Business restructurings trigger intensive transfer pricing scrutiny. Learn what documentation you need before, during, and after a restructuring—including exit charge calculations, valuation requirements, and how to avoid common pitfalls that invite audit adjustments.
Strong intangibles documentation, consistent with OECD Chapter VI (intangibles) and Chapter V (documentation), requires identifying all relevant IP, distinguishing legal ownership from entitlement to returns using the DEMPE framework, and ensuring arm's length compensation for each contributor. This guide covers DEMPE analysis, valuation approaches, hard-to-value intangibles, CCAs, and common documentation gaps.
More resources for your next workflow stepMore resources for your next workflow step
Browse the full resource library or contact us if you want recommendations for your specific use case.
What should an annual transfer pricing documentation update cover?
Start with the prior approved file and establish what changed in the business, controlled transactions, functional analysis, agreements, financial results and applicable local requirements. Refresh the evidence and calculations, decide which analysis remains appropriate, and record the reviewer's conclusion before releasing the current-year version.
Changing the year on the cover is a formatting task. An annual update is a decision about whether the file still describes the transaction and supports the result.
This guide proposes a practical workflow for advisory and in-house teams. For the underlying document requirements, use the transfer pricing documentation guide. Domestic rules determine the actual obligations, deadlines and permitted simplifications.
Annual review, financial refresh and new search are different tasks
OECD paragraphs 5.37–5.38 recommend reviewing and updating the Master File, Local File and CbCR annually, while recognising that some descriptions may remain stable. They also describe a possible administrative simplification: where operating conditions remain unchanged, a tax administration may permit comparable-database searches every three years. Comparable financial data should still be updated annually.
That is not a general three-year validity period for a Local File or benchmark. Check whether the relevant jurisdiction permits the simplification and whether the conditions remain satisfied. A changed business model, transaction or comparable can require fresh analysis sooner.
Task
Question to answer
Evidence of completion
Documentation review
Does this file describe the current period and support its conclusions?
Change register, updated sections and reviewer decisions
Financial refresh
Are the tested results and comparable financial data current and calculated consistently?
Reconciled calculations, source accounts and documented adjustments
Comparable-search decision
Is the existing search still appropriate, or is a new search needed?
Reasoned decision tied to the transaction, operating conditions and local rule
In its UK guidance, HMRC GfC7 identifies checks needed when reusing comparables, including changes in functions, economically significant factors and comparable-company data. For UK filed positions, it also describes new comparability searches every three years as a minimum. That does not remove the need to reassess suitability annually or search sooner where changes warrant it.
1. Open a change register before opening the report editor
Ask named owners about changes, and request the supporting record. A reply of “no changes” is a starting point for review, not a substitute for identifying who checked what.
The following is a suggested internal working register, not an official filing form:
Area
Ask the owner
Evidence to obtain
Files affected
Group and entities
Were entities acquired, closed or moved? Did ownership change?
Current entity register and approved structure chart
Master File, relevant Local Files and other reports where applicable
Transactions
Are there new counterparties, services, loans, licences or changes in volumes?
Transaction ledger and counterparty reconciliation
Local Files and agreements
Functions, assets and risks
Who now performs the work, makes decisions and bears the relevant risks?
Interviews, decision records and organisation changes
Functional analysis and method assessment
Agreements and policy
Were terms, pricing mechanisms or actual conduct changed?
Signed agreements, amendments and evidence of implementation
Transaction narrative and calculations
Financial information
Can this year's amounts and tested result be reconciled to the accounts?
Final trial balance, statutory accounts and segment bridge
Financial schedules and economic analysis
Comparables
Are the previous selection and adjustments still appropriate?
Updated accounts, eligibility checks and search decision
Benchmark and Local File
Local requirements
Did scope, thresholds, dates, language or production rules change?
Current domestic sources and local reviewer confirmation
Country-specific deliverables
Add an owner, due date, source reference and review status to each item. When a shared fact changes, list the documents that use it. That makes it possible to update the Master File and affected Local Files together without assuming their purposes are identical.
2. Decide whether to retain, refresh or reassess each section
Use three decisions in the working register:
Retain after confirmation: the statement is unchanged and a current source or responsible owner supports that conclusion. Keep the confirmation with the file.
Refresh the evidence or figures: the description remains suitable, but dates, counterparties, amounts, accounts or supporting documents need updating.
Reassess the analysis: a change could affect transaction delineation, the tested party, method, comparables, risk allocation or conclusion. Assign technical review before drafting a replacement answer.
These categories are an organisational aid. They do not create a legal exemption from preparing current documentation.
For example, a service team's headcount increase might require refreshed figures and an explanation. A transfer of key decision-making responsibilities could require reassessing the functional analysis. Do not classify both changes as “update employee numbers” simply because the same paragraph mentions them.
The Master File guide explains how to maintain the shared group narrative. The Local File guide covers entity- and transaction-level evidence.
