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

The firm demonstrated its sweet spot of litigation with an international twist with the recent win for the Danish tax authority…but it’s not a tax case
The recently formed firm has taken a break from hiring EY talent to expand its transactional tax and tax technology capabilities
The AI platform, founded last year by two school friends, is partnering with challenger firms like Unity Advisory and A&M Tax to launch its own assault on the AI tax market
Not only has Aurtus received recognition from ITR in the past, but its founder was both a partner at KPMG and co-founder of Dhruva Advisors
Clients care more about considered counsel than rapid media-friendly soundbites, says Matthew Gilleard, associate director at Infinite
It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Gift this article