Transfer pricing

February 2024  |  ROUNDTABLE | CORPORATE TAX

Financier Worldwide Magazine

February 2024 Issue

The transfer pricing (TP) arena has evolved significantly over the past 12 to 18 months. International efforts toward transparency and global minimum taxes have led to proposals from tax policymakers around the world for significant changes, with varying interpretation. This, in turn, has created a need for multinational enterprises to be more proactive in adopting strategies to manage increased TP risk. As tax authorities raise the bar in terms of how they monitor and control TP policies, the arena continues to be complex and difficult to navigate.

FW: What do you consider to be among the key developments in the transfer pricing (TP) arena over the last 12 to 18 months? How are regulatory trends influencing the way organisations set out their TP strategies?

Harger: While the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has offered guidelines and a framework for determining arm’s length pricing, transfer pricing (TP) continues to be one of the most complex areas for multinational companies to navigate. International efforts toward transparency and global minimum taxes have led to proposals from tax policymakers around the world for significant changes, with varying interpretation. Due to the inherently subjective nature of TP positions, the risk of adjustments to taxable income, double taxation and the potential for interest and penalties can be substantial, even when policies are supported by specialist advice. This has created a need for multinational enterprises (MNEs) to be more proactive adopting strategies to manage this increased TP risk, and a notable increase in the usage of solutions to provide additional upfront certainty such as tax insurance.

Bhatia: The TP arena has evolved significantly over the past 12 to 18 months. The OECD has introduced Pillar One Amount B rules. Under Amount B rules, the OECD strives to introduce safe harbours for certain sales and distribution activities. Under the safe harbour rules, qualifying sales and distribution entities would make a certain level of profit based on the industry in which they operate, operating assets and operating expense. Additionally, the use of country by country reporting (CbCR) information has increased beyond mere risk assessment. CbCR information is expected to be used in determining whether top-up taxes are due under Pillar Two rules. As such, the emphasis on the accuracy of CbCR has increased significantly.

Bergeron: Recent developments at the OECD, particularly around development of Pillar One and Pillar Two, have monopolised international taxation headlines for months. While consensus has been reached on Pillar Two, and many countries are moving ahead with local implementation, efforts to reach a consensus at the OECD around Pillar One have highlighted differences in opinion between OECD members. Companies are monitoring these developments closely, particularly for its impact on their current global structure and TP strategies. Organisations must also closely monitor local developments as these may shift their global tax strategies. In Canada, changes were proposed to TP legislation after a recent court challenge highlighted weaknesses with our current legislation, and other administrative measures, such as safe harbour rules, are being considered. In Brazil, the government has recently adopted OECD approaches to TP. Organisations must therefore continue to monitor local developments as these are most likely to generate compliance and audit risk in the jurisdictions where they operate.

Odimma: The ongoing Pillar Two discussion will take centre stage in the next 12 to 18 months. The GloBE Model Rules have introduced the qualified domestic minimum top-up tax (QDMTT). It is expected that most tax administrations in Africa will enact a QDMTT to ensure there is source taxation of under-taxed income in Africa. This is the way most African countries intend to recover top-up tax generated by tax incentives in their respective countries. Interestingly, the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) released the draft of a suggested approach for domestic minimum tax legislation to guide member countries. There will be increased TP audits as well, with many African countries working with the technical team of the ATAF and other regional tax administrations to develop capacity. These trends will see companies invest in system upgrades and additional resources to prepare for the increased number of audits. It is important for multinationals to keep up to date with developments in this regard to prevent avoidable additional tax liabilities. A typical example is the excessive penalty for missing filing deadlines, as African tax administrations have intensified their efforts to leverage these penalties to increase tax collection. It is therefore important for companies to have a system for keeping up to date with changes in legislation.

Gracia: A number of developments have impacted, directly or indirectly, companies in Spain in the area of TP. Firstly, Pillars One and Two, although not directly related to TP, will likely have an impact in this area. Pillar One focuses on the allocation of taxing rights in a digitalised economy and seeks to undertake a coherent and concurrent review of the profit allocation and nexus rules, and will create a nexus completely detached from the arm’s length principle and a safe harbour for marketing and commercialisation activities. Pillar Two provides for a minimum universal 15 percent corporate income tax rate for large multinational groups, and has already made aggressive TP policies less attractive and questioned the need to maintain CbCR for those same groups. In addition, DAC 7 has opened the door to joint tax audits where the main focus will be on reviewing the TP policies of multinational groups. Finally, another key development is the non-tax directive which makes it compulsory for large groups to publish CbC report information in the European Union (EU) for financial years starting from 22 June 2024. This affects their TP policies in particular.

