What is arm’s length principle in transfer pricing?

The arm’s length principle in transfer pricing mandates that prices and terms of intragroup transactions mirror those agreed by independent parties under comparable market conditions, ensuring each associated party’s taxable profits reflect its genuine contribution to value creation. Anchored in Article 9 of both the OECD and UN Model Tax Conventions, this standard requires rigorous comparability analyses—evaluating functions, assets and risks—to prevent artificial profit shifting and protect national tax bases.

The arm’s length principle stands as the cornerstone of international transfer pricing regulations, yet its evolution reveals a complex landscape of theoretical consensus and practical divergence. While universally accepted as the international standard for regulating transactions between related entities within multinational enterprises, recent developments suggest the principle has evolved into what scholars characterize as a “double standard” with different jurisdictions applying fundamentally different interpretations and methodologies. This comprehensive analysis examines the historical development, legal framework, practical implementation challenges, and emerging variations in judicial interpretation of the arm’s length principle, drawing from contemporary case law and academic research to illuminate the growing tensions between theoretical uniformity and practical application across different tax jurisdictions.

Historical Development and Conceptual Foundations

Origins and Early International Consensus

The arm’s length principle emerged during the early 20th century as a response to the increasing globalization of business operations and the corresponding challenges faced by national tax systems in fairly allocating income among related entities operating across different jurisdictions¹. The core challenge was determining how profits should be distributed within multinational enterprises to prevent tax evasion while ensuring equitable taxation across jurisdictions.

The League of Nations played a pivotal role in formalizing the arm’s length principle during the 1920s². At the International Economic Conference of 1923, discussions on international double taxation led to the establishment of technical expert committees that laid the groundwork for model bilateral conventions. By 1927, the League introduced its first model convention for preventing double taxation, which included early iterations of the arm’s length principle, marking the international community’s initial systematic effort to create a framework for equitable allocation of taxing rights.

The principle advocated for a separate entity approach, treating related entities within multinational enterprises as independent for tax purposes. This approach aimed to minimize double taxation risks while achieving fair outcomes by ensuring that transactions between affiliated entities would mirror those between independent parties under similar conditions³.

Post-War Developments and OECD Framework

Following World War II, international tax cooperation saw significant progress, further embedding the arm’s length principle in global frameworks. The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, which later became the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, began developing tax treaty models in the 1950s. Building on the League of Nations’ work, the OECD published its first Draft Convention in 1963, which explicitly incorporated the arm’s length principle as a key mechanism for addressing transfer pricing disputes.

Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention became the cornerstone for the arm’s length principle, establishing it as the international standard for setting transfer prices for tax purposes⁴. This article stipulated that if conditions in commercial or financial relations between related enterprises differ from those that would exist between independent entities, the profits that would have accrued under arm’s length conditions could be adjusted and taxed accordingly.

The 1979 OECD report “Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises” represented the first comprehensive international consensus on transfer pricing methodologies, serving as a foundation for subsequent developments⁵. This initial report was followed by supplementary publications addressing specific applications of the arm’s length principle, creating a robust theoretical and methodological framework that shaped modern transfer pricing practices.

The 1995 OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines marked a significant milestone in the consolidation and expansion of the arm’s length principle⁶. These guidelines integrated previous reports into a unified framework and provided in-depth analysis of methods to evaluate whether intra-group transactions adhered to the arm’s length principle, establishing clear international consensus on determining transfer prices for cross-border transactions.

Legal Framework and Definitional Structure

Core Definition and Objectives

At its essence, the arm’s length principle requires that the terms and conditions of transactions between associated enterprises within a multinational enterprise reflect those that would be agreed upon by independent parties under comparable circumstances⁷. As outlined in Article 9(1) of the UN Model Tax Convention, if the conditions of a transaction between related parties deviate from those that would apply between unrelated entities, the profits that should have accrued to one of the enterprises can be adjusted for taxation purposes.

The primary objective of the arm’s length principle is to create parity between multinational enterprises and independent enterprises, eliminating tax advantages or disadvantages that could skew competitive dynamics⁸. By using the open market as a benchmark, the principle compares intra-group transactions to similar dealings between unrelated parties to validate their appropriateness for tax purposes.

International Legal Framework

The arm’s length principle is firmly embedded in international tax treaties and domestic legislation, providing a robust legal foundation for its application. Article 9 of both the UN and OECD Model Tax Conventions serves as the primary legal reference, empowering tax authorities to adjust profits when transactions between associated enterprises do not conform to arm’s length conditions⁹.

Across various jurisdictions, domestic laws are often aligned with these international standards to ensure consistency. For example, in Canada, transfer pricing regulations under Section 247 of the Income Tax Act draw heavily from OECD guidance¹⁰. Canadian courts frequently refer to the OECD Model Convention and Guidelines as persuasive authority when interpreting domestic provisions.

Practical Application Methodology

Comparability Analysis Framework

A fundamental aspect of the arm’s length principle is the comparability analysis, which involves comparing controlled transactions between related parties with uncontrolled transactions between independent parties under similar conditions¹¹. The OECD identifies five key comparability factors: the characteristics of the property or service, functional analysis including functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed, contractual terms, economic circumstances, and business strategies.

For example, in a transaction involving the sale of goods, elements such as product specifications, market dynamics, and contractual obligations like delivery terms must be assessed to establish comparability. If discrepancies exist between the controlled and uncontrolled transactions, adjustments may be required to align the transfer price with market standards. While this process is conceptually straightforward, it often encounters practical hurdles, particularly due to the limited availability of reliable comparable data, especially in less developed markets where transaction information may be scarce.

Transfer Pricing Methods

The arm’s length principle is operationalized through various transfer pricing methods, each tailored to specific transaction types and data availability. The OECD Guidelines classify these methods into traditional transaction methods and transactional profit methods, advocating for the selection of the most appropriate method based on the transaction’s unique circumstances¹².

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price method compares the price of a controlled transaction to that of a similar transaction between independent parties. It is considered the most direct way to determine an arm’s length price but requires highly comparable data, which can be challenging to obtain, especially for unique or specialized products and services. The Resale Price Method, primarily used for distributors, calculates the transfer price by subtracting an arm’s length gross profit margin from the resale price to unrelated customers. The Cost Plus Method adds an arm’s length mark-up to the costs incurred by the supplier in a controlled transaction, commonly applied to manufacturing or service transactions where the supplier contributes significant value.

The Transactional Net Margin Method, a profit-based method, compares the net profit margin of a controlled transaction to that of comparable uncontrolled transactions. Its flexibility and applicability to various transaction types make it a widely used method under the arm’s length principle. The Profit Split Method allocates profits between related parties based on their relative contributions to the transaction, often employed for complex transactions involving intangibles or highly integrated operations where other methods may not provide reliable results.

Contemporary Challenges and Implementation Difficulties

Data Scarcity and Comparability Issues

Despite its theoretical soundness, the practical application of the arm’s length principle faces numerous challenges that can complicate compliance and enforcement¹³. One of the most significant obstacles is the scarcity of comparable data, particularly in developing countries where organized markets may be underdeveloped, and information on independent transactions is often incomplete or unreliable.

Transactions involving intangible assets, such as patents, trademarks, and proprietary know-how, present additional difficulties due to their unique nature. Finding comparable uncontrolled transactions for such assets is often impossible, as market equivalents may not exist. The rapid growth of the digital economy has further intensified these challenges, as digital transactions frequently lack physical counterparts for comparison, making it harder to apply the arm’s length principle in a meaningful way.

Business Model Evolution and Integration Challenges

The corporate structure of multinational enterprises has changed drastically over the past century, creating new challenges for the arm’s length principle¹⁴. The traditional and straightforward buy-and-sell arrangements or manufacturer-distributor agreements that legal persons once entered into are nowadays becoming increasingly infrequent.

Modern multinational enterprises operate with flexibility as their hallmark. Companies have restructured their international business by moving to a central entrepreneur model in which risks are centralized and the role of the local producer or distributor is to provide a service to the central entrepreneur. Business is now more global than ever before, based on matrix management organizations and integrated supply chains, which generally centralize risks in a single business entity.

