An auditor’s query on intercompany pricing usually arrives in a recognizable form: a request for the basis on which a management fee, a royalty or an intragroup interest margin was set, followed by an observation that the supporting evidence appears thin. It is not an assessment. It is not a correction. It does not, by itself, create a liability. What it does create is a written record that the group’s own reviewers considered a position uncertain, and that record tends to outlive the audit cycle in which it was made. The period between the flag and the sign-off is the last stretch in which the group still controls the sequence of events, and it should be used accordingly.
What the flag is, and what it is not
The auditor is not applying tax law. The auditor is testing whether the financial statements are fairly stated, which includes whether an uncertain tax position requires recognition, measurement or disclosure. The question is therefore probabilistic and accounting-led: how likely is it that a tax authority, with full knowledge of the facts, would disturb the position, and what would that cost. A tax inspection is a different instrument entirely, with statutory information powers, a defined burden of proof, penalty exposure and an appeal route. The auditor has none of those. What the auditor does have is the ability to withhold or qualify an opinion, and a working paper file that may later be read by someone else.
Two further points are frequently missed. First, the flag often originates with a component auditor in a subsidiary jurisdiction rather than with the group auditor, which means the concern may be framed by local practice and may not match how the group sees the same transaction. Second, an audit flag typically surfaces well before an inspection would. That is an advantage, provided it is treated as one.
The sequence an inspection follows is fairly stable. Where the group files one, the country-by-country report is read first as a risk indicator, and article 29f of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969 states that purpose and then forbids the inspector from basing a pricing adjustment on that report. The master file follows, supplying what Action 13 of the BEPS project calls a blueprint of the group, covering organisational structure, business, intangibles, intragroup financing and the financial and tax position. The local file, with the material transactions of the local entity, is read last, and the detailed questions come out of what the three fail to reconcile.
The first task is an inventory, not an answer
The instinct to reply immediately with a justification should be resisted. Before any position is defended, the group needs a complete list of related-party transactions across the open years: goods and services flows, headquarters and management services, licences and other intellectual property charges, financing in all its forms including loans, guarantees, cash pooling and deferred trade balances, cost contribution arrangements, secondments and shared personnel, and the use of tangible assets. It also means the transactions nobody ever papered, which are usually the ones that generated the query.
For each item, record the counterparties and their jurisdictions, the quantum per year, the mechanism by which the price was set, whether a written agreement exists, and, critically, whether conduct matches that agreement. The most common failure is not an absent contract; it is a contract describing a division of functions and risks that the business stopped following some years ago.
Whether a documentary basis exists at all
Dutch law imposes the arm’s length principle and an associated documentation obligation without any turnover threshold, so the absence of a group-level filing requirement is not the absence of an obligation. The Master File and Local File requirement attaches from fifty million euro in consolidated revenue, and country-by-country reporting from seven hundred and fifty million, but a group below both thresholds must still be able to explain how its intercompany prices were arrived at. The scope and mechanics are set out in our note on the article 8b documentation requirement.
Article 29g measures fifty million euro of consolidated group revenue of the multinational group in the reporting year immediately preceding the year the return covers, and requires both files to sit in the entity’s administration, in Dutch or English, within the period set for filing that return. Country-by-country reporting switches off below seven hundred and fifty million euro of consolidated group revenue in the immediately preceding reporting year; the report is due within twelve months of the year end, and the notification of which entity files it on the last day of the reporting year. Neither file is sent in: the Belastingdienst states that they are held in the local administration and can be called for.
The assessment should distinguish between four states, because they carry different consequences: no analysis at all; an analysis that exists but has not been refreshed since the business changed; an analysis describing a policy the operating entities never implemented; and an analysis prepared to another jurisdiction’s specification that does not address the Dutch position. Only the first is a pure gap. The others are, in varying degrees, evidence against the group’s own case.