FW: To what extent are companies using technology, such as data analytics, to plan their transfer pricing policies? Are more companies incorporating technology solutions into their tax processes?

Bhatia: Given the increasing compliance and governance burden on taxpayers, using technology to execute tax processes is no longer a ‘nice to have’ alternative. Rather it has become an absolute must. Companies are continually exploring a wide array of technology solutions. These include full enterprise resource planning tool integration across the entire organisation, off the shelf solutions for targeted areas of tax, bespoke solutions for individual tax areas and data wrangling tools for individual processes. The most common technology implementation models seen are common technology tools across all of the finance function, including tax, a common technology platform across all areas of tax, including provisioning, indirect tax, direct tax and TP and bespoke applications for individual tax processes. When selecting technology, there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions, as this will generally be based on the pain points of the specific organisation.

Bergeron: Technology solution offerings, namely with rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), have increased significantly in the past year. Where possible, companies and practitioners have integrated these tools into their practices and processes to facilitate compliance. However, some of these technologies are still at the early stages of development and have highlighted the importance of due diligence by professionals to validate the accuracy of information.

Odimma: The huge data requests involved in TP necessitate the use of technology solutions for tax processes. Data analytics have become a big part of tax departments. This is to ensure companies are able to seamlessly integrate accounting output into tax processes. Fortunately, there has also been an increase in tax technology firms to help companies in this regard. Companies are split between those that have developed in-house tax technologies with help from in-house tax teams, and those that are adopting off the shelf ones modified to suit their tax data requirements. Multinationals, by virtue of their activities in different jurisdictions, require technology to help with data collation. On the tax authority side, there is increasing use of digitalised means of conducting tax audits. Given the quantum of data requested during a TP audit, tax officers are now leveraging it to ensure efficient review and analysis of taxpayers’ data.

Gracia: Data analytics is frequently used for TP purposes nowadays, particularly where massive amounts of data are publicly accessible, such as real estate asset sale prices, not least because this provides more contemporaneous data than traditional databases. Lack of contemporaneous data is a problem when a crisis, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, arises, forcing an immediate review of a group’s TP policy to align it with the reality of the business in difficult times. Hence, these new tools will help overcome the ‘timing gap’ of data as the technology continues to develop and improve. Clearly, data analytics are here to stay in this field.

Harger: Both taxpayers and tax authorities have been increasingly looking to technology and other digital tools to manage the challenges of global tax compliance. In 2023, the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also announced increased enforcement efforts supported by improved technology and AI to help IRS compliance teams with detection efforts and case selection. While technology is becoming increasingly necessary for data management and global reporting, it similarly will help streamline tax authority efforts to collect and analyse large sources of data. Thus, well-supported TP policies and contemporaneous documentation will be more important than ever, as tax authorities globally become better positioned to review and tackle complex planning.

FW: To what extent are tax authorities sharing information and collaborating more frequently on TP issues? What are the implications for multinational companies?

Bergeron: Tax authorities continue to share information and to collaborate on TP issues, through the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), the advance pricing arrangement (APA) and exchange of information processes. The exchange of information via the CbCR rules is now part of the norm. However, tax authorities appear to focus more on transparency initiatives aimed at ensuring they have equal access to relevant information to verify and validate TP compliance. As a result, multinational companies are implementing new reporting standards, with further complexity added by Pillar Two.

Odimma: There is increased interaction among tax administrations in Africa through regional and sub-regional organisations. This is primarily due to the work done by the regional organisations on the Pillar Two project. Member countries have met frequently in recent times to discuss ways to improve tax collection. Although the concept of joint audits has been discussed, it is still far from becoming a reality due to a divergence in legal provisions with respect to taxes. However, there has been collaboration on the taxation of multinationals on an industry level to ensure each member state is aware of the salient issues peculiar to the taxation of those industries in focus. Multinationals are encouraged to ensure uniformity in their tax advice and policies.

