Transfer pricing is the general term for the pricing of cross‐border, intra‐firm transactions between related parties. “Transfer pricing” therefore refers to the setting of prices at which transactions occur involving the transfer of property or services between associated enterprises, forming part of an MNE group. These transactions are also referred to as “controlled” transactions, as distinct from “uncontrolled” transactions between companies that, for example, are not associated and can be assumed to operate independently (“on an arm’s length basis”) in reaching terms for such transactions.
In simple terms transfer pricing is the price at which related parties are assumed to transact, and if this price is subjected to tests, it is the same price at which independently trading companies would have transacted.
A simple explanation of transfer pricing is given below.
There is company A Inc which is incorporated in Turkey manufacturing shoes. The same company forms a subsidiary company B Inc in Uganda and it distributes the manufactured shoes in Uganda and East Africa.
Company A inc incurs a cost of production for one pair shoes of $150, however it has set a transfer price of $200 for each pair of shoes it sends to B Inc. Company B Inc also incurs additional operational costs of $50 per pair. The question is what would be the selling price of company A Inc and what cost should Company B Inc declare in its books of account?
Under normal circumstances Company A Inc would have a selling price of $200, and company B Inc would have total cost of $250, however since these companies are trading under controlled conditions, since the actions of company B Inc in Uganda are controlled by Company A Inc in Turkey, the selling price of $200 should be subjected to tests to see if an independent company would sale the same product (Shoes) to company B Inc at the same price.
Secondly since these companies are essentially the same, the shoes should be transferred to Company B Inc incorporated in Uganda at $150 and therefore the cost of production would be $200 and not $250.
For tax purposes to allow the transfer price it must be subject to tests to remove the effects of “arm’s length” transactions. Many companies have been involved in aggressive tax planning and taken advantage of multi-national trade to use the availability of differing tax treatments to reduce their tax obligations and also to pay as little tax as possible.
For example: let’s assume Turkey has an income Tax rate of 20% and Uganda has a tax rate of 30%. Under this assumption it is advantageous if more profits are apportioned to the parent company since the tax rate is low, and low profits in Uganda since the tax rate is high. How is this possible? The parent company A Inc would have to transfer products and services at high prices to B Inc in Uganda, so that they can reduce the effect of tax exposure due to the high tax rate.
For example A Inc sends 100 shoes to B Inc. The other costs of A include License Fees $200.
The Profit and Loss Account for A Inc the parent Company in Turkey would look like this at the transfer price of $200.
Item | Unit | Total ($) |
Sales | $200*100 | 20,000 |
Cost of production | $150*100 | 15,000 |
Gross Profit | 5000 | |
Less: operating Expenses | 200 | |
Profits | 4,800 | |
Tax @ 20% | 960 | |
Total EAT | 3,840 |
Item | Unit | Total ($) |
Sales | $300*100 | 30,000 |
Cost of production | $20*100 | 20,000 |
Gross Profit | 10,000 | |
Less: operating Expenses | $50*100 | 5,000 |
Profits | 5,000 | |
Tax @ 30% | 1,500 | |
Total EAT | 3,500 |
Item | Unit | Total ($) |
Sales | $300*100 | 30,000 |
Cost of production | $150*100 | 15,000 |
Gross Profit | 15,000 | |
Less: operating Expenses | $50*100 | 5,000 |
Profits | 10,000 | |
Tax @ 30% | 3,000 | |
Total EAT | 7,000 |
Items | Tax | EAT (Earnings After Tax) |
Transfer price to B Inc of $200 | 2,460 | 7,340 |
Transfer price to B Inc of $150 | 3,960 | 10,840 |
From the workings above, it is very clear that A Inc incurs a high tax exposure in Uganda; therefore what it would do is to ensure that it maximizes sales in Turkey and apportions more costs and costs of production to B Inc in Uganda so that the tax exposure is reduced. Therefore instead of setting a transfer price of $200 it can set a price of $400 so that profits are maximized in Turkey and reduced in Uganda yet the actual trading of goods, the actual value is added at the distribution level that is in Uganda which distributes the shoes to the final consumers and retailers.
Conclusion
Under OECD each company is taxed independently and it is very important that the Revenue Bodies carry out transfer pricing audits to verify the arm’s length principle in the transfer of services, products and rights among related companies of Multi National Enterprises (MNE).