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 2025

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

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

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.

audit150.jpg

It is understandable that revenue authorities focus so intently on intra-group management fees considering the 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

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

The UK’s Labour government has an unpopular prime minister, an unpopular chancellor and not a lot of good options as it prepares to deliver its autumn Budget
Awards
The firms picked up five major awards between them at a gala ceremony held at New York’s prestigious Metropolitan Club
The streaming company’s operating income was $400m below expectations following the dispute; in other news, the OECD has released updates for 25 TP country profiles
Software company Oracle has won the right to have its A$250m dispute with the ATO stayed, paving the way for a mutual agreement procedure
If the US doesn't participate in pillar two then global consensus on the project can’t be a reality, tax academic René Matteotti also suggests
If it gets pillar two right, India may be the ideal country that finds a balance between its global commitments and its national interests, Sameer Sharma argues
As World Tax unveils its much-anticipated rankings for 2026, we focus on EMEA’s top performers in the first of three regional analyses
Firms are spending serious money to expand their tax advisory practices internationally – this proves that the tax practice is no mere sideshow
The controversial deal would ‘preserve the gains achieved under pillar two’, the OECD said; in other news, HMRC outlined its approach to dealing with ‘harmful’ tax advisers
Former EY and Deloitte tax specialists will staff the new operation, which provides the firm with new offices in Tokyo and Osaka
Gift this article