Harger: When operating cross-border, positions like TP may have implications across multiple jurisdictions. Tax insurance is a global solution as companies are navigating the risk of challenges from multiple tax authorities. While many tax treaties may allow the opportunity to enter a MAP process, where two affected tax authorities work together to eliminate double taxation, this requires working together toward agreeing on common transfer prices. Failure to resolve can occur if, for example, a jurisdiction does not have an active or willing competent authority function or does not endorse OECD TP principles. Thus, negotiations can be challenging, time consuming and ultimately costly for the taxpayer if uninsured.

Gracia: The automatic exchange of APAs, tax and TP rulings between EU tax authorities, as well as ‘aggressive’ TP schemes, is now the new normal. The scope of rulings exchanges has recently been refined based on experience since its inception seven years ago. Further, DAC 7 has opened the door to joint tax audits among EU member state tax authorities, predominantly in the TP field. The ultimate goal of these measures is to keep the TP policies of multinational groups under control, if they are deemed to deviate from OECD guideline standards.

Bhatia: Tax authorities around the world have started to share information with each other more frequently. In the EU, tax authorities share unilateral APA and tax ruling information with each other. Tax authorities also share CbCR information. Companies should be cognisant of the information they share with tax authorities and should assume that if any information is shared with one tax authority, it will be shared with others through one mechanism or another. Companies need to take a global view when sharing seemingly innocent tax information with tax authorities. What may seem to be beneficial information to share in one country may hurt the company’s tax position in other countries.

FW: How would you describe the level of TP disputes between companies and tax authorities in recent times? Has there been a rise in audits and investigations?

Gracia: In Spain, tax litigation is at record levels due to the government’s need to collect more tax, the higher annual tax collection goals set by the Spanish tax authority to reduce the public deficit, and the incentives that tax auditors earn based on the amounts reassessed, even if those are then challenged in the courts and the case is lost. There are now many more TP disputes, and we are beginning to see rulings from national courts at the highest levels that address very specific TP issues that were unthinkable in previous years. One of the reactions to this phenomenon has been an increase in requests for APAs with Spanish tax authorities, most of them bilateral rather than unilateral as before, and for MAPs in the hope of avoiding court. DAC 7 has brought joint tax audits by EU tax authorities which might become particularly useful for auditing TP matters involving multinational groups. By the same token, it may help tackle and curtail disputes over international double taxation arising from the different way in which national tax authorities address complex TP files.

Bhatia: In general, as more tax authorities have levelled up their TP skillsets, there has been an increase in tax audits and correspondingly an increase in disputes between companies and tax authorities. Tax authorities have started to target more sophisticated and complex issues like determining company profits using two-sided methods like profit split methodology. As a result of this, more companies have started using two-sided TP methods for their profit determination compared to using the one-sided methods popular a few years ago. Gone are the days of tax authorities and taxpayers arguing over whether a cost-plus 10 percent agreement represents an arm’s length profit compared to a cost-plus 5 percent arrangement. More tax authorities are interested in getting a share of the residual profits that have traditionally resided in companies’ intellectual property. Given the increasing level of controversies and the magnitude of the underlying amounts involved, more cases are expected to be resolved using the MAP mechanism.

Harger: TP has been a key area of tax authority focus and occasional controversy not just over the last year, but increasingly over the last decade. The IRS alone is currently working on thousands of new hires, with a focus on ‘complex’ areas. Over the next five to seven years, the agency is expected to be better positioned to audit and closely scrutinise high earners and corporate entities, including any party undertaking more complex tax planning. As a result, we have seen changes to the ways taxpayers are approaching risk and the potential for litigation and controversy over tax positions generally. While historically tax opinions or other support from subject matter experts have been sufficient, taxpayers are often anticipating controversy at the early planning stage and seeking the additional comfort of rulings – if and when available – and insurance solutions. This is not just confined to the US, and we are seeing an increasing interest in insurance in jurisdictions such as Spain, Ireland and Germany.

Odimma: There has been an increase in TP audits, with most ending in negotiated settlements. That said, there is still a paucity of TP case law in Africa. Many tax administrations have invested a lot to build capacity, both at the human and technology level. This is reflected in an increase in the number of TP audits, as some administrations are keen to test out their capacity level. The dispute mechanism in most countries is not well defined and raises questions over fairness. But the ATAF is encouraging member countries to implement a proper dispute mechanism, including alternative dispute processes, to reduce the timeline for resolving TP cases. The issue of data for TP cases is a recurring denominator, as most tax offices seek a local comparable which is hard to find. Most African countries are happy with Eastern Europe comparables, as market dynamics there bear a close resemblance to African markets.

