Guarantees and implicit support: a new front in transfer pricing controversy

Few areas of transfer pricing illustrate the tension between legal form and economic reality as clearly as guarantees and implicit support. What may appear to be a simple distinction (a formal commitment on one side, a passive benefit of group membership on the other) is becoming one of the most fact-sensitive questions in intra-group financial transactions.

As tax authorities and courts increasingly scrutinise how group support affects credit risk, pricing, and guarantee fees, taxpayers face a practical challenge: determining when group affiliation merely informs the interest rate and when it creates a separately compensable benefit.

The distinction between explicit guarantees and implicit support has traditionally been presented as relatively clear in transfer pricing, but in recent times this distinction has become more relevant because the two concepts should not automatically lead to the same transfer pricing outcome.

Explicit guarantees are legally binding commitments under which a parent or affiliated entity assumes responsibility for the financial obligations of another group company. Guarantees produce an incremental, measurable benefit for that specific entity that is guaranteed beyond the benefit already derived from group affiliation. Implicit support, by contrast, refers to the benefit that may arise from group membership, based on the expectation that a parent could provide support if needed, even without a formal agreement.

Historically, implicit support has been treated as a passive effect of group membership. Under this approach, lenders may consider the possible backing of a parent entity when assessing the credit profile of a borrower, even if no legal commitment exists. However, this expectation is not certain and does not create a direct obligation. For this reason, transfer pricing analyses have considered implicit support as part of the background conditions that affect the pricing of a loan, rather than as a separate service that should be remunerated at arm’s length. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations follow this approach, recognising that group membership can influence credit ratings but stopping short of treating implicit support in the same way as an explicit guarantee.

In recent years, tax authorities have begun to look more closely at the economic relevance of implicit support. The focus has shifted to whether, in certain cases, it may go beyond a general expectation and resemble a factual commitment. This reflects a broader move towards fact-based analyses, where greater weight is placed on actual behaviour and on how third parties would reasonably view the situation, rather than on legal form alone.

The relevant question is whether the facts suggest that implicit support is strong enough to influence market behaviour in a more direct way. This will rarely depend on a single element. It may be shaped by the strategic importance of the borrower, the degree of operational or financial integration, previous instances of parental support, or the reputational considerations of the group. In some cases, these factors may lead lenders to assume that support is highly likely, even if it is not legally enforceable. If the facts suggest that there is a stronger expectation of support, a question arises as to whether this should be recognised as a separate element, potentially leading to a guarantee-type remuneration.

From a transfer pricing perspective, this creates a degree of uncertainty. The controversy lies in the grey area between these positions.

In that context, the boundary between explicit guarantees and implicit support is becoming less dependent on labels and more dependent on the underlying facts. This makes the analysis more demanding but also more relevant: the critical point is how an independent lender would assess the likelihood and impact of group support in the specific case.

The practical difficulty is not so much defining implicit support as determining its pricing consequences. The key question is whether the benefit of group support is already reflected in the pricing of the loan or whether a separate guarantee fee is due.

In its standard formulation, implicit support is embedded in the borrower’s credit profile. Lenders factor in the perceived backing of the group when assessing credit risk, which translates into better financing conditions without requiring a distinct payment. This approach is coherent with the idea that implicit support is not a service in itself but rather an element shaping market risk perception.

The analysis becomes more complex when that market perception is particularly strong. Certain fact patterns may suggest that expected parental support goes beyond a broad assumption and starts to resemble a more reliable form of backing. At that point, the boundary becomes less clear: if market participants attach significant value to the parent’s involvement, it is not always obvious whether that benefit is fully captured through pricing alone.

This leads to a second, closely related issue: how to identify the incremental benefit of an explicit guarantee when implicit support is already present. Conceptually, an explicit commitment should further reduce the lender’s exposure and therefore provide an additional advantage. However, isolating that incremental effect is far from straightforward. Credit assessments that already take group affiliation into account may leave limited room for a measurable difference once a formal guarantee is introduced.

Different approaches attempt to address this question, but they often lead to diverging results. Some focus on observable market data, such as spread differentials, while others rely on more model-based estimates of risk transfer. In situations with strong implicit support, both approaches may converge towards a relatively limited incremental benefit, raising questions as to whether a separate fee is warranted at all. Conversely, it can also be argued that the very existence of a legally binding commitment carries an independent value, even if it is not easily quantifiable through standard metrics.

A further difficulty is the potential overlap between the two effects. If implicit support has already improved the borrower’s credit standing, adding a separate guarantee fee may capture the same economic benefit twice. This is not always visible when each analytical step is considered in isolation. The challenge is therefore to measure each component without losing sight of the combined result.

These tensions also raise a broader question about how independent parties would view similar arrangements. In market conditions, lenders do not necessarily separate implicit and explicit elements with the same precision expected in a transfer pricing analysis. They normally form an overall view of the borrower’s creditworthiness, combining formal commitments and informal expectations into a single assessment. Translating that integrated view into a transfer pricing framework is inherently complex.

Ultimately, the practical issue is one of internal consistency. Whether implicit support is treated solely as a pricing factor or as giving rise to an additional element depends on the characterisation of the arrangement and on how its components interact. This explains why similar fact patterns may lead to different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction and why the topic is increasingly moving to the centre of transfer pricing controversy in financial transactions.

