US makes headway on transfer pricing simplification

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

US makes headway on transfer pricing simplification

The US is one of six countries highlighted in an OECD survey as having measures to simplify transfer pricing that are specifically geared toward low value-added services.

The lower possible tax revenues involved make such arrangements suitable for simplification.

In July 2010, the OECD conducted a survey of 33 jurisdictions on transfer pricing simplification measures. The results of the study, titled “Multi-Country Analysis of Existing Transfer Pricing Simplification Measures,” were released this month. More than 70% of the simplification measures implemented by survey respondents were targeted at smaller-scale transactions such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and lower-amount loans and transactions.  

Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code which contains America's transfer pricing rules, does not state outright that it uses the arm’s-length principle as the benchmark for transfer pricing, though regulations have been implemented by tax authorities that make it the standard for transfer pricing. The transfer pricing simplification measures in place in the US cover loans, SMEs, low value-added services and smaller-scale transactions. The IRS responded in its report that the goal of one of its strategies, implementing the services cost method to determine pricing for low value-added transactions, “is to administratively take low value services off the audit table so that both audit teams and taxpayers can devote their resources to more significant transfer pricing or other audit issues”.

The arm’s-length principle has been the standard for transfer pricing the world over for decades. “Common acceptance and adherence to the arm's-length standard, is critical for the orderly administration and the functioning of transfer pricing across jurisdictions,” Brian Andreoli, a partner at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey’s New York office, told TPWeek on Tuesday. Yet the Obama administration seems to be considering a move away from the arm’s-length principle, says Theo van Stephoudt, an economist and transfer pricing expert also at Squire Sanders. A “formula approach is not going to work; at least not on a global basis,” he continued.

Administrative guidance issued by the IRS in 1996 states that transfer pricing simplification measures in the form of simplified advanced pricing arrangements (APAs) apply to transactions totalling no more than $50 million per year. Intangible property transactions must have an annual total of no more than $10 million to qualify. Businesses with a gross income of $200 million or less that potentially also qualify for the streamlined APA. The IRS’s APA programme works with taxpayers to develop comparables to determine appropriate pricing.

A safe harbour interest rate applies to loans, as set out in rules first promulgated in 1968 and last updated in 1994. The loans have to be between associated enterprises; businesses centred on making loans or loans made in a foreign currency are not eligible. The safe harbour rate is based on the applicable federal rate, which is calculated according to the average interest rate on federal government debt having similar maturity dates.

The services cost method (SCM) applies to low value-added services, particularly low margin services including those that, as the IRS responded, “do not contribute significantly to key competitive advantages, core capabilities or fundamental risks of success or failure”. First established in 1968, the regulatory framework concerning transfer pricing on low value-added services was revised in 2006. Under the SCM, items can be priced at cost, rather than using the arm’s-length principle.

Taxpayers can opt to take compliance one step further with associated shared services arrangement (SSA) transfer pricing simplification methods. The SSA allows for cost apportionment determined as according to “reasonably concluded” estimated benefits.

It is clear that the US is putting more resources into transfer pricing enforcement. Last month, the IRS appointed Sam Maruca, a partner at Washington, DC law firm Covington & Burling, as its transfer pricing director. As part of the Large Business and International Division, among his expected tasks will be to develop and implement a cogent transfer pricing policy. 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Despite the Netherlands featuring an unusual concentration of World Tax-ranked technology-led providers, sources believe there’s a long way to go to challenge the established players
Ethics seems to be playing a subservient role to an entitlement culture borne out of a pervasive ‘revenue at all costs’ mentality at the big four
Historical World Tax data suggests the ‘largest law firm merger in history’ may not pose a serious threat to the world's leading tax practices
The repeal of Libya’s statute of limitations and tougher enforcement leave taxpayers navigating a high-stakes choice between conciliation and litigation
Gift this article