What is new in Luxembourg on the transfer pricing front?

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

What is new in Luxembourg on the transfer pricing front?

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
cedric-letsch-DqHa4YO9mjc-unsplash.jpg

Balazs Majoros of Deloitte Luxembourg provides an update on the transfer pricing landscape in the grand duchy against a backdrop of opposition to a draft bill and winds of change from the EU

In 2023, efforts began in Luxembourg to modernise the procedural tax law and introduce new transfer pricing (TP) documentation requirements that already exist in other jurisdictions, including the requirement to submit a local file and a master file. This article will explore these proposed changes as TP documentation has played a significant role in recent audit procedures and as it remains an important topic in potential litigation with the tax authorities.

While modernising the procedural tax law was expected because regulations from the 1940s were outdated, the draft bill seems to prioritise restricting taxpayers’ rights, contrary to the widespread consensus favouring their reinforcement:

  • The draft bill provides that taxpayers wishing to litigate must first appeal to the head of the direct tax authorities in writing within three months following the issuance of the contested tax assessment. If no response is received within six months of the written request, the taxpayer would be able to appeal at any time to the tribunal. With this provision, the Luxembourg tax administration aimed to establish a timeframe for tribunal access if initial requests are unanswered, but it overlooked the underlying issue of the direct tax authorities lacking resources to properly address taxpayers’ concerns in a timely manner.

  • The draft intends to make non-binding any annual accounts that were not published on time.

  • It aims to limit taxpayers’ ability to contest automatic tax assessments in cases where the difference between automatic taxation and actual income or wealth exceeds 10%.

  • It seeks to increase the formality in filing complaints.

The Chamber of Commerce and members of parliament have criticised the draft law, urging the direct tax authorities to reconsider its provisions. One key concern is the lack of formal closure for audit procedures, leaving taxpayers unaware about any resolution until after the five-year tax assessment period. Consequently, practitioners agree that a closure timeframe should be established for any audit investigation opened by the direct tax authorities.

Since the draft bill addresses both issues, parliament’s scepticism about the benefits of the new procedural tax law may affect the law’s TP documentation requirements. These new requirements – i.e., the local file and master file requirements – may resurface during the new legislative period running from 2023 to 2028, as they aim to integrate all aspects of BEPS Action 13 (country-by-country reporting) into the Luxembourg regulations.

According to the current draft, only members of a group with combined annual revenues exceeding €750 million would face these additional documentation requirements. This quantitative threshold is significantly higher than the thresholds for similar obligations in neighbouring countries. Thus, it appears that the change is intended to claim full Action 13 implementation in Luxembourg rather than to enhance TP documentation by Luxembourg taxpayers.

Further developments expected at local and EU level

To conclude, the market awaits the new government’s agenda and the newly nominated head of the direct tax authorities and hopes for a revised draft of the procedural tax law that provides a clearer framework for tax investigations, thus offering taxpayers more visibility during audits.

Meanwhile, the ‘winds of change’ seem to blow from the EU in the field of TP, as new directives, such as the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT) and a TP directive, were sent by the European Commission to the Council of the European Union for approval at the end of 2023. While this article will not delve into the specifics of these directives, it is worth noting that the European Commission aimed to standardise TP regulations across member states, aligning them with the OECD guidelines. Yet, these directives were not adopted in 2023 and are on hold. Controversies surrounding the BEFIT directive’s common direct tax base have contributed to this delay, and consensus on the TP elements remains difficult to reach.

With the upcoming EU parliamentary elections in June 2024, these initiatives are likely to remain on hold. Nonetheless, with the EU actively shaping TP regulations, further developments can be expected after the elections.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

While it’s great that the OECD is alive to multinationals’ fears of being caught in a compliance trap, the ‘common understanding’ illustrates a worrying lack of readiness
Rising demand for specialist expertise has fuelled the growth in tax partner headcounts, Cain Dwyer found; in other news, Switzerland has been urged to reconsider pillar two
An OECD report on the taxation of the digital economy is expected by the end of 2026, according to the group of nations
Trophy assets are evolving from personal indulgences to structured investments, prompting family offices to prioritise tax efficiency, governance discipline, and cross-border compliance
As demand for complex, cross-border private client counsel spikes, Patrick McCormick sees opportunity in starting from scratch
As part of an exclusive global alliance, KPMG will become one of Anthropic’s ‘preferred consultants’ for private equity
In the second part of this series, the focus shifts to how taxpayers can manage ongoing risks across the lifecycle of cross-border structures
Jurisdictions have moved to ensure that multinationals are not punished for late GIR filings due to a lack of available filing portals or exchange relationships
HMRC’s push for unified tax adviser registration won’t prevent every instance of improper conduct, but it is good for taxpayers and the UK’s reputation
Elsewhere, the UAE’s tax office has issued an update on registration penalties and two firms have been busy making lateral hires
Gift this article