Why country by country reporting is not compatible with transfer pricing realities

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

Why country by country reporting is not compatible with transfer pricing realities

mining50.jpg

An estimated $110 billion disappeared because of transfer mispricing on the import of crude oil in the EU and US between 2000 and 2010, a recent report from Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Norway said.

The report, as covered by www.tpweek.com, says that companies in the extractive industries are using rogue transfer pricing methods to transfer profits from the source countries to the companies themselves. PWYP, which campaigns for transparency in multinational entities’ financial reporting, also said tax administrations in developing countries rarely have the resources or the ability to check that transfer pricing is in-line with arm’s-length standards.

Country by country reporting (CBCR)

PWYP has put forward a policy proposal for consideration by the EU, which would require multinationals to disclose full financial statements on a per-country basis.

Janine Juggins, global head of tax for Rio Tinto, said she does not think the PWYP report is a fair reflection of the true situation: “It is not possible to accurately quantify the proportion of transfer pricing that is correct versus the proportion that is incorrect, nor would the publication of full financial statements change this conclusion.”

“Many related party transactions take place between countries that have extensive transfer pricing legislation, and transactions with entities in low tax countries will not withstand scrutiny unless supported by the facts,” Juggins added.

Companies in the extractive industries, like all multinationals, are already subject to transfer pricing rules in every operational country that has transfer pricing legislation. They are therefore required to maintain transfer pricing documentation to comply with the relevant laws and to avoid tax penalties, and are subject to tax return filing requirements and tax audits.

To read the rest of the story, visit www.tpweek.com.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The French administration has used AI to detect undeclared swimming pools and verandas but always includes a human in the loop, the AI in Tax Forum heard
The UK tax authority’s deputy director of large business also reassured taxpayers that HMRC will not ‘nitpick’ returns
Sucafina’s tax chief was speaking at the ITR Pillar 2 Forum in London alongside experts from HMRC and other organisations
India’s Supreme Court rattled cross‑border structuring with its Tiger Global ruling. Subsequent rule changes narrowed the impact, but significant risks around GAAR, substance and treaty access persist
The UK-based big four spin-off firm has hired Marc Lien, who declared that most AI in professional services today is ‘cosmetic’
Projected revenue losses and exemption requests are harming the project’s capability and viability
HMRC secured lengthy prison sentences in a major payroll VAT fraud case, while law firms announced tax promotions and hires
Significant changes include an update to profit markers and an alteration to how an ‘inbound distributor’ is defined
ITR sat down for a pre-event interview with Tim Zech, WTS Germany, and Jeff Soar, WTS UK, keynote speaker at next week’s ITR AI in Tax Forum 2026 in London
Brazil’s bid to seek US-style exemptions from pillar two is ‘highly advantageous’ for multinationals, ITR has also heard
Gift this article