Tariff Wars and Transfer Pricing: A Perfect Storm for Multinationals?

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


Tariff Wars and Transfer Pricing: A Perfect Storm for Multinationals?

Sponsored by

21GarriguesBrazil.jpg

The global business environment faces a new stress test in the form of tariffs, the magnitude of which is unheard of since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, in the aftermath of the US election. The unpredictability and changing nature of tariffs require multinational enterprises (MNEs) to reassess the terms and conditions of their controlled transactions and transfer pricing policies.

The global business environment faces a new stress test in the form of tariffs, the magnitude of which is unheard of since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, in the aftermath of the US election. The unpredictability and changing nature of tariffs require multinational enterprises (MNEs) to reassess the terms and conditions of their controlled transactions and transfer pricing policies. This article intends to explore some ideas about how tariffs may impact transfer pricing and what can be done from the MNEs’ perspective to realign compliance with the arm’s length principle and mitigate potential risks.

U.S. tariffs, introduced unpredictably, have profound effects on international trade and on the pricing of businesses’ structures. For MNEs, these tariffs change the cost dynamics of cross-border transactions, especially for goods. This shift in costs forces a reevaluation of how profits and risks should be allocated within MNEs’ value chains. The impact of this change on transfer pricing matters is inevitable.

The introduction or increase of tariffs affects the cost structures of goods sold (COGS) and, by extension, the profitability of intercompany transactions. Considering the above, MNEs need to address key areas to align their transfer pricing policies with these changes:

•    Assessing profitability: MNEs should model the impact of tariffs on their intercompany profitability, to understand how tariffs might affect margins. This is key to determine if, and to what extent (the quantum), transfer pricing adjustments are necessary.

•    Reevaluating business models: Companies should evaluate their existing business models and supply chains. In response to tariffs, MNEs may need to adjust their transactions (e.g. moving to lower-risk distribution models, to mitigate the impact on their profitability). At this stage, a deep functional, risks and assets analysis plays a crucial role when (re)determining arm’s length prices for intragroup transactions. 

•    Reviewing intercompany agreements: MNEs must also assess their intercompany agreements to ensure they are adaptable to changes in tariffs. For instance, force majeure clauses, which allow parties to renegotiate contracts in response to unforeseen events, may become more relevant in this context. If tariffs significantly impact profitability, it may be necessary to renegotiate pricing terms or consider alternative risk-sharing models. In addition, some contracts include renegotiation clauses that allow parties to revisit pricing terms in response to major market disruptions, while others include termination clauses that may come into effect if certain conditions are met. MNEs must carefully evaluate how such clauses might apply in the context of tariff changes and ensure that the impact on transfer pricing adjustments is well-documented and compliant with the arm’s length principle.

•    Consider relocation opportunities: US tariffs have not been imposed coherently across the board, thus creating, new opportunities for relocation of assets, functions and personnel. Beyond  transfer pricing, relocation strategies should consider a wider spectrum of international tax issues, such as the existing treaty networks, substance concerns and, evidently, the reliability of legal and tax systems. 

Whatever strategic changes are adopted, they must be carefully documented and justified from a transfer pricing perspective. Any reallocation of functions or risks must reflect economic substance and be supported by robust functional analyses, updated benchmarking studies, and clear intercompany agreements. Proper documentation is crucial when adjusting transfer pricing policies. MNEs must be prepared to provide evidence to tax authorities that any adjustments made are in line with the arm’s length principle. This includes demonstrating the cause-effect relationship between the tariff increase and any changes to intercompany pricing, with a well-documented rationale and evidence of how the tariffs impacted the intercompany transactions.

To successfully navigate the complexities of tariffs, MNEs must adopt a proactive approach. This involves regularly reviewing transfer pricing policies and intercompany agreements, considering long-term strategies to minimize the risk of future tariff disruptions. 

By building resilience into their transfer pricing models and adapting their business strategies to accommodate tariff fluctuations, MNEs can reduce exposure to the risks posed by unpredictable factors such as significant changes on tariff policies.

In conclusion, the evolving nature of U.S. tariffs requires MNEs to reassess their transfer pricing strategies. Companies must model the impact of tariffs on profitability, review their intercompany agreements, and consider the role of contractual terms like force majeure clauses. Through strategic planning and diligent documentation, MNEs can ensure that their transfer pricing policies remain compliant and resilient in the face of tariff changes.

Co-authored by:

•    Mariana Martins Silva, Principal Associate, Transfer Pricing

•    Miguel Pimentel, International Tax & Transfer Pricing

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Originators, loan purchasers and securitisation vehicles may need to revisit servicing agreements and pricing after a key judgment narrowed the VAT credit management exemption
Opening doors for existing talent within Baker McKenzie and a desire for enhanced legal capabilities informed Ricardo Perera’s switch from KPMG
Boaz Goren’s move to the upstart PE-backed firm takes the number of senior UK tax professionals who have left EY this year to 13
The allegations against Deloitte Cyprus raise uncomfortable questions about how far the big four can distance themselves from misconduct at member firms
Gift this article