Transfer Pricing Documentation: The Complete Guide to Master File, Local File & CbCR (2025)

The €47 Million Question

Imagine a typical German audit scenario: a tax authority walks in with a simple question: "Show us why your Dutch subsidiary—the one with 3 employees and no warehouse—earned 40% of your European profits."

The company has transfer pricing documentation. 127 pages of it. Beautiful formatting. Comprehensive appendices.

It takes the tax inspector exactly one day to dismantle it.

The problem isn't that the documentation is wrong. It's that it answers questions nobody is asking.

Here's what most TP practitioners miss: tax authorities don't read your documentation to learn about your business. They read it to find weaknesses. Every boilerplate paragraph, every unsupported assertion, every number that doesn't quite reconcile—these aren't oversights. They're entry points.

This guide won't teach you how to fill templates. It will teach you how to think like the auditor reading your file—and build documentation that survives that scrutiny.

---

Quick Answer: What Makes Effective Transfer Pricing Documentation?

Effective TP documentation proves your intercompany transactions are at arm's length through three components where applicable under local rules: (1) a Master File providing the global blueprint of your MNE, (2) Local Files with entity-specific functional analysis and benchmarking, and (3) Country-by-Country Reports showing financial allocation. The documentation must be contemporaneous (prepared within locally required timeframes—often by return filing), consistent across jurisdictions, and substantive rather than boilerplate. Quality documentation isn't about page count—it's about demonstrating you understood the arm's length principle and applied it thoughtfully to your specific facts.

For specific components, see our deep-dives on Master File best practices, Local File requirements, and CbCR preparation.

---

The Audit Defense Hierarchy

Not all documentation is created equal. Before diving into requirements, understand where your documentation falls on this spectrum:

Most companies aim for "Compliant." Winners aim for "Untouchable."

The difference isn't complexity—it's mindset. Compliant documentation asks: "What do we have to include?" Untouchable documentation asks: "What will the auditor question, and how do we answer it before they ask?"

---

How Tax Authorities Actually Read Your File

Understanding the reader is half the battle. Here's what most practitioners don't realize about how auditors approach documentation:

They Don't Read—They Scan

An experienced examiner doesn't read your 80-page Local File word by word. They scan for:

• Numbers that don't reconcile — Does the revenue in your benchmarking match your financial statements?
• Generic language — Signals template content, not actual analysis
• Missing sections — Especially intercompany agreements and loss explanations
• Inconsistencies with CbCR data — Audit teams often can access CbCR data (or risk signals derived from it) before reviewing Local Files

Implication: Front-load your strongest content. Put your clearest explanations in the executive summary and opening sections.

They're Looking for Low-Hanging Fruit

Tax authorities have limited resources. They pursue cases they can win. Documentation weaknesses signal an easy target.

Implication: Your goal isn't perfection—it's appearing harder to attack than the next file in the stack.

They Compare Across Years and Entities

Modern audits aren't isolated. Authorities cross-reference your 2024 file with your 2022 file. Your German file with your French file. Your Local File with your CbCR.

Implication: Consistency isn't just good practice—it's survival. One contradictory statement can unravel years of otherwise solid work.

They Remember Patterns

If your industry peers are settling audit adjustments, your file will receive extra scrutiny. Authorities share intelligence across borders through the Inclusive Framework.

Implication: Know what's happening to comparable companies. If there's a trend targeting your industry, preemptively address it in your documentation.

---

The BEPS Action 13 Framework: Three Tiers, One Story

BEPS Action 13 established the global standard for transfer pricing documentation. While implementation varies by jurisdiction, the core framework consists of three interconnected documents that together tell one consistent story about your MNE.

At a Glance

How They Work Together

Think of it this way:

• The CbCR shows tax authorities what your profit allocation looks like
• The Master File explains why that allocation makes sense globally
• The Local File proves the local transactions are arm's length

Tax authorities cross-reference all three. If your CbCR shows 60% of profits in Ireland, your Master File better explain why Ireland owns the valuable intangibles, and your Irish Local File better prove those intangibles are compensated appropriately.

