SPAIN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Carolina del Campo, Joan Hortalà, Jaime Collado and Pablo Álvarez, Cuatrecasas
Integrating the Priorities: An Action Checklist for Spanish Transfer Pricing Governance in 2026 Refresh transfer pricing policies and documentation to align with a “delineation-first” approach It is necessary to ensure that intercompany agree - ments, pricing policies and contemporaneous docu - mentation reflect how the business actually operates post 2020 (short term liquidity pooling, dispersed tal - ent, agile product cycles and data-driven decision- making). Each area – financing, services and intangibles – should trace claims about risks and returns to who controls them and has the capacity to bear them. It is necessary to build cross-functional governance so treasury, HR, tax and business leaders review transfer pricing-relevant changes together. Cash pooling hygiene It is important to document the pool’s mechanics (zero balancing versus notional, sweep frequency, treatment of overdrafts), the leader’s mandate and risk governance. If symmetry is applied, it should be tied to mutuality and short-term tenor – and if not, the leader’s risk control and capacity, third-party ref - erences and a quantified rationale should be laid out. References should be aligned to group rating and short-term benchmarks with external treasury arrangements and facility covenants, and it is neces - sary to test whether facts have drifted (eg, persistent long-dated debit balances) and adjust pricing policies accordingly. Financing beyond pools For intercompany loans, it is necessary to: • articulate debt capacity at inception using borrow - er-specific cash flows; • target leverage and coverage metrics, capital structure policy and realistic alternatives (including the option not to borrow); • set pricing on the same facts and revisit on mate - rial changes; • avoid long-term curves for short-term needs, and ensure covenant packages and subordination reflect the pricing risk profile; and
rationale (eg, outlier influence, heteroskedasticity) and show results with and without narrowing. No adjustment when within range If the taxpayer’s result falls within the arm’s length range (including the narrowed interquartile range where appropriate), no adjustment should be made. This principle is well established in OECD guidance and reflected in Spanish administrative materials. However, year-by-year monitoring is necessary to avoid surprises where individual years drift towards the edges of the range. Median as the common adjustment point when outside the range Where, after narrowing, results fall outside the range and comparability defects persist, Spanish practice generally adjusts to the median – unless a thorough analysis of facts supports another point (eg, upper quartile for higher risk/higher function profiles). The burden of proof rests with the party advocating a point other than the median; it is necessary to prepare a transparent, quantitative case if an alternative point is proposed. Year-by-year testing Spanish case law emphasises that even when multi - year data are used to build comparables, comparisons and potential adjustments occur year by year; being in range on a multiyear average does not insulate a specific low year from adjustment. It is important to plan prospectively: if forecasts suggest margins will tighten, one should pre-emptively evaluate transfer prices to stay within range annually. Practical actions for 2026 These include the following: • structure benchmarking with explicit screening rationales and sensitivity to dispersion; • present both full and interquartile ranges, and jus - tify the narrowing; • prepare a reasoned position on the appropriate point within the range if outside, including why the median is or is not the best point; and • track annual results against the range, not just mul - tiyear averages, with early warning dashboards.
244 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook