When one thinks of transfer pricing documentation, the mind almost automatically turns to the technical study, the intercompany agreement, or the Local File. There is a much less visible document—one that is rarely prepared with Transfer Pricing in mind—but which can end up being decisive in the face of a tax audit: the minutes and records of decisions that document who made a strategic decision within the group, when it was made, and why. Their absence is not always noticed until it is too late to reconstruct them credibly.
Why is this document just as important as the technical analysis?
The functional analysis of Transfer Pricing requires identifying which group entity effectively controls a risk, which entity makes the relevant decisions regarding an intangible asset, or which entity led a corporate restructuring. The OECD Guidelines are explicit that such control must be evidenced through the actual conduct of the parties, not merely through the characterization set forth in the contract. A board meeting minutes, a risk committee minutes, or even an email formally approving a strategic decision is precisely the type of evidence that demonstrates—with a verifiable date, author, and content—that the entity characterized by the Local File as “the one controlling the risk” actually exercised that control in practice.
The Problem of Reconstructing This Evidence After the Fact
The difference between a strong and a weak defense often lies in contemporaneity. Minutes drafted months or years after the decision was made—specifically prepared to respond to a request from the tax authority—have substantially less probative value than a document generated in the normal course of business operations, at the very moment the decision was actually made. This type of evidence—not just the contract or the technical study—is precisely what reveals whether the substance behind an intercompany transaction is real or was constructed retroactively to support a tax position.
Where does this document become especially critical?
There are transactions where the absence of minutes and meeting records is particularly risky. In transfers of intangible assets, evidence of who made the development decisions, who assumed the project’s financial risks, and who managed the DEMPE functions can be decisive in establishing the characterization of the economic owner of the intangible asset. In corporate restructurings, a meeting minutes document that details the business rationale behind the structural change—and not just its tax implications—significantly strengthens the defense against challenges regarding economic substance. In intra-group financing decisions, minutes that assess the debtor’s ability to pay or approve the terms of a cash pooling arrangement support the claim that the lending entity effectively analyzed the risk before assuming it, rather than merely formalizing a transaction designed by another part of the group.
What should a multinational group incorporate into its documentation practices?
Generating and retaining minutes or records should not depend on the legal or tax team remembering to request them every time a relevant decision is made. Incorporating this practice into the group’s corporate governance—by formally documenting decisions regarding risks, intangibles, restructurings, and intra-group financing as they occur—builds, over time, a body of supporting documentation that no technical study prepared afterward can replicate with the same credibility. Consistency between what these records state and what the functional analysis in the Local File describes helps maintain a coherent tax position in the face of an audit.
At TPC Group, we help multinational groups identify which strategic decisions should be formally documented to support their functional analysis of transfer pricing, and assess whether their current corporate governance practices generate the contemporaneous evidence that a potential audit might require.
Sources: