8 min read
HMRC reported £3.387 billion of transfer pricing compliance yield in 2024 to 2025, alongside an average enquiry duration of 41 months and 392 full-time equivalent staff working across international tax. A group currently under transfer pricing enquiry is facing a process lasting the better part of four years against a specialist team whose institutional scale those figures make concrete. Finance Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 18 March 2026, materially expanded both the information available to HMRC and the mechanisms through which profit allocation may be challenged. For UK-Ireland groups whose transfer pricing arrangements developed incrementally alongside the business, the environment in which those positions are now examined is structurally different from the one in which they were originally put in place.
Transfer pricing concerns how related companies within the same group price transactions between one another, whether through management charges, financing arrangements, intellectual property or service provision. The arm's length principle remains the foundation: arrangements between connected entities are expected to reflect the pricing that independent businesses would ordinarily agree. The commercial challenge for many UK-Ireland groups does not concern pricing in isolation. The more difficult task lies in explaining why one part of the group earns the return it does relative to the contribution made elsewhere, particularly where functions, risks and value creation are distributed across jurisdictions in ways that have evolved over time rather than been deliberately designed.
From January 2027, transfer pricing examination will increasingly operate through more standardised reporting. UK companies exceeding the relevant thresholds for cross-border related-party transactions will be required to file an International Controlled Transactions Schedule alongside their corporation tax returns, bringing management charges, intercompany financing, royalty arrangements and service flows into a format capable of systematic comparison across groups. HMRC expects the regime to generate approximately £875 million of additional yield to March 2031, a projection that reflects both the scale of the information becoming available and the degree to which HMRC considers existing transfer pricing positions to be insufficiently supported.
Finance Act 2026 also introduced the Unassessed Transfer Pricing Profits charge, which changes the commercial dynamics once disputes move beyond enquiry and into formal intervention. Although the charge sits within corporation tax and therefore preserves treaty access through the Mutual Agreement Procedure, accelerated payment requirements and restrictions on reliefs directly influence how groups approach contested transfer pricing positions where significant amounts are at stake. A group that has not stress-tested its transfer pricing position before the ICTS regime begins operating is entering a more exposed environment than it may currently appreciate.
Finance Act 2026 introduced substantial amendments to Part 4 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. The arm's length principle remains the foundation of UK transfer pricing, but the framework through which HMRC interprets and applies it has become materially broader.
Following the amendments to TIOPA 2010 s164, UK transfer pricing legislation must now be interpreted consistently with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. That is a statutory requirement, not a policy preference, and it directs attention towards who exercises economically significant decision-making, who controls commercial risks and how returns align with the contribution different entities genuinely make to the business. A transfer pricing position that previously rested on whether an intercompany charge fell within a defensible pricing range supported by benchmarking and legal agreements now needs to address the wider commercial explanation supporting the allocation of profit across the group as a whole.
The legislation also broadens the circumstances in which HMRC may bring arrangements within transfer pricing scope. TIOPA 2010 s148A permits HMRC to treat relationships as falling within the rules where the commercial reality points towards connected enterprises, even where traditional ownership thresholds are not technically satisfied. Two further provisions, s162A and s162B, extend that reach to common management structures and arrangements whose principal purpose appears directed towards remaining outside the participation condition. The practical significance is greatest within structures that do not sit neatly within traditional group models, including financing arrangements, principal structures, joint ventures and commercially integrated businesses operating across jurisdictions through less conventional ownership patterns.
Finance Act 2026 also introduced a single arm's length standard across transfer pricing and the intangible fixed assets regime in Part 8 CTA 2009. For groups licensing intellectual property across borders, that reform closes the scope for inconsistent valuation outcomes across connected tax rules that some arrangements had previously relied upon.
HMRC's updated Guidelines for Compliance 7, with sections introduced on 19 December 2025, provide the clearest available indication of what a transfer pricing review now examines in practice, and the shift in emphasis is material.
Section 2.2.8 of GfC7 introduces guidance on Value Chain Analysis, moving the enquiry beyond the pricing of individual transactions and towards whether the business can explain the wider basis upon which profits have been allocated across jurisdictions. A benchmarking report prepared for last year's documentation exercise does not answer that question. The question HMRC is now asking is whether the group can demonstrate, from records created during ordinary commercial operations, that the allocation of profit across jurisdictions reflects where value is genuinely being created. For groups whose transfer pricing documentation has historically concentrated on benchmarking specific charges or justifying individual agreements, the scope of review under GfC7 is broader than prior practice prepared them for.
Section 3.8 focuses on offshore procurement arrangements, examining whether procurement entities are carrying out functions sufficient to support the returns attributed to them or whether procurement activity is more closely connected to another part of the group than the structure formally suggests. The more significant development across both sections is the type of evidence HMRC places weight upon. Benchmarking reports and legal agreements remain relevant, but the guidance treats ordinary business records created during day-to-day operations as the primary evidential material, including internal reporting, financing approvals, communications and governance documents. Records assembled after the fact carry less weight than materials created contemporaneously with the period under review.
Intellectual property sits differently within transfer pricing because ownership, investment and commercial contribution are frequently spread across more than one entity, and the distance between legal ownership and economic entitlement can be considerable.
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines address intellectual property through the DEMPE framework, examining who develops, enhances, maintains, protects and exploits the intellectual property, alongside who funds those activities and directs the investment behind them. Legal ownership determines who holds the asset. It does not determine who is entitled to the full economic return associated with it. The scenario most directly relevant to UK-Ireland groups is an Irish company that legally owns valuable software, technology or other intellectual property while the engineering teams, product leadership, research expenditure and commercial oversight directing and funding that asset are predominantly located in the United Kingdom. In that situation, the transfer pricing analysis does not begin and end with the licence agreement. It extends into the allocation of development activity, funding responsibility and strategic oversight across the group, and the returns attributed to the Irish entity need to be justified against that wider picture rather than against the legal ownership position alone.
Documentation that clearly establishes ownership of intellectual property while saying little about the commercial contribution supporting the returns attributed to it presents an increasingly identifiable gap under GfC7, particularly where product development, investment and oversight span jurisdictions in ways that historical transfer pricing arrangements have not kept pace with.
Finance Act 2026 reformed transfer pricing, permanent establishment and the Unassessed Transfer Pricing Profits charge within the same statute. That legislative choice reflects an analytical reality that many groups have not yet absorbed into how they organise their advice.
A transfer pricing review characteristically begins with intercompany pricing and moves beyond it quickly. A UK employee negotiating contracts, overseeing customers or directing commercially important activity for an Irish company brings permanent establishment considerations into the same factual territory. Governance records, reporting lines and approval processes examined in support of transfer pricing become equally relevant where questions arise concerning corporate residence and central management and control. The same emails, the same board papers, the same financing approvals and the same management reporting that transfer pricing analysis draws upon are the materials through which permanent establishment exposure and residence questions are also assessed.
A group that has been managing transfer pricing, permanent establishment and residence through separate advisers working from the same underlying facts has not managed its risk. It has distributed it across functions that are examining different legal questions while sharing the same evidential foundation, without anyone holding a view of how those positions sit together. Finance Act 2026 reformed all three within the same statute precisely because HMRC intends to examine them together, and a structure that appears supportable when each issue is reviewed in isolation can present a materially different picture once the wider factual record is considered as a whole. The objective for most groups is not structural redesign, and established arrangements may remain entirely supportable, but understanding how the complete position is likely to be viewed when documentation, governance, operational activity and commercial organisation are examined together is no longer optional preparation. It is the minimum required to operate with confidence in the environment Finance Act 2026 has created.