UAE Taxation & Regulatory Compliance · Transfer Pricing
Transfer Pricing Policy Design
Most transfer pricing problems are not documentation problems — they are pricing decisions that were never designed, only inherited.
Chartered Accountants · Dubai · Since 1986
Transfer pricing policy design is the forward-looking, decision-making exercise that determines how a UAE group prices its related-party transactions and connected-person payments on an arm's length basis going forward — as distinct from the annual documentation exercise that records and evidences pricing already applied. Under Article 34 of the UAE Corporate Tax Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022, applicable to financial years starting on or after 1 June 2023), every transaction or arrangement between Related Parties, and every payment or benefit to a Connected Person under Article 36, must be conducted on arm's length terms. Ministerial Decision No. 97 of 2023 sets out the accepted methods and documentation framework that gives that principle operational teeth. A policy is the governance layer that sits above the paperwork: a Board-approved statement of which method applies to which transaction category, what pricing range or markup is defensible, who owns the annual review, and how new intercompany arrangements get priced before they go live.
The practical distinction matters because most UAE groups come to transfer pricing backwards. A Local File is prepared once a year, largely because a threshold has been crossed or a Corporate Tax return is due, and the benchmarking exercise ends up justifying whatever pricing happened to be applied during the year — sometimes for genuine commercial reasons, sometimes because nobody had set a policy at all. PNPC's policy design engagement flips that sequence: we run the Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis first, work out which of the five OECD-recognised methods — Comparable Uncontrolled Price, Resale Price, Cost Plus, Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), or Transactional Profit Split — genuinely fits each transaction type given what each entity actually does, owns, and bears in risk, and only then set a pricing band. The resulting policy document is dated, versioned, and approved by the Board or equivalent governing body, so that when a new invoice, management fee, or intercompany loan is raised next quarter, the finance team applies an already-agreed rate rather than improvising one that will need retrospective justification at year-end.
This matters with particular force for UAE group structures because 'Related Party' under Article 35 is defined by ownership and control, not geography — a mainland trading company and its own Free Zone affiliate under common ownership are related parties even though no border is crossed. Where the Free Zone entity holds Qualifying Free Zone Person status and is taxed at 0% on Qualifying Income, an undocumented or mispriced related-party flow is not a paperwork gap, it is a live threat to that preferential rate: the Federal Tax Authority can recharacterise mispriced income, and if non-qualifying revenue crosses the permitted de minimis threshold as a result, the QFZP status itself is at risk. A properly designed policy — with the pricing set correctly at the point the arrangement is created — is the strongest available protection against that outcome, because it removes the question of intent or afterthought entirely.
Policy design also directly addresses Connected Person exposure under Article 36 — owner remuneration, rent paid to a director on premises they personally own, and interest on shareholder loans, all of which must sit at market terms to remain fully deductible for Corporate Tax purposes. Many owner-managed UAE groups have never benchmarked these figures against market data at all; a policy engagement sets a defensible position for each one, with the benchmarking rationale on file rather than assumed. PNPC scopes this work as a discrete, dated deliverable — a policy pack, not an open-ended advisory retainer — so a group knows precisely what it is buying and can then feed the resulting bands directly into its annual Local File, disclosure form, and Board governance calendar.
