However, as long as the compensation for these intra-group services can be well-justified on the company’s transfer pricing documentation, these intra-group arrangements can form part of a company’s legitimate tax planning tool box.

A company needs to consider the tax implications on both sides of a transaction because, if adverse tax implications were to arise on any side, group profits can be affected; and so implementing a management-fee policy is advised, ensuring arm’s-length payment at all times.

Designing a policy

audit150.jpg

The OECD recommends taxpayers determine whether the activities undertaken by a parent company or group services centre genuinely constitute intra-group services (as in whether the payer is receiving a benefit); and then work out how to determine an arm’s-length measurement for the service in light of the benefits received.

The OECD states that a service has been rendered only if the activity provides the respective group member with economic or commercial value that might conceivably enhance the recipient's commercial position. Justification can be brought if it is considered an independent enterprise and would be willing to pay for that service under the same circumstances.

Difficulties arise, however, when it comes to services rendered that are not necessarily chargeable. The OECD stipulates the following services that may fall into this bracket:

  • Shareholder / custodial activities;

  • Duplicative services;

  • Services that provide incidental benefits;

  • Passive association benefits; and

  • On-call services.

Getting answers

As revenue authorities organise and distribute their resources for revenue collection, particularly in terms of transfer pricing, different issues become more of a focus.

International Tax Review and TPWeek are hosting a Global Transfer Pricing Forum on September 24 & 25 in Paris where the issue of management fees, in BRICS and developed countries, is the focus of a panel debate.

Including speakers from GE India, Alstom in France, and advisers from Russia, the US and the Netherlands, the panel will discuss how taxpayers should charge management fees in BRICS countries; what the real global issues are; and what the particular focus of tax authorities is now.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Historical claims involving KPMG Australia's tax practice have surfaced as the firm battles a separate parliamentary inquiry into its handling of whistleblowers
While AI is revolutionising tax work, it is also reshaping clients’ willingness to pay for advice and their perception of the value generated by tax advisers
From Dhruva Advisors to Svalner Atlas, Ryan is growing fast. Tom Shave discusses consolidation, competition, and tax’s private equity debate
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal the shortlisted nominees for the Middle East Tax Awards
The UK has confirmed its approach to the OECD’s side-by-side deal, but US-parented groups may find pillar two compliance remains far from straightforward
Fragmented pillar two taxation and increased use of AI by tax authorities have left clients fearful of heightened disputes exposure
Grant Thornton Advisors’ latest acquisition has produced the fifth-largest US advisory firm by revenue, but there’s still a clear gulf between it and the big four
Crowe joins Grant Thornton, WTS and Ryan in attracting PE investment, suggesting that dealmakers remain bullish on the tax advisory sector
HMRC expects advisers to meet ever-higher compliance criteria. After 24 consecutive qualified audit opinions, many will ask whether HMRC should hold itself to the same standards
The purchase of Marosa represents the second major tax tech consolidation this week, raising questions of a broader industry trend
Gift this article