Few instruments have shaped the practical reality of international taxation as much as the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Since their original adoption in 1995, the guidelines have quietly shaped trillions of dollars’ worth of cross-border commerce. By operationalising the arm’s length principle, the guidelines play a pivotal role in the global tax architecture.
Even though the guidelines are not legally binding instruments, they have become the benchmark for transfer pricing. Since they retain a strong “compatibility advantage” across jurisdictions, they are seen as the global language of transfer pricing.
They exemplify a simple idea: transactions between related enterprises within a multinational group should be priced as though they had been negotiated between independent parties, also known as the arm’s length principle.
Evolving OECD rules reshape transfer pricing
Managing Partner
BMR Legal
The guidelines are not static law, they evolve, sometimes incrementally, sometimes with groundbreaking consequences. Their evolution reflects a response to economic shifts, changing business models, and political pressure.
While often described as a consolidation, the most recent revision to the guidelines, effectuated in 2022, did more than simply bind earlier work into a single volume. It pulled into the core text the post‑BEPS guidance on the transactional profit split method, hard‑to‑value intangibles and financial transactions.
In doing so, it sharpened when profit splits are appropriate in highly integrated businesses, gave tax administrations and taxpayers a more structured way of dealing with valuation uncertainty around intangibles, and, through the new chapter on financial transactions, finally set out a common framework.
Pillar one amount B simplification
The landscape has evolved further. A clear example is the 2024 update that brought amount B of Pillar One into the guidelines, offering a simplified, standardised approach to baseline marketing and distribution activities, particularly to ease compliance and administration in low-capacity jurisdictions.
The primary motivation was efficiency. Low-capacity jurisdictions reported that between 30% and 70% of their transfer pricing disputes were related to this category of routine distribution arrangements. Amount B offered these countries a formulaic pricing matrix to determine an appropriate return on sales for qualifying distributors without requiring the intensive comparable transaction searches that smaller tax administrations often lack.
The approach is optional at the jurisdiction level. Governments may mandate it, offer it as a taxpayer election, or decline to adopt it altogether. Critically, amount B is not revenue threshold-dependent. Unlike amount A under Pillar One and the Pillar Two global minimum tax, amount B can apply to a broader range of businesses.
India resists OECD, converges judicially
Associate
BMR Legal
No major economy illustrates the tension between formal resistance and practical convergence better than India. India is not an OECD member, although it participates actively in the Inclusive Framework and engages with OECD committees and working groups as a key partner country.
Its domestic transfer pricing regulations are broadly modelled on OECD principles. Indian regulations make no statutory reference to OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, and India has maintained a formal reservation.
Even as India formally withholds endorsement of the guidelines, its courts and tribunals have consistently treated the OECD framework as the persuasive authority. Indian courts have, over decades of litigation, developed a body of transfer pricing jurisprudence that draws heavily on OECD guidelines, not as binding law but as an interpretative aid.
The pattern is consistent: India formally reserves its position at the international negotiating table while its judiciary quietly absorbs the guidelines’ analytical vocabulary. This is not incoherence; it reflects a sophisticated accommodation. The Indian judiciary recognises that the arm’s length principle is inescapably global in its logic, and that the OECD guidelines represent the most developed articulation of that logic available.
Mukesh Butani is the managing partner and Varun Gakhar is an associate at BMR Legal
BMR Legal13 A-B, Hansalaya Building
15, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi – 110 001, India
Contact details:
T: +91 11 6678 3000
E: sangeeta.kumar@bmrlegal.in
