Blog

As a transfer pricing practitioner with many years' experience across many industries and transactions, I’ve heard many reasons for making working capital adjustments (WCA). I’ve seen it described as ‘standard’ or ‘automatic’, as well as ‘unreliable’ and ‘rarely to be performed’. I’ve also heard some describe it as an adjustment they ‘believe in’, or an economic factor that an arm’s length party would ‘always’ take into account in their pricing. To untangle this knot, I’ve set out below some of the issues that I would consider before undertaking a WCA.

Some jurisdictions, like the Chinese State Administration of Taxes (CSAT), include location savings as a key topic in a transfer pricing analysis. CSAT is particularly clear on its expectations on this front. It will only consider an APA when the enterprise has provided a thorough value chain/supply chain analysis that takes into account China’s location-specific advantages such as cost savings and market premiums in choosing and applying an appropriate transfer pricing methodology.

The Federal Court of Australia (FCA) recently decided against the ATO in the case of Commissioner of Taxation v Glencore Investment Pty Ltd (2020). On one issue however - shipping - the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) recorded a win. The FCA agreed with the ATO that the taxpayer had failed to discharge its onus of proof on this issue. So, what is the burden of proof in an Australian transfer pricing case?