Bergeron: With many subsidiaries operating in Canada, our tax authorities have always maintained pressure on companies to comply with TP policies. Audit levels and investigations remain high as a result. I would say, however, that the Canada Revenue Agency’s approach has evolved and matured over the years, and I suspect many tax authorities are following the same trend. For example, with many companies filing tax returns electronically, which include prescribed forms focusing on cross-border intercompany transactions, it is easier for tax authorities to target their compliance activities with companies where they suspect further investigation is required. In Canada, we have also seen a rise in permanent establishment and attribution of income audits which involve complex TP issues.

FW: In the event of a tax audit or dispute, what options are available to companies looking to resolve issues as efficiently as possible? What steps should be taken to avoid potential financial and reputational damage?

Bhatia: In a tax audit situation, the first step is to engage with tax authorities and try to understand their viewpoint. Taxpayers should have an open discussion with tax authorities and proactively educate them on company products and business models, putting their best arguments forward to support the tax position. If this does not result in a favourable outcome, litigation is an option, albeit an expensive one that can take years to resolve. Getting competent authority relief through a MAP is an excellent alternative, but this can take between 24 and 48 months. If companies wish to be proactive and gain certainty upfront for their key transactions, an APA is a great alternative. This takes initial resource commitment and generally three to five years to complete.

Harger: Traditionally, a taxpayer would manage a TP risk by establishing TP policies, preparing relevant documentation and, in some cases, applying to local authorities for an APA or ruling. In the event of a dispute with the tax authorities, a conclusion could be obtained via the regular objection and appeal procedures, a negotiated settlement, an out of court arbitration or a MAP – a process that could take many years. However, APAs assume a fixed set of facts and, therefore, may not be valid if the taxpayer’s business model changes during the term in which it is in force. Obtaining an APA can also be a long and resource-consuming process, particularly in a bilateral or multilateral arrangement. A different approach to these traditional processes is the strategic use of tax insurance to manage contingent TP tax exposures. Where a position can be considered reasonable and defensible, insurance markets may step into the taxpayer’s shoes with respect to a tax authority challenge in the future, by making the taxpayer whole for economic loss including assessed taxes and defence costs in this way, tax insurance provides a streamlined and cost-effective means of obtaining upfront economic certainty on TP positions.

Odimma: Multinationals are encouraged to have a transparent tax policy which helps facilitate trust with the tax administration. This ensures the parties are discussing the issues in a transparent manner. Furthermore, it helps preserve the taxpayer’s reputation. Companies should take certain steps to manage a tax audit or dispute. First, conduct a ‘get to know the business’ meeting to ensure the tax officers are familiar with the different value chains, level of complexity and functions. It is also important to discuss the risks. Second, during the field review, always clarify the request from the tax office and be sure to satisfy them. If a requested document is not available, ask if it is suitable to provide an alternative. This is important as tax officers usually have a standard list which may not be relevant to every industry. Third, the tax team must be involved from the field stage to manage discussions, as tax officers always prefer working with knowledgeable people to ensure some issues which may be contentious during reconciliation are ticked off immediately. After the field stage, ask for a joint review of draft findings before the final assessment, to reduce the time required to resolve issues in the final assessment. Tax issues that are not reoccurring should be resolved through negotiated settlements, and alternative dispute processes explored where applicable.

Bergeron: The MAP is a timely and efficient approach to resolve audit disputes because it eliminates double taxation. However, where there is no tax treaty and thus no MAP in a given country, a multinational finds itself grinding down an audit adjustment with the local appeals process or through the courts. Only in specific situations would we recommend ‘local’ dispute resolution methods over the MAP. The APA is a great way to obtain certainty in future years but remains a lengthy process. Furthermore, if a company is not under the radar of its local tax authority, the APA programme may generate unnecessary scrutiny. In our view, openness and collaboration at the audit stage may help to avoid potential financial and reputational damage. It is important for companies to tell their story to tax authorities and educate them on their business to avoid differences in interpretation.