Inconsistencies between these documents trigger audit questions faster than any single deficiency.

Who Needs What?

---

The 3C Test: A Framework for Every Section

Before finalizing any section of your documentation, apply the 3C Test:

Contemporaneous

Was this prepared when it claims to be?

• Documentation should exist before or at tax filing—not created after audit
• Intercompany agreements should ideally be executed before (or contemporaneously with) transactions
• Benchmarking should use current-year data (or a documented roll-forward with updated financials)

Test: Check file metadata. If timestamps show creation after filing deadline, you have a problem.

Consistent

Does this match other documents?

• Local File must align with Master File narratives
• Financial data must reconcile to audited statements
• Functional descriptions must match across all files

Test: Search for the same term across documents. Does "marketing support" mean the same thing in both your German and US files?

Credible

Would an intelligent skeptic believe this?

• Claims must be supported by evidence
• Explanations must make commercial sense
• Numbers must be realistic for the industry

Test: Read your key assertions aloud. Do they sound like something you'd say confidently in an audit meeting?

If any section fails one of these tests, fix it before filing.

---

Master File Essentials

The Master File provides tax authorities with a high-level global blueprint of your MNE—organizational structure, business operations, intangibles, financing, and transfer pricing policies. It's the context for all Local Files.

The Five OECD Content Pillars

What Makes a Master File "Untouchable"

Compliant Master File: Lists organizational structure, describes business in general terms, mentions intangibles exist, notes financing arrangements, attaches financial statements.

Untouchable Master File: Explains why profit flows where it does. Connects organizational structure to value creation. Maps intangibles to the entities that develop, enhance, maintain, protect, and exploit them. Shows how financing decisions support business operations. Proactively addresses apparent anomalies in the structure.

→ Complete guidance: Master File Best Practices: A Complete Guide

---

Local File Essentials

The Local File zooms in on the specific intercompany transactions of a single entity. It must prove arm's length compliance through functional analysis, benchmarking, and economic analysis—transaction by transaction.

Required Content

Section A: Local Entity

• Management structure and reporting relationships
• Business description and strategy
• Recent restructurings or intangible transfers
• Key competitors

Section B: Controlled Transactions (for each material category)

• Transaction description and commercial rationale
• Amounts by counterparty jurisdiction
• Functional analysis for both parties
• Method selection with rationale
• Comparables analysis and benchmarking
• Arm's length conclusion

Section C: Financial Information

• Annual financial statements
• Reconciliation schedules tying analysis to statements
• Comparables financial data

The Functional Analysis: Heart of the Local File

A weak functional analysis is the most common documentation failure. The FAR (Functions, Assets, Risks) analysis determines everything downstream: method selection, tested party choice, comparable selection, and ultimately your arm's length conclusion.

The Specificity Test: Read your functional analysis aloud. If it could describe any company in your industry, it's too generic. Add entity-specific facts: headcount numbers, specific assets, contractual risk allocations, decision-making authority examples.

→ Complete guidance: Local File Best Practices: Building Audit-Ready Documentation

---

Country-by-Country Report Essentials

The CbCR is a standardized template providing tax authorities with a jurisdictional breakdown of the MNE's global operations. It's not a pricing document—it's a risk assessment tool that authorities use to identify potential misalignments between profits and substance.

The Three CbCR Tables

Why CbCR Drives Audit Selection

Tax authorities use CbCR data to select which companies to audit. Common triggers:

• High profits / Low employees in a jurisdiction
• Significant related-party revenue relative to third-party
• Low effective tax rates compared to statutory rates
• Mismatches between declared profits and tangible assets

If your CbCR shows any of these patterns, expect questions. Your Master File and Local Files must be ready to explain them.