This ability to fragment activities or transactions has facilitated the diversion of profits¹⁵. While it is more difficult to shift underlying functions, multinational enterprises can more easily shift the risks and ownership of tangible and intangible assets to low-tax jurisdictions, thereby extracting profits from the higher tax country through royalty fees and other mechanisms.

Jurisdictional Variations and the Evolution Toward a Double Standard

The Canadian Experience and Judicial Innovation

Recent academic analysis suggests that the arm’s length principle has evolved into what scholars characterize as a “double standard,” with different jurisdictions applying fundamentally different interpretations and methodologies¹⁶. The Canadian experience provides compelling evidence of this evolution, particularly through landmark cases that have introduced novel interpretative approaches.

In GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v The Queen, the Canadian Court of Appeal departed from traditional comparability analysis under the arm’s length principle, instead applying what became known as the “reasonable business person test”¹⁷. This test involves comparing the transfer price of the transaction between associated enterprises to the price that a reasonable business person would have agreed to pay had the parties been hypothetically dealing at arm’s length.

The reasonable business person test represents a fundamental departure from the OECD Guidelines’ emphasis on empirical comparability analysis. Rather than requiring the use of comparable arm’s length transactions that actually occurred in the market, the Canadian approach allows courts to construct hypothetical scenarios to determine appropriate transfer prices. This methodology grants significant discretion to courts in assessing what constitutes reasonable pricing under hypothetical arm’s length conditions.

McKesson and the Skeletal Contracts Doctrine

The McKesson Canada Corporation v The Queen decision further developed the Canadian approach by introducing the concept of “skeletal contracts”¹⁸. By skeletal contracts, the court referred to contracts lacking substance that are uncommercial in nature. If associated enterprises are allowed to enter into contracts that confer few rights and obligations to justify more favorable transfer prices, the court adopts a substance-over-legal-form stance.

The McKesson court emphasized that all circumstances, including those that arise from or are rooted in the non-arm’s length relationship, should be taken into account when analyzing transfer pricing arrangements¹⁹. This approach represents a strengthening of the anti-avoidance facet of the arm’s length principle, demonstrating how courts are actively creating tax policy to combat base erosion and profit shifting.

Contrasting US Approach

The United States courts have maintained a more traditional empirical approach to arm’s length analysis, creating a stark contrast with the Canadian methodology²⁰. US courts have consistently focused on interpreting the arm’s length principle as requiring taxpayers to offer evidence that a transfer price was actually charged for the same service in real-world transactions with independent buyers under similar circumstances.

In Eli Lilly & Co v Commissioner, the Tax Court rejected economic expert evidence that relied on hypothetical scenarios, instead insisting on real-world comparables²¹. The court held that it was inconceivable that the petitioner, negotiating at arm’s length, would have transferred valuable income-producing intangibles without appropriate compensation, but this determination was based on actual market evidence rather than hypothetical constructions.

This fundamental difference in approach between Canadian and US courts illustrates how the arm’s length principle has evolved into a double standard, with different jurisdictions applying varied interpretations that can lead to significantly different outcomes for substantially similar transactions.

Case Study Analysis: Practical Applications and Controversies

The Starbucks Structure

The problems with traditional arm’s length principle application can be illustrated through tax avoidance schemes employed by high-profile multinational enterprises²². Starbucks Corporation’s European structure demonstrates how the arm’s length principle, in practice, can be used as a vehicle for tax planning through strategic use of internal contracts.

Starbucks Corporation, incorporated in the United States, maintained its regional headquarters for Europe, Middle East and Africa in the Netherlands, responsible for managing operations in thirty-three countries. The UK operating company, with a reported 31 percent market share by turnover, was responsible for marketing the Starbucks brand, running over 900 stores, and managing third-party licensee relationships.

By structuring its affairs strategically, Starbucks was able to significantly minimize the UK tax base by shifting profits to the Netherlands via internal contracts that required payment of a 6 percent royalty fee for using the Starbucks trademark²³. Additional profit extraction occurred through a 5 percent royalty fee paid to a Swiss service company for coffee bean processing and 4.9 percent LIBOR interest paid to a Luxembourg internal bank for intra-group loans to finance UK operations.