The consequence of absence is not automatic. The records required by article 8b form part of the administration by operation of article 52 of the Algemene wet inzake rijksbelastingen, so failure is addressed through an information decision under article 52a. Once that decision has become irrevocable, articles 25 and 27e provide that the assessment is upheld on objection and the appeal dismissed unless the taxpayer shows convincingly that, and to what extent, it is wrong. That is a reversal of the burden and a raising of the standard. Two limits matter: the court upholding the decision must set a fresh period for compliance where that is still possible, unless procedural rights are manifestly abused, and the reversal does not reach a penalty.
Penalties run on a separate track. Where an understatement is due to intent or gross negligence, article 67e of the same Act allows an administrative fine of up to one hundred per cent of the additional assessment. Article 29h reserves a fine of up to the sixth category where the failure in the country-by-country report or its notification is due to intent or gross negligence, and lapses five years after the end of the calendar year in which the obligation arose; the Master File and Local File duty sits outside it. The further cost is procedural: under the Wet fiscale arbitrage the Minister may refuse access to the arbitration commission where a criminal penalty under articles 68 or 69 has become irrevocable and is directly connected with the dispute.
Exposure is measured jurisdiction by jurisdiction
There is no such thing as a group-level transfer pricing exposure. A primary adjustment in one country produces a deduction that must be defended, or surrendered, in another. The Dutch corporate income tax rate in the upper bracket is 25.8 per cent, with a reduced rate in the first bracket, but the headline rate is rarely the relevant figure. What matters is the net of the primary adjustment, any corresponding adjustment the counterpart jurisdiction is willing to grant, and the treatment of cash that has already moved.
In the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, as revised by the 2015 reports on Actions 8 to 10 and Action 13, a primary adjustment is the change a tax administration in the first jurisdiction makes to taxable profits by applying the arm’s length principle; a corresponding adjustment is the matching change to the tax liability of the associated enterprise in the second jurisdiction, so that the two allocations agree; and a secondary transaction is the constructive transaction, typically a deemed dividend, equity contribution or loan, that a jurisdiction asserts so that the allocation of cash follows the primary adjustment. Tax imposed on that transaction is the secondary adjustment. In competent authority proceedings the state proposing the primary adjustment bears the burden of showing the other state that it is justified.
Several secondary consequences deserve modelling before any position is taken. A recharacterized charge may be treated as a deemed distribution, engaging dividend withholding tax at the general rate of 15 per cent subject to treaty reductions and EU exemptions, all of which remain conditioned on anti-abuse tests. Interest and royalty flows towards low-taxed or listed jurisdictions have attracted a conditional withholding tax since 2021, and a pricing correction can move a payment into or out of that perimeter; we set out the interaction in our note on Dutch withholding taxes. Restating an intragroup interest margin also changes the base for the earnings stripping limitation, whose parameters have been amended more than once. For groups within the seven hundred and fifty million euro perimeter, an adjustment shifts covered taxes and income between jurisdictions for Pillar Two purposes, so a correction that is neutral in group terms may not be neutral once the fifteen per cent minimum is computed. Penalty regimes and burden-of-proof rules differ as well; in several jurisdictions the absence of documentation affects how the burden is allocated.
Article 8bb disallows a downward profit adjustment unless the taxpayer makes it plausible that a corresponding upward adjustment is taken into account in a profit tax at the related entity, so relief does not follow merely from establishing that the original pricing was wrong. The transfer pricing policy statement treats processing a correction through a secondary transaction as necessary in principle, with dividend tax on a deemed distribution as the typical consequence; it is waived where the taxpayer makes it plausible that the other state will not credit that dividend tax and no abuse aimed at avoiding it is present, but not where that state appears on the list of low-taxed and non-cooperative jurisdictions. The minimum tax perimeter is reached only where the group booked seven hundred and fifty million euro in two of the four immediately preceding reporting years.
Correcting forward, correcting back, or both
Correcting prospectively is the lighter option: the policy is reset, the agreements are rewritten to match how the business actually operates, and the new pricing applies from a defined date. It stops the exposure accruing. It does not close the open years, and it carries a presentational risk, because a visible change of policy invites the question of what was wrong with the previous one.