→ Complete guidance: CbCR Preparation Guide: Avoiding Common Errors

---

Documentation by Transaction Type

Different transaction types require different documentation approaches. The arm's length principle applies universally, but the specific evidence needed varies significantly.

Services Transactions

Intercompany services require proof that: (1) services were actually rendered, (2) they provided benefit to the recipient, (3) charges are arm's length, and (4) they're not disguised dividends or shareholder activities.

The OECD Simplified Approach for low-value-adding services (cost + 5% markup) can reduce documentation burden—but only for qualifying services. High-value services (management, technical, strategic) require full benchmarking.

Key Documentation:

• Evidence services were actually performed (deliverables, reports, time records)
• Benefit test analysis (would an independent party pay for this?)
• Cost pool identification and allocation methodology
• Distinction between shareholder activities (not chargeable) and services (chargeable)

→ Documentation for Services Transactions

Financial Transactions

Since OECD Chapter X (2020), financial transaction documentation has become a major audit focus. Tax authorities now scrutinize whether intercompany loans would exist between independent parties at all—before even considering interest rates.

Key Documentation:

• Accurate delineation — Would this loan exist between independent parties?
• Credit analysis — What is the borrower's standalone creditworthiness?
• Interest rate benchmarking — Using comparable loan data or credit spreads
• Guarantee analysis — Implicit vs. explicit support considerations

→ Documentation for Financial Transactions: Loans, Guarantees, Cash Pools

Intangibles and DEMPE

Intangibles documentation requires identifying who contributes value—not just who legally owns IP. The DEMPE framework (Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, Exploitation) determines economic entitlement to intangible returns.

Key Documentation:

• Comprehensive intangibles inventory (all valuable IP, not just registered)
• Legal ownership vs. DEMPE function mapping
• Compensation analysis for each contributor
• Hard-to-value intangible (HTVI) considerations

→ Documentation for Intangibles: DEMPE Analysis and Beyond

Business Restructurings

Restructurings require before and after documentation: what changed, why, and at what arm's length compensation. Exit charges for transferred functions, assets, or risks must be supported.

Key Documentation:

• Pre-restructuring FAR profile
• Business rationale for change (not just tax rationale)
• Arm's length compensation analysis
• Post-restructuring ongoing arrangements

→ Documentation for Business Restructurings

Intercompany Agreements

Agreements provide legal substance to transfer pricing arrangements. Missing or retroactive agreements are red flags that undermine entire documentation packages.

Key Requirements:

• Written agreements for all material transactions
• Pricing terms matching transfer pricing policy
• Risk allocation consistent with functional analysis
• Contemporaneous execution (not backdated)

→ Intercompany Agreements: Essential Documentation Requirements

---

Jurisdiction Requirements: Thresholds, Deadlines, and Language

Requirements vary significantly by country. This table summarizes key parameters for major jurisdictions:

Master File / Local File Requirements

Penalty Exposure Without Documentation

---

Timing: When Documentation Must Exist

Contemporaneous means prepared before or at the time of filing the tax return—not reconstructed after an audit begins.

Why Timing Matters More Than You Think

Documentation created only after an audit starts is generally not considered contemporaneous—and in most jurisdictions, significantly weakens penalty protection and credibility. The analysis appears designed to justify prices rather than to determine them.

Practical Timeline (Calendar-Year Example)

→ Complete timing guidance: Contemporaneous Documentation: When Timing Matters Most

---

10 Common Documentation Weaknesses

Documentation weaknesses don't just risk penalties—they invite audit scrutiny. Tax authorities use documentation quality as a leading indicator of compliance.

The Quick Self-Assessment

Score each statement 0-2 (0 = No, 1 = Partially, 2 = Yes):

Contemporaneity

• Documentation existed before tax return filing
• Intercompany agreements were signed before transactions
• Benchmarking uses current-year data

Consistency

• Master File and Local Files tell the same story
• Financial data reconciles to audited statements
• CbCR allocation matches documented profit drivers

Substance

• Functional analysis includes entity-specific facts
• Loss-making is explained with evidence
• Comparability adjustments are documented with rationale

Completeness

• All material transactions are covered
• Intercompany agreements exist for each transaction
• Accept/reject matrix documents screening decisions

Score Interpretation:

• 20-24: Audit-ready. Focus on continuous improvement.
• 14-19: Defensible. Address gaps before next filing.
• 8-13: Vulnerable. Prioritize remediation immediately.
• 0-7: Critical risk. Consider engaging external support.

→ Complete guidance with remediation roadmap: 10 Common Documentation Weaknesses (and How to Fix Them)

---

Three Counterintuitive Truths About Documentation

Truth #1: Shorter Is Often Stronger

The instinct is to add more—more comparables, more analysis, more pages. This is backwards.

Every additional page is another place for inconsistencies. Every extra comparable is another company the auditor can challenge. Every supplemental analysis is another argument to defend.

The strongest documentation says everything necessary and nothing more.

A 40-page Local File with entity-specific analysis beats a 150-page file padded with boilerplate every time.

Truth #2: Perfect Consistency Is Suspicious

If your profit margins hit the median of your benchmark range every single year, auditors will wonder how you achieved such precision. Real businesses have variance.

Document the variance. Explain why 2023 was below median (supply chain disruptions) and 2024 was above (recovery). Attempts to show "perfect" compliance often signal manipulation.

Truth #3: The Best Defense Is Preemptive Disclosure

If you know something looks problematic—a loss-making year, a jurisdiction anomaly, a recent restructuring—don't hope the auditor misses it. They won't.

Address it proactively. A section titled "Explanation of 2024 Operating Loss" signals you've thought about it. Silence signals you're hiding something.

The companies that rarely face TP adjustments don't have cleaner structures than everyone else. They have better explanations prepared in advance.

---

Related Guides

Documentation Deep-Dives

• Master File Best Practices — Complete global documentation guide
• Local File Best Practices — Entity-level documentation
• CbCR Preparation Guide — Country-by-country reporting
• Contemporaneous Documentation Requirements — Timing and penalties
• Documentation for Services — Service transaction requirements
• Documentation for Financial Transactions — Loans, guarantees, cash pools
• Documentation for Intangibles — DEMPE analysis
• Documentation for Restructurings — Exit charges and compensation
• Intercompany Agreements Documentation — Contract requirements
• Common Documentation Weaknesses — Mistakes to avoid

Benchmarking Resources

• Complete Benchmarking Study Guide — Full methodology
• PLI Selection Guide — Choosing profit level indicators
• Working Capital Adjustments Guide — Adjustment methodology
• Functional Analysis with AI — FAR analysis guidance

Glossary Terms

• Master File — Definition and requirements
• Local File — Entity documentation
• Country-by-Country Report — CbCR requirements
• Functional Analysis — FAR framework
• Comparability Analysis — The 5 factors

Browse all glossary terms →

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is transfer pricing documentation?

Transfer pricing documentation is the formal record demonstrating that intercompany transactions between related parties are priced at arm's length—what independent parties would agree to in comparable circumstances. Under the OECD BEPS Action 13 framework, documentation consists of three tiers: a Master File (global overview), Local Files (entity-specific analysis), and Country-by-Country Reports (jurisdictional financial data). Most major jurisdictions require all three for MNEs above certain thresholds. Documentation serves two purposes: (1) compliance with legal requirements and (2) penalty protection in case of audit adjustments.

Is transfer pricing documentation mandatory?

For large MNEs, yes—in almost all OECD and G20 countries. Specific thresholds vary: Germany requires Master File documentation if relevant taxpayer revenue exceeds €100M (prior FY), the UK requires formal Master/Local Files for in-scope large MNE groups above €750M, the Netherlands triggers at €50M consolidated revenue. Even where not strictly mandatory, documentation is practically essential—without it, taxpayers lose penalty protection and face adverse audit outcomes. The US has no formal "Master File" requirement but effectively requires equivalent documentation under §1.6662-6 for penalty relief.