Until recently, the treatment of implicit support and intra-group guarantees remained a relatively underdeveloped area within transfer pricing practice. This position has evolved rapidly, with a growing number of decisions across jurisdictions addressing how group affiliation interacts with pricing, guarantees, and, in some cases, the recognition of the transaction itself. Across Europe, intensifying tax audits and litigation have brought the implicit support issue to the fore. Several recent cases illustrate how authorities and courts are grappling with these blurred boundaries.

In some jurisdictions, this discussion is complemented by administrative guidance. In the UK, for instance, HM Revenue and Customs materials updated in 2026 maintain a distinction between implicit and explicit support, whereby group affiliation may influence pricing through the assessment of credit risk but does not in itself give rise to a separately identifiable service. However, this type of analytical reference does not eliminate the divergence observed in practice.

A first line of cases focuses on whether the effects of group affiliation should be embedded in pricing or treated separately. In Spain, the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) decision STS 985/2025 (Bunge Ibérica, S.A., July 15 2025) addressed the pricing of intra-group cash pooling arrangements. The court confirmed that the borrower’s credit position should be assessed on a consolidated group basis and that the resulting benefit, access to more favourable financing conditions, forms part of the pricing of the transaction. On that basis, no separate remuneration is associated with such benefit, which is treated as inherent to participation in the group rather than as a distinct service.

A similar approach can be observed in the Netherlands, in the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Amsterdam Court of Appeal) decision in Tobacco BV (September 11 2025). The court accepted that the Dutch entity’s derived credit rating matched that of the group, concluding that implicit support had been adequately internalised in the credit assessment. The guarantee fee paid to the parent was not accepted, as no separately identifiable guarantee service could be established beyond what group membership already conferred.

In contrast, other jurisdictions show greater reluctance to incorporate implicit support into pricing in the absence of clear evidence. In Portugal, the decisions in Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa (Administrative Arbitration Centre) cases 687/2016-T and 733/2015-T dealt with the appropriate interest rate on intra-group financing. The tribunals rejected a significant downward adjustment proposed by the tax authority, emphasising that group affiliation alone did not justify aligning the borrower with a high credit standing in the absence of formal guarantees. The borrower's exposure to its own operational and market risks was therefore preserved in the pricing analysis.

A different dimension emerges in Italy, in a decision of the Corte di Cassazione, Order No. 13136 of May 7 2026. The case involved a subsidiary granting real guarantees (pegni e ipoteche) in favour of its US parent company in connection with external financing, without receiving any remuneration. The tax authority sought to impute a guarantee fee based on a comparable uncontrolled price method. However, the court upheld the annulment of the adjustment, applying the doctrine of vantaggi compensativi: where valid economic reasons linked to the group’s overall activity are demonstrated (including indirect benefits accruing to the guarantor such as continuity of operations and future revenue prospects), the absence of a fee does not automatically trigger a transfer pricing adjustment.

Further complexity is introduced by cases where the primary issue is not pricing but the delineation of the transaction. In Luxembourg, in LuxCo (Administrative Tribunal, March 18 2026), the dispute centred on an undisclosed counter-guarantee arrangement under which the Luxembourg holding company had assumed credit risk in connection with the intra-group financing activity of a related Belgian entity. The tribunal confirmed that assuming credit risk must give rise to an arm’s-length guarantee fee, even in the absence of actual default. However, it rejected the tax administration’s broader position that the full financing income should be reallocated to LuxCo: the mere assumption of credit risk was not sufficient to treat the guarantor as the entity carrying out the financing activity in its entirety. The adjustment was therefore limited to the remuneration of the guarantee function.

Taken together, these decisions show that similar fact patterns are addressed through different analytical lenses. Some approaches integrate the effect of group affiliation directly into pricing, limiting the scope for separate fees. Others place greater weight on the borrower's standalone position in the absence of formal commitments or rely on broader economic context to assess whether a fee is justified. In other cases, the analysis is framed at an earlier stage, focusing on whether the transaction itself should be recognised and, if so, on what terms.

Changes in practice between favouring explicit guarantees versus implicit support represent a paradigm shift in transfer pricing for financial transactions. While OECD and United Nations guidance continues to differentiate between legally enforceable guarantees and passive group effects, the practical reality is that the line between them is no longer clear-cut. International guidance is converging on a substance-based approach: accurately delineating the transaction by considering all the relevant circumstances, including group ties, but only charging for those elements that truly go beyond the baseline affiliation benefit.

However, until these principles are uniformly applied, careful analysis and proactive dialogue with tax authorities (including advance pricing agreements) may be the best strategy to navigate this complex frontier of transfer pricing.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), its global network of member firms, and their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organization”). DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms and related entities are legally separate and independent entities, which cannot obligate or bind each other in respect of third parties. DTTL and each DTTL member firm and related entity is liable only for its own acts and omissions, and not those of each other. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more.

Deloitte provides leading professional services to nearly 90% of the Fortune Global 500® and thousands of private companies. Our people deliver measurable and lasting results that help reinforce public trust in capital markets and enable clients to transform and thrive. Building on its 180+ year history, Deloitte spans more than 150 countries and territories. Learn how Deloitte’s over 470,000 people worldwide work together every day to make an impact that matters at www.deloitte.com.

This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), its global network of member firms or their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte organization”) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser.

No representations, warranties or undertakings (express or implied) are given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information in this communication, and none of DTTL, its member firms, related entities, employees or agents shall be liable or responsible for any loss or damage whatsoever arising directly or indirectly in connection with any person relying on this communication. DTTL and each of its member firms, and their related entities, are legally separate and independent entities. 

© 2026. For information, contact Deloitte Global.