When a dedicated policy design engagement is the right starting point
A new intercompany arrangement is being planned — a management fee structure, cost-sharing agreement, royalty licence, or shared-services model — and pricing needs to be set correctly before it goes live, not reverse-engineered at year-end
The group has been transacting between related parties for years using pricing that was set for cash-flow or administrative convenience, with no documented method or rationale behind it
A Free Zone entity in the group holds Qualifying Free Zone Person status and its related-party pricing with mainland or foreign affiliates has never been formally tested against the arm's length standard
Owner remuneration, director-owned premises rent, or shareholder loan interest have never been benchmarked to market terms and the group wants a defensible position before the next Corporate Tax return
The group is restructuring, adding a new entity, or converting a mainland company into a Free Zone structure, and the new intercompany flows this creates need pricing designed from scratch
A prior Local File or disclosure form was built by justifying pricing after the fact, and the group wants future years to start from an agreed policy instead of a retrospective narrative
The Board or shareholders want a formal, approved transfer pricing policy document as a governance artefact — something finance can point to when a new invoice is raised, not a one-off consultant's report
The group is preparing for external investment, a lender relationship, or an acquisition, and due diligence is expected to test whether related-party pricing is genuinely arm's length rather than assumed
An FTA query or prior-year inconsistency has already surfaced a pricing question, and the group wants a policy fix that prevents the same gap recurring in future periods, not just a one-time documentation patch
When policy design is not the immediate need
The group has no related-party transactions or connected-person payments at all — the arm's length rules, and any policy exercise built on them, only engage where a qualifying relationship exists
A Board-approved policy already exists, is current, and simply needs its annual Local File and disclosure form prepared for the year — that is the documentation engagement, not policy design
The immediate need is a response to an active FTA information request or audit — that calls for urgent documentation production and technical engagement with the FTA, not a forward-looking policy exercise, though PNPC often runs both in parallel
Related-party transaction values sit clearly and consistently below the disclosure and documentation thresholds under Ministerial Decision No. 97 of 2023 — a light scoping review is more proportionate than a full policy build
The group specifically needs Country-by-Country Report filing, Master File/Local File preparation, or a benchmarking study as a standalone deliverable — those are related but distinct engagements PNPC scopes separately
Management has already decided the pricing outcome it wants for tax-planning reasons and is looking for a policy to justify a predetermined figure rather than to determine the genuinely arm's length position — PNPC designs policy around what is defensible, not around a target number
The audited financial statements or group structure are still in flux — pricing bands and method selection are more reliably set once the entities, ownership, and financial baseline are settled
Transfer pricing method selection by transaction type — how PNPC frames the policy choice
| Transaction Type | Typical Method | What It Tests | Best Fit When | Common Pitfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sale of goods between related manufacturing/trading entities | Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) | Whether the price charged matches a comparable price in an independent transaction | A closely comparable product and market exist with reliable third-party pricing data | Applied where true comparables do not exist, forcing a weak or adjusted CUP that does not withstand scrutiny |
| Distribution or resale of group products by a UAE sales entity | Resale Price Method | Whether the resale margin retained by the distributor reflects an arm's length gross margin for its function | The UAE entity buys from a related party and resells with minimal further processing or value addition | Ignoring marketing intangibles or brand-building functions the UAE entity actually performs beyond simple resale |
| Intercompany services, contract manufacturing, shared-services arrangements | Cost Plus Method | Whether the markup on costs incurred reflects what an independent service provider would earn for the same function | The UAE entity performs routine, low-risk functions without significant unique contribution | Labelling a function 'low value-adding' to justify a flat markup when it actually carries strategic or IP-related content |
| Management fees, back-office services, most cross-entity service flows | Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) | Whether the tested party's net profit margin, relative to costs, sales, or assets, sits within an arm's length range of independent comparables | Product-level comparability is hard to find but company-level margin comparables are available | Loosely screened comparable sets that look numerically fine but are economically unconvincing on closer review |
| Joint value-creating arrangements — shared IP development, integrated manufacturing and distribution | Transactional Profit Split Method | Whether combined profit is divided between related parties in proportion to each party's genuine contribution | Both parties make unique, valuable contributions that cannot be reliably benchmarked separately | Used as a default for complexity rather than because a genuine profit-split relationship exists |
| Intercompany loans and shareholder financing | Comparable interest-rate benchmarking (CUP-based) | Whether the interest rate, tenure, and security terms reflect what an independent lender would charge given the borrower's credit profile | Loan terms, currency, and tenure are clearly defined and comparable lending data is available | Leaving a related-party loan interest-free with no documented rationale for the absence of interest |
| Connected Person payments — owner salary, director-owned premises rent, shareholder loan interest | Market benchmarking against comparable independent terms | Whether payments to owners, directors, or their relatives reflect market value under Article 36 | Comparable salary surveys, rental data, or lending terms are available for the role, property, or loan profile | Assuming a figure set years ago for cash-flow convenience is still market-consistent without ever re-testing it |
Method selection flows from the Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis, not from convenience or what a template defaults to. PNPC tests each transaction category against its actual facts before recommending a method, and the policy document records the rejected alternatives and why, not just the chosen approach.