What's the difference between Master File and Local File?

The Master File is a global overview of the entire MNE group—organizational structure, business description, intangibles, financing arrangements, and transfer pricing policies. It provides context. The Local File focuses on a single entity's specific intercompany transactions—functional analysis, benchmarking, method selection, and arm's length conclusions. It provides proof. The Master File is typically one document shared globally; each entity prepares its own Local File. Both should be consistent—discrepancies trigger audit questions.

How often should transfer pricing documentation be updated?

Annually, with data refreshes and review. OECD recommends annual review at minimum. Comparable financial data should be updated every year. A full benchmarking refresh (new search, new comparables) is common practice every 2-3 years or whenever the business model changes materially—though this is not a universal rule and depends on facts and jurisdiction. Documentation for extraordinary transactions (restructurings, intangible transfers) should be prepared promptly (within 6 months in Germany). Stale data significantly increases audit risk.

What happens if I don't have transfer pricing documentation?

Without documentation, you face: (1) penalty exposure—US accuracy-related penalties can reach 40% of underpayment; Germany imposes €5K+ surcharges plus percentage-based amounts; India applies 2% of transaction value; (2) burden shift—in Germany and Netherlands, lack of documentation can shift burden of proof to the taxpayer; (3) credibility damage—tax authorities may infer non-compliance; (4) unfavorable estimates—authorities may estimate arm's length prices adversely. Documentation prepared only after an audit notice generally loses contemporaneous protection.

When must documentation be prepared?

By the tax return filing date in most jurisdictions—this is "contemporaneous" preparation. US regulations (§1.6662-6) explicitly require documentation to "be in existence when the return is filed." Germany requires submission within 30 days of request (as of 2025), but documentation must already exist. India ties documentation to the Form 3CEB due date. Australia requires documentation before return lodgment to support a "reasonably arguable position." Documentation prepared only after audit notice is generally too late for penalty protection.

What is CbCR and who must file it?

Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) is a standardized template showing revenue, profit, tax, employees, and assets by jurisdiction. It's filed by the ultimate parent of MNE groups with consolidated revenue exceeding €750M (approximately $850M USD). CbCR data is automatically exchanged between tax authorities, who use it for risk assessment—identifying jurisdictions where profit allocation appears misaligned with economic substance. CbCR is not a pricing document but a transparency tool that influences audit selection.

How detailed should functional analysis be?

Detailed enough that an independent reviewer understands why the tested party earns its margin. A functional analysis should specify: which functions each party performs (with specifics, not generic descriptions), which assets are employed (including intangibles), which risks are assumed (with evidence of decision-making authority), and how these relate to profit allocation. If your functional analysis could describe any company in your industry, it's too generic. Include headcount, specific assets, contractual risk allocations, and concrete examples.

Can I use last year's benchmarking study?

You can update it, but must refresh the data. Common practice: keep the same comparable set for 2-3 years if the business is unchanged, but update comparable financials annually and verify companies haven't been acquired, gone bankrupt, or changed business models. Document your review process. A benchmarking study with 2019 data applied to 2025 results faces high audit risk and is frequently challenged. Some tax administrations explicitly permit multi-year use with annual data updates; others prefer periodic full refreshes.

What are the penalties for inadequate documentation?

Significant and varied by jurisdiction:

• US: 20%/40% accuracy-related penalty on underpayment attributable to the misstatement if documentation defense unavailable
• Germany: €5K+ surcharge; 5-10% of income adjustment; €100/day up to €1M for late production
• India: 2% of international transaction value for failure to maintain documentation
• UK: Behavior-based penalties (0-30% for careless behavior); fixed penalties for record-keeping failures
• Australia: Percentage of tax shortfall depending on behavior category

Beyond penalties, inadequate documentation can shift burden of proof, damages credibility, and invites aggressive audit adjustments.