Gracia: A company should engage a good tax lawyer – preferably independent from the TP adviser, although a good degree of collaboration between both is essential – to set the defence strategy from the outset and make available to the tax administration the required TP documentation. In Spain, it is compulsory to provide the Spanish tax authorities the master file, the local file and the CbCR for groups with a consolidated net turnover of at least €750m in the previous fiscal year. On top of that, similar information must now be published in EU member states for financial years starting from 22 June 2024. With some notable exceptions, courts are generally siding with the tax authorities’ approach regarding methodology in a TP controversy, even if the tax authorities’ proposal is somewhat flawed. This is due to the courts’ lack of in-depth knowledge of economic concepts and their current bias toward the tax authorities in the fight against aggressive tax practices. In light of this situation, it is worth considering the possibility of using alternative tax dispute resolution mechanisms, especially arbitration. Now that Directive 2017/1852 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU has been fully implemented in EU member states, and as the Multilateral Convention has been ratified and is in force, we have seen more double tax treaties contain an arbitration clause.

FW: What essential advice would you offer to multinational companies on maximising tax efficiencies while complying with TP regulations?

Gracia: The reality is that tax authorities are raising the bar in terms of how they monitor and control taxpayers’ TP policies. This gives rise to more cases of international double taxation which then need to be addressed. On the other hand, the implementation of Pillar Two for large multinational groups, with a minimum universal 15 percent corporate income tax rate as of January 2024, will make aggressive TP policies less attractive when it comes to maximising tax efficiencies.

Bergeron: Flexibility in approach is key to maximising tax efficiencies while maintaining compliance. For example, if a company is using ranges to determine its transfer price, it could opt to target a return within the full range, or the interquartile range, as opposed to fixing a given margin or return. This allows it to maintain consistency in its TP approach and comply with TP regulations, all while adjusting to a changing economic environment.

Odimma: Maximising tax efficiency starts with having the right information about the compliance obligations expected of every taxpayer. This ensures taxpayers plan their compliance obligations to avoid huge penalties for missing TP filing deadlines. A regular review of TP policies and business practice is important to ensure policies align with operations. It is always important to have a knowledgeable adviser who can balance theory with practice when attending to queries from the tax office. The master and local files must be available and in the local language, so tax officers can review them.

Harger: Volatility and uncertainty are pervasive elements in the current market, making complex tax planning a daunting prospect with severe consequences if done incorrectly. As TP regulations become increasingly complex and difficult to navigate, even the most sophisticated tax opinions and TP reports from prestigious law and accounting firms may not provide risk-averse taxpayers with the same scale of comfort they once did. Down the line, this could carry serious repercussions for companies’ projections and stifle growth potential. The cost-benefit analysis of engaging in litigation versus purchasing tax insurance is straightforward – the insured stands to pay potentially pennies on the dollar depending on the level of exposure, transferring risk to insurance companies. Although tax insurance may be a novel solution for many, the flexibility and protection it offers could make it commonplace for substantive business and tax planning endeavours.

FW: What are your predictions for TP trends over the coming months and years? What developments are likely to shape the way regulators and companies approach this issue in the long term?

Bergeron: There will be continued focus on the OECD’s efforts to implement Pillar One and Pillar Two in the short term, with lessons learned from the process and potential adjustments in the medium and long term. Tax authorities will continue to impose increased reporting requirements on multinational entities. As a compromise, the OECD and tax authorities may further define safe harbour provisions for certain low-risk transactions to limit the compliance burden, bringing TP closer to global formulaic apportionment. In Canada, for large dollar TP disputes, particularly for taxation years not impacted by recent proposed regulatory changes, companies may opt to dispute a TP assessment before the Canadian courts, as a recent court decision indicated a preference to prioritise legal structure over economic substance, diverging from the guidance outlined in the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project.

Odimma: The GloBE tax rules will take on greater significance in Africa, especially with the OECD trying to accommodate some of the demands of countries outside the EU. There will be an increase in domestic minimum top-up tax legislation as African countries seek to obtain a sizeable share of the tax on companies at a minimum rate of 15 percent. Given that more often than not, the incentives available to multinationals reduce the effective tax rate, the QDMMT becomes the key option to recoup any tax leakage through incentives. In addition, there will be increasing alignment of political policies with fiscal policies, which was not previously the case in Africa. Tax audits will intensify as countries try to cope with the global economic slowdown.