| # | Stage & What PNPC Does | What Groups Miss Without a CA Firm | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial Scoping Call — map the group and identify every related-party and connected-person flow | We start by testing ownership and control against Articles 35 and 36 for every entity and individual in the structure, not by taking a self-declared list of 'the group companies' at face value — mainland-Free Zone pairs under common control are frequently missed at this stage. | Week 1 |
| 2 | Transaction Inventory — catalogue every intercompany flow and connected-person payment by category | Goods, services, management fees, royalties, loans, guarantees, and cost allocations are listed individually and in aggregate by category, because several smaller flows can collectively cross a threshold even where none does alone. | Week 1–2 |
| 3 | Functional, Asset & Risk (FAR) Analysis | For each material transaction category, a structured analysis of which entity performs which functions, owns which assets including intangibles, and bears which risks — the technical basis that determines which method is genuinely appropriate, not just administratively convenient. | Week 2–3 |
| 4 | Method Selection & Testing | Each of the five OECD-recognised methods is tested against the FAR findings and available comparable data before one is recommended, with the rejected alternatives and reasoning documented so the choice can be defended, not just asserted. | Week 3 |
| 5 | Pricing Band Design | For each transaction category, a defensible price, markup, or margin range is set — typically expressed as an interquartile range drawn from screened comparable data — giving finance a workable band rather than a single rigid figure that breaks the moment volumes shift. | Week 3–4 |
| 6 | Connected Person Benchmarking | Owner remuneration, director-owned premises rent, and shareholder loan interest benchmarked separately against market data — a step frequently skipped entirely when policy work is bundled into a generic documentation exercise. | Week 4, parallel |
| 7 | Policy Document Drafting | A written transfer pricing policy — method per transaction category, pricing bands, review cadence, and the governance process for pricing new arrangements — drafted in a form the Board can review and approve, and finance can actually apply day to day. | Week 4–5 |
| 8 | Internal Review & Board Sign-Off | A senior reviewer independent of the original preparer checks the policy before it goes to the Board, and formal Board (or equivalent governance) approval is obtained and dated — that approval itself becomes part of the arm's length evidentiary record. | Week 5–6 |
| 9 | Implementation Handover to Finance | The approved bands are translated into practical guidance — which rate to apply on the next invoice, how to treat a new arrangement that falls outside an existing category, and who signs off on an exception — so the policy is used, not filed away. | Week 6 |
| 10 | Feed-Through to Annual Documentation | The policy's method selections and bands feed directly into the next Local File, Master File (where applicable), and Related Party Transactions disclosure form, so documentation evidences a pricing decision that was actually made in advance. | Aligned to the next Corporate Tax return cycle |
| 11 | Annual Policy Review | The policy is revisited at least annually — refreshing pricing bands against updated comparable data and testing whether any structural change (new entity, restructuring, new arrangement) requires an update — consistent with the FTA's expectation that documentation and its underlying policy remain contemporaneous. | Ongoing, annually or on material change |
A first-time policy design engagement for a mid-sized group typically runs 5–6 weeks from kick-off to Board-approved policy, assuming reasonably prompt access to financial records, agreements, and the people who can explain each entity's actual function. Groups already mid-way through Corporate Tax return preparation often run policy design and Local File drafting in parallel to meet a filing deadline.
Group organisational chart showing every entity, ownership percentage, and country of incorporation or tax residence
UAE trade licence(s) for every entity involved, including Free Zone entities with the specific Free Zone authority named
Shareholder registers or equivalent evidence of ownership, needed to test related-party status against Article 35
Director and key management details, and close family relationships relevant to Connected Person status under Article 36
Qualifying Free Zone Person election status and supporting basis, where any Free Zone entity has elected the 0% regime
Signed intercompany agreements currently in force — management, cost-sharing, distribution, royalty, or loan agreements
Invoices, debit/credit notes, or ledger extracts evidencing actual intercompany flows and the amounts involved to date
Any informal or undocumented pricing practices currently applied, so the policy can address them explicitly rather than leave them unaddressed
Prior-year Related Party Transactions disclosure forms and, where one exists, any previously prepared Local File or benchmarking study
Description of each entity's business activities and its role in the group's overall value chain
Details of tangible and intangible assets owned or used by each entity, including any group intellectual property housed in the UAE
Risk allocation — which entity carries market, credit, inventory, and foreign exchange risk on each transaction category
Employee headcount and functional breakdown by entity — sales, operations, management, and support roles
Payroll records and employment contracts covering owner or director remuneration, including benefits-in-kind
Lease agreements where a related party or connected person is the landlord of business premises used by the company
Shareholder loan documentation — principal, interest rate, and repayment terms, in either direction
Any market reference already available — salary survey, comparable rental data — to support or challenge current terms
Audited or management financial statements for each entity for the most recent completed financial year
Consolidated group financial statements, where relevant, for testing whether Master File or CbCR thresholds also apply
Corporate Tax Registration Number (TRN) for each UAE taxable person in the group