How do I document loss-making years?

Include a dedicated loss analysis section explaining why the tested party lost money despite arm's length pricing. Document: external factors (market conditions, industry downturns), internal factors (startup costs, restructuring expenses), and comparable evidence showing independent parties also experienced losses in similar circumstances. Without explanation, tax authorities may assume losses result from non-arm's-length pricing and propose adjustments to achieve "normal" profitability.

What if Master File and Local File are inconsistent?

Inconsistency is a serious problem—tax authorities cross-reference both documents and can exchange information internationally. If the Master File describes an entity as a "routine distributor" but its Local File describes complex marketing activities, auditors will challenge both. Fix immediately: conduct a consistency review before finalization, maintain centralized data sources, and have a cross-check process between global and local tax teams. Inconsistencies don't just invite questions—they destroy credibility.

Do I need intercompany agreements for all transactions?

Strongly advisable for all material transactions—and legally required in some jurisdictions. Written agreements formalize terms and demonstrate contemporaneous intent. OECD uses contracts as a starting point for delineating transactions. Missing agreements raise questions about whether arrangements are truly arm's length. At minimum, maintain agreements for: goods/services purchases, royalties, management fees, intercompany loans, guarantees, and cost-sharing arrangements. Retroactive agreements (signed after transactions occur) are red flags.

How long should a Local File be?

Focus on quality, not length. A simple entity with one routine transaction might need 30-50 pages. A complex entity with multiple transaction types might require 100+ pages. Tax authorities criticize both extremes: too brief suggests inadequate analysis; too long with generic content suggests padding. The test: does every page add substantive value? Can an examiner understand your arm's length position without excessive effort? Include entity-specific facts, not industry boilerplate.

What is contemporaneous documentation?

Documentation prepared before or at the time of filing the tax return—not reconstructed years later after an audit begins. "Contemporaneous" means the analysis reflects information actually known when transactions occurred, preventing "post hoc rationalizations." Most jurisdictions tie penalty protection to contemporaneous preparation. Documentation created only after an audit notice loses credibility and, in jurisdictions like the US, generally cannot support the documentation-based penalty defense.

How do tax authorities use CbCR data?

CbCR data is used for risk assessment and audit selection. Authorities analyze: profit allocation vs. employee/asset presence, effective tax rates by jurisdiction, related-party vs. third-party revenue ratios. Apparent misalignments (high profits in low-substance jurisdictions) trigger investigation. CbCR alone doesn't prove non-compliance—but it identifies which entities warrant deeper review. Your Master File and Local Files must be consistent with and explain your CbCR allocation.

What documentation is required for intercompany loans?

Following OECD Chapter X (2020), loan documentation must address: (1) accurate delineation—would independent parties make this loan at all?; (2) credit analysis—borrower creditworthiness and credit rating; (3) arm's length terms—interest rate, tenor, covenants, security; (4) economic rationale—why the loan structure makes commercial sense. Document the pricing methodology (comparable loans, credit spreads) and maintain written loan agreements with all material terms.

---

---

The Documentation Mindset

Most companies treat transfer pricing documentation as a tax compliance exercise—something to get done, filed, and forgotten until the next audit.

The companies that rarely face TP adjustments think differently.

They see documentation as ongoing evidence collection—a continuous process of recording why their pricing makes sense. When an audit arrives, they don't scramble to create explanations. They pull a file that's been building for years.

The difference isn't resources or budget. It's mindset.

Documentation isn't proof you did the work. Documentation IS the work.

Start now. Not at year-end. Not when the audit notice arrives. Now.

Every intercompany agreement signed today. Every functional analysis updated this quarter. Every pricing decision documented this month. These are the building blocks of an untouchable file.

The €47 million question will come for every multinational eventually. The only question is whether you'll be ready to answer it.

---

Questions about documentation requirements? Talk to us or explore our benchmarking resources to see how ArmsLength AI can support your transfer pricing compliance.