On September 30, 2026, the Customs Collection and Control Agency (ARCA), Argentine entity, published the General Resolution 5903/2026 in the Official Gazette, which replaces and unifies Argentina’s Transfer Pricing and international transactions regime. Among its provisions, Article 41 has a direct impact on the agricultural export sector: it establishes the official FOB value published by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries as the minimum price reference for six export products.
The rule is brief, but it modifies the way sales of grains, oils, and byproducts to related parties or to entities in non-cooperative jurisdictions or those with low or no taxation are documented. This article analyzes what the regulation says, how it integrates with the range and median rules of the resolution itself, and how it aligns with the OECD Guidelines.
What does Article 41 establish?
Enacted under Article 52 of the Income Tax Law regulations, Article 41 sets the official FOB values published by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries of the Ministry of Economy as minimum reference prices for exporting the following goods:
| Product | NCM Position |
| Pellets / soybean meal | 2304.00.10.100B |
| Bulk soybean oil | 1507.10.00.100Q |
| Sunflower oil in bulk | 1512.11.10.919G |
| Poroto de soja a granel | 1201.90.00.190C |
| Bulk corn | 1005.90.10.190Y |
| Bulk bread wheat | 1001.99.00.110W |
The regulation also establishes the reference date: it is considered to be “the official FOB value published on the date of the sale’s closing, corresponding to the shipment period during which the goods are actually loaded.” The relevant date is the sale’s closing date, but the price used is the one published for the shipment period during which the goods are actually loaded.
The verb “may” is significant. The regulation states that taxpayers “may” use that value. This is an official index that serves as a minimum reference and is published by the Secretariat in its FOB price inquiry system. The text does not present it as an arm’s length price that replaces the comparability analysis.
How are the interquartile range and the median applied without averages?
Article 41 does not stand alone. It is supported by two adjacent articles in the same resolution, which establish how the price benchmark is constructed and used.
Article 40 regulates the Comparable Uncontrolled Price. If there is no comparable price on the same date, it allows the use of nearby dates, provided that market volatility or the business cycle does not distort the comparison. When multiple prices exist, it requires the construction of the interquartile range. Furthermore, it is categorical: “Under no circumstances shall the use of price averages be permitted” for the transactions of the party under review.
Article 39 details the procedure for calculating the median and the interquartile range, including interpolation when the quartile position is not a whole number.
For a grain exporter, the practical implication is clear. The analysis must be conducted transaction by transaction and shipment by shipment. An average price for the fiscal year is not sufficient for comparing related-party sales. Added to this is Article 38, which requires justification for all transactions during the period and prohibits random or algorithmic sampling.
How does this relate to the OECD Guidelines and the prohibition on downward adjustments?
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines state, in paragraph 2.18, that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method would generally be an appropriate method for commodity transactions between associated enterprises. The same paragraph recognizes as a “quoted price” one set by government agencies, provided that independent parties use it as a reference in their transactions.
That last condition is the point of connection with Article 41. An official FOB value can function as a quoted price under OECD terms to the extent that the independent market actually uses it. The Guidelines do not make it an automatic floor. The Argentine resolution goes a step further and expressly establishes it as a minimum export value.
Article 48 completes the picture. It provides that “downward Transfer Pricing adjustments” may not be carried over to the income tax return, unless they result from a mutual agreement procedure provided for in a double taxation treaty. If the price agreed upon with the related party falls below the reference value and the difference is corrected, the adjustment operates in only one direction. The prior review of the pricing policy thus takes precedence over the subsequent correction.
When does it take effect?
According to Article 75, the resolution took effect on the date of its publication and applies “to fiscal years beginning on or after the first day of the month immediately following its publication.” Since it was published on September 30, 2026, it applies to fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 2026. For an exporter with a calendar fiscal year, the first applicable period would be the one beginning on January 1, 2027.
This window allows for a review of sales contracts with related parties and the pricing mechanism for each shipment before the first applicable fiscal year begins. It also allows for verification that the sales closing date is documented in a way that can be linked to the official FOB value for the loading period.
At TPC Group, in every analysis of agricultural commodity exports, we evaluate the consistency between the sale closing date, the shipment period, and the applicable official FOB value. Our purpose is to support arm’s-length Transfer Pricing prices that will withstand ARCA’s review under the new regime.