This structure allowed Starbucks to create deductible expenses and systematic losses in the UK, claiming losses for fourteen out of fifteen years of UK operations while simultaneously reporting strong performance to investors. The case demonstrates how the arm’s length principle’s reliance on legal form over substance can be exploited through careful structuring of internal arrangements.

GlaxoSmithKline Transfer Pricing Dispute

The GlaxoSmithKline case provides detailed insight into how different judicial approaches to the arm’s length principle can yield dramatically different outcomes²⁴. GlaxoSmithKline Canada acquired an active pharmaceutical ingredient, ranitidine, from an associated non-resident corporation at a price reportedly five times greater than the fair market value for the generic ingredient in uncontrolled transactions.

At the Tax Court stage, traditional comparability analysis was applied, with both parties attempting to compare the supply agreement to comparable uncontrolled transactions that actually existed. However, at the Court of Appeal stage, the analysis fundamentally shifted to the reasonable business person test, which ignored real-world comparables in favor of hypothetical scenarios.

The Court of Appeal’s approach represented a significant departure from OECD Guidelines, which emphasize the importance of using actual market transactions as benchmarks for transfer pricing analysis. This shift illustrates how the arm’s length principle has evolved differently across jurisdictions, with Canadian courts willing to apply tests that are fundamentally inconsistent with international consensus.

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Context

BEPS Initiative and Enhanced Enforcement

The arm’s length principle plays a pivotal role in the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, initiated in 2013 to combat tax avoidance by multinational enterprises²⁵. The BEPS Action Plan, finalized in 2015, introduced substantial updates to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, strengthening the application of the arm’s length principle to address profit shifting.

Key measures include country-by-country reporting, which enhances transparency, and improved dispute resolution mechanisms to mitigate conflicts over transfer pricing adjustments. These initiatives aim to ensure that transfer prices reflect the economic substance and value creation within multinational enterprises, aligning taxable profits with the jurisdictions where economic activities occur.

The Inclusive Framework on BEPS, which includes over 70 non-OECD and non-G20 countries, promotes global coordination in implementing these standards, reinforcing the arm’s length principle as a cornerstone of modern tax policy. By tackling profit shifting, the principle helps maintain the integrity of national tax systems in an increasingly interconnected world.

Enhanced Documentation and Compliance Requirements

For multinational enterprises, adherence to the arm’s length principle has become not just a regulatory requirement but a strategic necessity²⁶. Non-compliance can lead to substantial tax adjustments, penalties, and reputational harm, as tax authorities worldwide intensify their scrutiny of transfer pricing practices.

To mitigate these risks, multinational enterprises must invest in comprehensive documentation, often spanning hundreds of pages, to substantiate their transfer pricing policies under the arm’s length principle. This documentation serves as critical evidence during audits and disputes, requiring detailed functional analysis, economic analysis, and benchmarking studies to demonstrate compliance with arm’s length standards.

Developing Country Perspectives and Implementation Challenges

Administrative Capacity and Resource Constraints

Developing countries encounter unique obstacles in implementing the arm’s length principle, often due to limited administrative capacity and resources²⁷. The shortage of skilled personnel and restricted access to commercial databases for comparability analysis hampers effective transfer pricing enforcement. Additionally, reliance on data from developed countries for benchmarking may not accurately reflect local market conditions, necessitating time-consuming and resource-intensive adjustments.

To address these challenges, international initiatives have been launched to support developing countries. The Platform for Collaboration on Tax, a joint effort by the International Monetary Fund, OECD, United Nations, and World Bank, has developed toolkits to improve access to comparable data and build capacity for transfer pricing enforcement. Similarly, the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing offers tailored guidance, focusing on practical solutions to overcome resource constraints while protecting tax bases.

Simplified Approaches and Safe Harbors

The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines recognize the particular challenges faced by developing countries and provide guidance on simplified approaches to transfer pricing analysis²⁸. For low value-adding intra-group services, the Guidelines establish a simplified approach that applies a standard 5 percent markup to costs, eliminating the need for complex benchmarking studies.

This simplified approach represents a pragmatic recognition that strict application of the arm’s length principle may not always be feasible or cost-effective, particularly for routine transactions involving limited value creation. However, such simplifications must be carefully balanced against the need to prevent profit shifting and ensure appropriate allocation of taxing rights.