Trial balance or general ledger extract isolating intercompany transaction values by counterparty and category
| Phase | Triggered By | PNPC Guidance | Risk If Ignored |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Policy Design | First engagement, or the group's first year with material related-party activity | FAR analysis run before method selection, so pricing bands are built on the group's actual facts rather than a template default; Board approval obtained and dated as the anchor point for the policy's evidentiary weight. | Pricing set without a designed policy is pricing set for convenience — reconstructing a credible rationale for it after the fact is materially weaker than having designed it upfront. |
| New Arrangement Pricing | A new management fee, loan, royalty, or shared-services arrangement is proposed | The arrangement is priced against the existing policy framework before it goes live; where it falls outside any existing category, a scoped mini-review sets the method and band before the first invoice is raised. | An arrangement priced first and justified later routinely ends up mispriced relative to what a genuine arm's length negotiation would have produced, and is harder to defend on review. |
| Annual Policy Refresh | Each financial year approaching its Corporate Tax return due date | Pricing bands re-tested against updated comparable data, and the policy document re-confirmed or revised to reflect any structural or regulatory change since the last review, feeding directly into that year's Local File and disclosure form. | A policy left unrefreshed for multiple years, with only the revenue figure changing in the underlying study, reads as a stale, box-ticking exercise rather than genuine contemporaneous governance. |
| Qualifying Free Zone Person Review | Annual QFZP status confirmation or a Free Zone entity restructuring | Related-party pricing bands specifically re-tested to confirm they have not caused Qualifying Income to fail the arm's length condition or breach the permitted non-qualifying revenue threshold. | Losing QFZP status because of mispriced related-party dealings shifts income onto the standard 9% rate — typically a far larger cost than the policy design engagement itself. |
| Group Restructuring or Expansion | M&A, new subsidiary, mainland-to-Free-Zone conversion, or new cross-border flow | The related-party map, FAR analysis, and pricing bands are re-run for the entities and flows affected by the change — last year's policy may not reflect this year's structure. | An outdated policy applied to a changed structure leaves new flows unpriced by design, defaulting back to ad hoc pricing that the next documentation cycle then has to explain retrospectively. |
| FTA Query or Audit | FTA raises an information request touching related-party transactions | The existing policy and its Board approval trail are produced as primary evidence of a genuinely contemporaneous arm's length process, alongside the Local File itself, materially strengthening the group's position. | Groups without a documented policy behind their Local File are forced to argue that pricing was arm's length in substance despite having no contemporaneous decision trail — a much harder position to hold under scrutiny. |
| Comparable Data Refresh Cycle | Multi-year benchmarking refresh due, or material change in the entity's industry or functional profile | The comparable set underlying each pricing band is re-screened, not just re-run with updated financials, since industry or functional shifts can make previously accepted comparables no longer appropriate. | A policy resting on a stale, unrefreshed comparable set can look procedurally compliant while resting on economically unconvincing benchmarking, which a reviewing tax authority can and does unpick. |
A transfer pricing policy is a governance artefact, not a one-time deliverable — it is designed to be applied prospectively to every new arrangement and revisited at least annually. PNPC's engagement includes the handover process that gets the policy into finance's actual workflow, not just a signed-off document that sits unopened until the next Local File is due.
What is the difference between transfer pricing policy design and transfer pricing documentation?
Policy design is the forward-looking exercise of deciding how related-party transactions will be priced — method selection, pricing bands, Board approval — before or as an arrangement goes live. Documentation, principally the annual Local File and Master File, is the backward-looking exercise of recording and evidencing pricing already applied during a completed financial year. A policy feeds directly into the documentation; documentation without an underlying policy tends to justify whatever happened rather than reflect a designed decision.
Do we need a formal written policy, or is a documented pricing rationale in the Local File enough?
A Local File can describe the pricing method applied for a completed year without there being a standalone policy document that governs future years. A written, Board-approved policy is not itself a UAE statutory filing requirement, but it is the strongest practical evidence that pricing decisions were made deliberately and consistently, which materially strengthens the arm's length position the Local File later describes — and it gives finance a working reference for pricing the next transaction correctly the first time.
How is the pricing method actually selected for a given transaction?
Method selection follows the Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis, not a default preference. We establish which entity performs which functions, owns which assets including intangibles, and bears which risks for each transaction category, then test whether Comparable Uncontrolled Price, Resale Price, Cost Plus, TNMM, or Profit Split fits those facts and whether reliable comparable data is available to support it.
What is a pricing band, and why not just set a single fixed price?
A pricing band is a defensible range — typically an interquartile range drawn from a screened set of comparable companies or transactions — within which the group's actual pricing can sit and still be considered arm's length. A single fixed figure is more fragile: normal business fluctuation can push it outside a defensible range, whereas a band gives finance workable flexibility while still anchoring pricing to market evidence.
