Corporate Tax Planning: Impact of COVID-19 and Transfer Pricing: Approaches for Comparability Adjustments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has varied significantly across market sectors and companies, and the disruptions generated by the pandemic have had major implications for the transfer-pricing practices of many multinationals. The COVID-19 crisis has challenged the efficiency of traditional benchmarking of profit margins and markups on the basis of the profitability of comparable companies. In this article, we provide a framework for addressing two key questions: (1) how to ensure that the data used for setting or testing transfer-pricing results are appropriate in terms of comparability and that they adequately reflect economic reality for the tested party; and (2) what adjustments need to be made if the tested party's results fall below the arm's-length range. Given the extraordinary circumstances, we cannot rely on a simple analysis of historical data to adjust for the impact faced by businesses as a result of COVID-19. For example, in situations where the taxpayer's results have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to a greater extent than the results of comparable companies, the approaches outlined in this article will provide the taxpayer with an estimated arm's-length range of profitability for the comparable companies that is calibrated to the impact of the pandemic on the tested party's results. These approaches are aligned with the transfer-pricing guidance for COVID-19 adjustments issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in December 2020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.124 | 0.408 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".