Critical Analysis and Alternative Approaches

Fundamental Criticisms of the Arm’s Length Principle

While the arm’s length principle is widely accepted as the international standard for transfer pricing, it faces significant criticism from academic and policy perspectives²⁹. Critics argue that its dependence on comparable transactions is inherently flawed, particularly in a globalized economy where multinational enterprises benefit from synergies and integration levels that independent entities cannot replicate.

This structural difference can lead to transfer prices that deviate from market norms, even when set in good faith, raising questions about the applicability of the arm’s length principle in certain contexts. The principle’s foundation on the separate entity approach becomes increasingly problematic as multinational enterprises operate as highly integrated global entities that bear little resemblance to collections of independent companies.

Global Formulary Apportionment as Alternative

An alternative often proposed is the Global Formulary Apportionment Method, which allocates a multinational enterprise’s global profits among its entities based on a predetermined formula incorporating factors such as sales, payroll, and assets³⁰. While this method is used in some sub-national contexts, such as certain US states and Canadian provinces, it faces criticism for its potential arbitrariness and the risk of double taxation if countries disagree on allocation factors.

The OECD has consistently favored the arm’s length principle over formulary apportionment, citing its alignment with market-based principles and compatibility with existing tax treaty frameworks. However, ongoing challenges in applying the arm’s length principle to modern business models continue to fuel debate about whether alternative approaches might better serve the objectives of fair profit allocation.

Future Trends and Digital Economy Challenges

Digital Economy and Value Creation

As the global economy continues to evolve, the arm’s length principle must adapt to new challenges and opportunities³¹. The rise of the digital economy, characterized by intangible-driven business models, poses persistent difficulties for applying the arm’s length principle. Valuing digital transactions and services often requires innovative approaches and international agreement on taxation frameworks.

The OECD’s ongoing work on Pillar One and Pillar Two under the BEPS framework seeks to address these issues by redefining profit allocation rules and introducing a global minimum tax, potentially transforming how the arm’s length principle is applied. These developments represent the most significant changes to international tax policy in decades and may fundamentally alter the role of the arm’s length principle in global taxation.

Enhanced Transparency and Enforcement

The growing emphasis on transparency, exemplified by country-by-country reporting requirements, is likely to strengthen the enforcement of the arm’s length principle³². These measures provide tax authorities with greater insight into multinational enterprise operations, enabling more effective monitoring of transfer pricing practices.

However, increased scrutiny may also heighten compliance burdens for multinational enterprises, particularly in jurisdictions with limited administrative resources. The future of the arm’s length principle will depend on balancing enhanced enforcement with practical support for compliance across diverse economic environments.

Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Analytics

The integration of artificial intelligence and advanced analytics into transfer pricing analysis represents a significant frontier for the evolution of the arm’s length principle³³. These technologies offer the potential to improve comparability analysis by processing vast amounts of data to identify truly comparable transactions and detect patterns that might indicate non-arm’s length pricing.

However, the application of such technologies also raises questions about the accessibility of transfer pricing compliance for smaller multinational enterprises and developing countries that may lack the resources to implement sophisticated analytical tools. Ensuring that technological advances enhance rather than undermine the practical applicability of the arm’s length principle will be a key challenge for international tax policy.

Practical Implementation Considerations

Documentation and Economic Analysis Requirements

Modern application of the arm’s length principle requires sophisticated economic analysis and comprehensive documentation to support transfer pricing positions³⁴. This includes detailed functional analysis to identify the functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed by each party to the controlled transaction, economic analysis to identify appropriate tested parties and profit level indicators, and benchmarking studies using statistical methods to establish arm’s length ranges for comparison.

The complexity of these requirements has led to the development of specialized transfer pricing practices within multinational enterprises and advisory firms. However, this complexity also creates barriers to effective implementation, particularly for smaller multinational enterprises and tax administrations with limited resources.

Risk Assessment and Management

Effective implementation of the arm’s length principle requires sophisticated risk assessment and management frameworks³⁵. Multinational enterprises must identify transfer pricing risks across their global operations, assess the materiality of these risks, and implement appropriate controls and documentation to manage them.