Correcting retrospectively is a board decision rather than a technical one. The inputs are which years remain open to assessment in each jurisdiction, whether a voluntary disclosure or equivalent procedure is available and what relief it offers, whether the counterpart jurisdiction will grant a corresponding adjustment and through what route, whether an advance pricing agreement or mutual agreement procedure is realistically available, and how any true-up will be characterized. That last point matters: a balancing payment between group companies is an invoice, a capital contribution or a distribution, and each carries its own consequences. Where a cross-border arrangement is restructured, the DAC6 hallmarks should be tested, since the reporting obligation falls on the intermediary or, failing that, on the taxpayer.
The route out of double taxation has a calendar. Directive (EU) 2017/1852, implemented here by the Wet fiscale arbitrage, allows three years from receipt of the first notification of the action giving rise to the dispute to lodge a complaint, two months for each authority to acknowledge it and six months to accept or reject it, counted from the complaint or from any further information requested, whichever is later. Acceptance opens a two-year mutual agreement period, extendable by one year on written justification. If it closes without agreement, the taxpayer has fifty days to request an advisory commission, which must be constituted within a hundred and twenty days, opines within six months extendable by three, and binds the authorities if they cannot agree within six months of notification of that opinion.
What must not be done
The single action that converts a manageable problem into an unmanageable one is the creation of documentation bearing a date it does not deserve. That includes benchmarking studies commissioned now and presented as contemporaneous, agreements signed today and dated to a prior year, and board minutes recording deliberations that did not occur. It includes instructing an adviser to prepare a file as at a historic date. The exposure then ceases to be a tax adjustment and becomes a question of the integrity of the records, with consequences for directors, for the audit relationship and, in some jurisdictions, criminal ones.
A transfer pricing file written after the question has been asked is worth less than no file at all: it converts a documentation gap into a credibility problem, and credibility is the one asset the group cannot rebuild inside the audit cycle.
Three lesser errors are common. Adjusting unilaterally in one jurisdiction, leaving the group asymmetric. Allowing the operating business to change its invoicing mid-review without recording why. And giving the auditor a firm conclusion the group cannot support if it is quoted back later. Material prepared for the auditor is generally not protected from disclosure, and should be written on that assumption.
The question underneath is usually substance
Pricing follows functions, assets and risks. A challenge to a management fee is almost always a challenge to whether the entity charging it has the people, the authority and the decision-making to perform the service. A challenge to a financing margin is a challenge to whether the lender controls the risk it is paid to bear. Remediating the paperwork without remediating the underlying facts produces a better-drafted version of the same weakness, which is why the review should run alongside an honest assessment of the group’s Dutch substance position. It also determines whether the ruling route is open: Dutch practice since July 2019 requires genuine economic nexus, and no advance certainty is given where the decisive motive is tax saving or where listed jurisdictions are involved.
The ruling policy asks the applicant to belong to a group carrying on operating business activity in the Netherlands, with sufficient relevant personnel at group level and activities fitting the entity’s function, except where the certainty sought is that no foreign tax liability arises. Grounds for refusal include tax saving as the sole or decisive motive, and direct transactions with entities in listed low-taxed and non-cooperative jurisdictions, with carve-outs that include third-party transactions in an advance pricing agreement. Certainty runs for five book years in principle, ten where long-term contracts justify it, with a review halfway, and where the request is for an advance pricing agreement and the group qualifies, it must include the group file required by article 29g. Nor is it private: every ruling with an international character is published in anonymised summary, and under article 8a of Directive 2011/16 it is exchanged automatically with every other Member State, except where a third-country agreement bars disclosure.
Closing the cycle properly
The deliverables are modest in volume and specific in nature: a complete transaction inventory, a gap analysis against the documentation obligation, a short position paper for each material flow setting out the functional analysis and the pricing rationale, revised agreements that match conduct, and a remediation plan with named owners and dates. Above all, a recorded decision on whether prior years will be corrected, together with the reasoning. That record is what an inspector, a successor auditor or an acquirer’s diligence team will eventually read, and it is worth more than any single technical argument inside it.
Montclare structures and operates Dutch and cross-border platforms for international groups. Our services are set out on our services page.
This article is informational and does not constitute tax, legal or investment advice. Each engagement is subject to scope and applicable regulation.