Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Reforming transfer pricing with outdated ideas

By Jonathan J. Ariel - posted Wednesday, 30 May 2012


In Spencer’s paper he quotes Michael Durst who from 1994 to 1997 served as Director of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s Advanced Pricing Agreement (APA) Program who in turn extends Spencer’s argument against the OECD’s position on transfer pricing. Durst explains that the main weakness of the “arm’s length” principle is that “the basic tenet of arm’s-length transfer pricing – the availability of  ‘uncontrolled comparables’ for transactions between commonly controlled parties – is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of practical economics”.

Multinationals form precisely because it’s economically better off as an integrated unit. This is common in some industries where manufacturers and distributors are integrated. It makes no economic sense to have these functions as distinct entities. 

That means that for transactions between different elements of the one multinational – namely the transactions for which transfer pricing rules are important – the comparable prices on which the current rules try to depend seldom if ever exist.

Advertisement

But according to Durst, a veteran of 20 years working in the transfer pricing space,  “the inescapable problem, however, is that the failure of the arm’s length system is not rooted merely in the particular way the system is implemented. The problem lies in the assumption, on which the entire system is based, that the tax results of multinational groups can be evaluated as if they were aggregations of unrelated independent companies transacting with one another at arm’s length”.

One can only conclude that its very complexity and difficulty in enforcing are the reasons why so many tax authorities worldwide embrace the arm’s length principle. 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jonathan J. Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management. He can be contacted at jonathan@chinamail.com.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jonathan J. Ariel

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jonathan J. Ariel
Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy