Why country by country reporting is not compatible with transfer pricing realities

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

Why country by country reporting is not compatible with transfer pricing realities

mining50.jpg

An estimated $110 billion disappeared because of transfer mispricing on the import of crude oil in the EU and US between 2000 and 2010, a recent report from Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Norway said.

The report, as covered by www.tpweek.com, says that companies in the extractive industries are using rogue transfer pricing methods to transfer profits from the source countries to the companies themselves. PWYP, which campaigns for transparency in multinational entities’ financial reporting, also said tax administrations in developing countries rarely have the resources or the ability to check that transfer pricing is in-line with arm’s-length standards.

Country by country reporting (CBCR)

PWYP has put forward a policy proposal for consideration by the EU, which would require multinationals to disclose full financial statements on a per-country basis.

Janine Juggins, global head of tax for Rio Tinto, said she does not think the PWYP report is a fair reflection of the true situation: “It is not possible to accurately quantify the proportion of transfer pricing that is correct versus the proportion that is incorrect, nor would the publication of full financial statements change this conclusion.”

“Many related party transactions take place between countries that have extensive transfer pricing legislation, and transactions with entities in low tax countries will not withstand scrutiny unless supported by the facts,” Juggins added.

Companies in the extractive industries, like all multinationals, are already subject to transfer pricing rules in every operational country that has transfer pricing legislation. They are therefore required to maintain transfer pricing documentation to comply with the relevant laws and to avoid tax penalties, and are subject to tax return filing requirements and tax audits.

To read the rest of the story, visit www.tpweek.com.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

While it’s great that the OECD is alive to multinationals’ fears of being caught in a compliance trap, the ‘common understanding’ illustrates a worrying lack of readiness
Rising demand for specialist expertise has fuelled the growth in tax partner headcounts, Cain Dwyer found; in other news, Switzerland has been urged to reconsider pillar two
An OECD report on the taxation of the digital economy is expected by the end of 2026, according to the group of nations
Trophy assets are evolving from personal indulgences to structured investments, prompting family offices to prioritise tax efficiency, governance discipline, and cross-border compliance
As demand for complex, cross-border private client counsel spikes, Patrick McCormick sees opportunity in starting from scratch
As part of an exclusive global alliance, KPMG will become one of Anthropic’s ‘preferred consultants’ for private equity
In the second part of this series, the focus shifts to how taxpayers can manage ongoing risks across the lifecycle of cross-border structures
Jurisdictions have moved to ensure that multinationals are not punished for late GIR filings due to a lack of available filing portals or exchange relationships
HMRC’s push for unified tax adviser registration won’t prevent every instance of improper conduct, but it is good for taxpayers and the UK’s reputation
Elsewhere, the UAE’s tax office has issued an update on registration penalties and two firms have been busy making lateral hires
Gift this article