3. Reconcile the current result: a worked example
Fictional illustration, not a customer result or pricing recommendation. A service provider has one transaction in this simplified example. Its stated cost base includes all operating costs for that service; there are no pass-through costs, other operating items or currency differences. The 6% markup is an assumed policy target used to demonstrate the arithmetic. It is not an asserted arm's-length rate, safe harbour or OECD-prescribed return.
Measure, EUR unless stated
Year 1
Year 2
Service operating cost base
2,000,000
2,400,000
Revenue billed for the service
2,120,000
2,500,000
Operating profit in this example
120,000
100,000
Actual net markup on costs
6.0000%
4.1667%
The Year 2 calculation is:
text
Operating profit = 2,500,000 - 2,400,000 = 100,000
Actual net markup = 100,000 / 2,400,000 = 4.1667% (rounded)
Revenue corresponding to the assumed 6% target:
2,400,000 × 1.06 = 2,544,000
Difference from revenue already billed:
2,544,000 - 2,500,000 = 44,000
The old statement “the entity earned 6%” is no longer supported by the current figures. But the EUR 44,000 difference is not an automatic instruction to issue an invoice or make a tax adjustment. The reviewer still needs to establish the appropriate transaction, cost base, policy and arm's-length analysis, then assess any required action under the agreement and relevant local tax and accounting rules.
A useful review note would record:
Which final accounts and ledger entries support the EUR 2,400,000 cost base and EUR 2,500,000 revenue.
Whether allocations, exclusions and accounting classifications match the analysis and agreement.
Why the actual result differs from the assumed target, and whether the target remains appropriate.
The approved treatment, any entries or invoices actually made, and the final calculation after those actions.
Which narrative, tables and supporting documents changed as a result.
The IRS documentation FAQ, question 5, highlights the usefulness of explaining how segmented data was constructed and connecting the analysis to financial information. Its recommendations are U.S. guidance, not a universal filing format. The practical control here is reproducibility: another reviewer should be able to follow the calculation back to its sources.
4. Update the narrative and the evidence together
Avoid replacing a number in one table while leaving the old amount or conclusion elsewhere. Review the transaction summary, method discussion, tested result, benchmark conclusion and any agreement extract that describes the pricing mechanism.
Keep a reconciliation between the document and supporting workpapers. If the figures differ for a valid reason, explain the bridge rather than forcing them to match. For example, a transaction segment can differ from entity-wide accounts; it still needs a documented construction and reconciliation.
Where multiple files use the same approved fact, preserve its source and reporting period. A shared paragraph about group financing may need a new version, while the Local File still needs its own transaction facts and analysis. The financial-transactions guide and agreement documentation guide provide the relevant follow-on checks.
5. Close the review before releasing the file
An internal release checklist can be short:
The entity, transaction and period are clear throughout the document.
Material changes have a source, an owner and a recorded reviewer decision.
Figures, calculations and any approved adjustment reconcile to the supporting records.
Unresolved technical questions have been escalated; they are not hidden by polished prose.
Applicable local requirements and delivery dates have been checked.
The approved document and the evidence used to support it can be retrieved together.
Keep the previous approved version. Retain records in line with applicable law and the organisation's retention policy; this workflow does not prescribe a universal retention period.
The repeatable work is organising shared facts, identifying missing information, preparing draft updates, managing review and producing the agreed output. A useful software evaluation should test those tasks with a prior-year file and representative source documents.
It should also make clear what the reviewer must decide. A generated draft does not establish that a transaction is correctly delineated, a comparable remains suitable or a domestic requirement has been met. Compare the workflow on the transfer pricing documentation software page, or explore the TP/OS product tour.
If you are starting a first Local File rather than maintaining an existing process, the Local File Template Builder provides a separate drafting starting point.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need a completely new Local File every year?
An annual review does not mean rewriting every unchanged sentence. Confirm which facts and analysis remain appropriate, update the evidence and figures, and meet the relevant local requirements. Preserve a record of the decision to reuse material.
Is a transfer pricing benchmark valid for three years?
There is no universal three-year validity rule. OECD paragraph 5.38 discusses a conditional simplification that a tax administration may allow for database searches; comparable financial data is still refreshed annually. Check domestic rules and whether the operating conditions remain unchanged.
What should change if the business model has not changed?
Current-year transaction amounts, financial results, sources and reporting-period information still need review. Confirm that the business model really is unchanged, rather than assuming it because the prior report uses the same company description.
Can I use the same update for every entity?
Shared group facts can be maintained consistently, but each relevant Local File needs its own entity, transactions, evidence, calculations and local-rule assessment. A common paragraph does not replace that work.
Can AI approve the annual update?
AI can assist with extraction, comparison and drafting. The team remains responsible for the facts, methods, local requirements and final approval. Evaluate the supporting evidence and review process, not just the fluency of the output.
Borys UlanenkoCEO of ArmsLength AI