This risk-based approach has become increasingly important as tax authorities adopt more sophisticated audit techniques and penalty regimes for transfer pricing non-compliance. The ability to demonstrate good faith efforts to comply with the arm’s length principle through robust risk management processes has become a critical factor in avoiding or mitigating transfer pricing adjustments and penalties.

The arm’s length principle remains the foundational standard for international transfer pricing regulation despite significant evolution in its interpretation and application across different jurisdictions. While the principle continues to serve as the primary mechanism for preventing profit shifting and ensuring fair allocation of taxing rights, its practical implementation faces increasing challenges from modern business models, digital economy developments, and divergent judicial interpretations. The emergence of what scholars characterize as a “double standard” in the application of the arm’s length principle, particularly evident in the contrast between Canadian and US approaches, highlights the need for continued international cooperation and consensus-building to maintain the principle’s effectiveness as a tool for fair international taxation. As the global economy continues to evolve, the arm’s length principle must adapt to remain relevant while preserving its core objective of ensuring that transfer prices reflect market-based outcomes.

1. Mitchell Carroll, Taxation of Foreign and National Enterprises: Volume IV, Methods of Allocating Taxable Income, 1933, League of Nations, para 627-629
2. Eduardo Baistrocchi, Transfer Pricing Dispute Resolution: The Global Evolutionary Path (1799-2011), 2012, Cambridge University Press
3. OECD, Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises, 1978, OECD Publishing
4. OECD, OECD Model Convention on Income and on Capital, 2012, OECD Publishing, Article 9 para 1
5. OECD, Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises, 1979, OECD Publishing
6. OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 1995, OECD Publishing
7. UN Model Tax Convention, Article 9(1)
8. OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2010, OECD Publishing, para 1.8
9. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2022, OECD Publishing
10. Brian Bloom and François Vincent, Respecting the Dualistic Nature of Canada’s Two Transfer Pricing Rules: A Tax Policy and Legal Analysis, 2012, Tax Management, page 4
11. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2022, OECD Publishing
12. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2022, OECD Publishing
13. Georg Kofler, The BEPS Action Plan and Transfer Pricing: The Arm’s Length Standard Under Pressure?, 2013, British Tax Review, page 464
14. John H. Dunning, Location and the Multinational Enterprise: A Neglected Factor?, 2009, Journal of International Business Studies, page 5
15. OECD, Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 2013, OECD Publishing, page 25
16. Amir Pichhadze, Canada’s Transfer Pricing Test in the Aftermath of GlaxoSmithKline Inc.: A Critique of the Reasonable Business Person Test, 2013, International Transfer Pricing Journal, page 153
17. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v The Queen, 2012, Supreme Court of Canada, para 40
18. McKesson Canada Corp. v The Queen, 2013, Tax Court of Canada, para 128
19. McKesson Canada Corp. v The Queen, 2013, Tax Court of Canada, para 131
20. U.S. Steel Corp v Commissioner, 1980, 2d Circuit Court of Appeals
21. Eli Lilly & Co v Commissioner, 1985, Tax Court, page 996
22. House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, HM Revenue & Customs: Annual Report and Accounts 2011-2012, 2012, UK Parliament, page 52
23. House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, HM Revenue & Customs: Annual Report and Accounts 2011-2012, 2012, UK Parliament, Q 269
24. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v The Queen, 2008, Tax Court of Canada
25. OECD, Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, 2013, OECD Publishing
26. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2022, OECD Publishing
27. UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries, 2021, United Nations
28. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2022, OECD Publishing, Chapter VII
29. Reuven Avi-Yonah and Ilan Benshalom, Formulary Apportionment – Myths and Prospects, 2011, World Tax Journal, page 371
30. Rosanne Altshuler and Harry Grubert, Formula Apportionment: Is it Better Than The Current System and Are There Better Alternatives?, 2010, National Tax Journal, page 1145
31. OECD, Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation, 2020, OECD Publishing
32. OECD, Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting, 2015, OECD Publishing
33. OECD, Tax Administration 3.0: The Digital Transformation of Tax Administration, 2020, OECD Publishing
34. OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2022, OECD Publishing
35. OECD, Co-operative Compliance: A Framework, 2013, OECD Publishing