Harger: While TP is full of grey areas, there is a global legislative effort to provide additional clarity and regulations to help multinational taxpayers navigate these complex rules, which we expect to continue. For example, in September of this year, the European Commission (EC) published two new legislative proposals: a Directive on Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT) and a Directive on Transfer Pricing. BEFIT introduces a common framework to determine the taxable base for corporate income taxation across member states. While this is of course welcome guidance to Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) companies, application has also created additional uncertainty as taxpayers struggle to align the framework with current TP policies. Until the dust settles on interpretation and application of these and other similar new regulations, we expect taxpayers to continue turning to solutions such as tax insurance to allow multinationals to conduct business without fear of litigation, disruptions to balance sheets or challenges to liquidity.

Gracia: For years, there has been a clear regulatory trend – internationally and within the EU – to limit aggressive tax planning in the area of TP – regulations such as Pillar One, Pillar Two, DAC 6 and DAC 7. In the EU, this fight against such aggressive tax planning is being reinforced, with a particular emphasis on TP, by the EC through state-aid cases. So far, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled out most of the EC’s cases, in particular, Fiat and Amazon. However, the ECJ has ruled in favour of the EC in the Magnetrol International case, regarding the Belgian excess profits tax regime. In addition, the advocate general has just published his opinion in the Apple case, siding with the EC and against the judgment delivered by the EU General Court. The EC continues to fight against aggressive tax planning with its proposed TP Directive, so that no member state can argue that it has not adopted the OECD guidelines and its official interpretation when applying its own tax legislation. Against this backdrop, multinational groups have to be ever more cautious and apply an increasingly conservative approach. On the one hand, the possibilities for tax savings are being reduced and, on the other hand, the reputational risk of taking a stance that is too aggressive has increased considerably, which makes it unattractive from a cost-benefit analysis.

Bhatia: I would not have envisaged this a few years ago, but the OECD has started to move away from the arm’s length principle, which has been the bedrock of TP for several years, toward a quasi-formulary apportionment approach under the Pillar One rules. As a result of the Pillar One Amount B safe harbour rules, companies should expect more controversies on even traditionally non-controversial transactions like limited risk distribution. Companies should expect to see an increase in TP compliance requirements, including submission of TP documentation and TP forms in more countries. With further developments in AI, companies should expect more use of generative AI in TP research, analysis and compliance activities.

Jessica Harger is a managing director on Aon’s transaction solutions team, and a leader of Aon’s tax insurance practice. Prior to joining Aon in 2016, she worked as a tax consultant in the Big 4 focusing on international tax and M&A. Ms Harger is admitted to the bar in New York. She was recognised as a power broker by Risk & Insurance Magazine in 2019, 2020 and 2021 for her work with tax insurance in M&A transactions. She can be contacted on +1 (914) 572 2422 or by email: jessica.harger@aon.com.

Eduardo Gracia specialises in tax matters relating to M&A, real estate, finance and distressed debt, as well as international tax, European tax and transfer pricing projects. He has advised a wide range of Spanish and international corporates, funds and financial institutions on the tax planning and structuring of inbound investments into Spain. He has also advised on a considerable number of outbound investments, as well as on the corporate and operational restructuring of multinationals. He can be contacted on +34 (91) 364 9854 or by email: eduardo.gracia@ashurst.com.

Abhijay Bhatia is an operational transfer pricing director at Convatec Group PLC. He is responsible for global operational transfer pricing activities and is passionate about using technology to simplify processes. He has over 19 years of experience in engineering, corporate finance and tax. He can be contacted on +44 (0)780 884 0910 or by email: abhijaybhatia@gmail.com.

André Bergeron is an economist and partner in Gowling WLG's Ottawa office, practicing in the transfer pricing and competent authority group. His practice focuses on helping clients optimise their global tax position and comply with Canada's transfer pricing legislation. His work includes transfer pricing analysis, contemporaneous documentation, audit defence and dispute resolution, mutual agreement procedures and advanced pricing agreements. He can be contacted on +1 (613) 786 0043 or by email: andre.bergeron@gowlingwlg.com.

Sebastine Odimma is responsible for tax dispute and resolution for Maersk companies within Africa. In this role, he supervises the company strategy and approach to tax dispute resolution across entities in Africa. Prior to this, he was responsible for the tax affairs of more than 40 Maersk companies within 20 countries in west and central Africa. He can be contacted on +23 48 18793 9272 or by email: sebastine.odimma@maersk.com.

© Financier Worldwide

THE PANELLISTS

Jessica Harger

Aon

Eduardo Gracia

Ashurst LLP

Abhijay Bhatia

Convatec Group PLC

André R. Bergeron

Gowling WLG

Sebastine Odimma

MAERSK Transport and Logistics