Our related-party transactions are all inside the UAE — mainland to Free Zone. Does policy design still matter?
Yes, and often more urgently. Article 35's definition of Related Party turns on ownership and control, not on crossing a border — a mainland trading entity and its own Free Zone affiliate under common ownership are related parties for Corporate Tax purposes. Where the Free Zone entity holds Qualifying Free Zone Person status, mispriced intercompany dealings can threaten that 0% rate directly, making the policy design conversation higher-stakes than a purely cross-border one.
How does policy design address owner remuneration and director-owned premises rent?
These fall under Article 36's Connected Person rules, not the Related Party rules, but they need the same arm's length treatment to remain deductible. We benchmark owner salary against comparable market compensation data, and director-owned premises rent against comparable rental data, then set a defensible figure — or confirm the current figure already sits within a defensible range — as part of the same policy engagement.
Can we design a policy before our Corporate Tax registration is finalised?
Yes, the related-party mapping and FAR analysis can run in parallel with Corporate Tax registration finalisation, since neither depends strictly on the other. The final policy document typically references the taxable person's Tax Registration Number once issued, but the substantive design work — method selection, pricing bands, Board approval — does not need to wait for the TRN.
How long does a policy design engagement typically take?
For a mid-sized group with reasonably prompt access to financial records and the people who can explain each entity's function, a first-time policy design engagement typically runs five to six weeks from kick-off to Board-approved policy — covering related-party mapping, FAR analysis, method testing, pricing band design, and drafting. Groups with more entities or more transaction categories take proportionally longer.
Does the policy need Board approval, or can management simply adopt it internally?
PNPC recommends formal Board (or equivalent governing body) approval and a dated sign-off, even for smaller owner-managed groups, because that approval itself becomes part of the evidentiary record that pricing decisions were made deliberately and with proper oversight — not simply assumed by whoever happened to be handling finance at the time.
What happens if a new intercompany arrangement doesn't fit any category in the existing policy?
We treat this as a triggered mini-review — applying the same FAR and method-selection logic to the new arrangement specifically, rather than forcing it into an ill-fitting existing category or leaving it unpriced until the next annual refresh. The outcome is folded into the policy document as an addendum so the framework stays current.
How often should the pricing bands be refreshed?
The financial data underlying each band is generally refreshed annually to reflect current-year comparable results, while the underlying comparable company search itself is typically refreshed on a multi-year cycle, commonly every three years or sooner if the industry or functional profile changes materially, consistent with OECD guidance on documentation currency.
Does policy design help if we're already mid-way through an FTA information request?
It can, but the immediate priority in an active request is producing the Local File and Master File within the stipulated window, generally 30 days, and engaging the FTA on the technical position. PNPC often runs an urgent documentation response and a policy design engagement in parallel in that scenario — closing the immediate gap while also fixing the underlying absence of a designed policy so the same issue does not recur next year.
Our group already has a global transfer pricing policy from our foreign parent. Do we still need UAE-specific policy design?
Usually yes, at least in adapted form. A global policy can be a strong starting point and often sets the method and general approach correctly, but UAE-specific elements — the Connected Person rules under Article 36, the Qualifying Free Zone Person interaction, and comparable data appropriate to the UAE entity's actual market — are rarely captured accurately by a template built for another jurisdiction's rules.
Is this engagement priced as a fixed fee?
Yes. PNPC scopes the policy design engagement based on the number of entities, related-party transaction categories, and connected-person payment types involved, and agrees a fixed, written fee before work begins. We do not bill open-ended hourly time for a deliverable with a defined scope and output.
PNPC transfer pricing policy design vs. generic documentation-only providers
| Dimension | PNPC | Documentation-Only Provider |
|---|---|---|
| Sequencing | FAR analysis and method selection run first; pricing bands designed before the year's transactions happen | Pricing is typically already applied for the year; the provider builds a Local File narrative to explain it after the fact |
| Governance artefact | A dated, Board-approved policy document that finance can apply to the next transaction | Often no standalone policy exists — only a year-end documentation report |
| Connected Person coverage | Owner remuneration, director-owned premises rent, and shareholder loan interest benchmarked as standard | Frequently omitted or treated as a footnote to the main related-party analysis |
| Qualifying Free Zone Person interaction | Related-party pricing tested specifically for its effect on Qualifying Income and QFZP status | General benchmarking without a targeted check on Free Zone tax-status consequences |
| New arrangement handling | A defined mini-review process for pricing arrangements that arise mid-year, outside the annual cycle | New arrangements typically wait for the next annual documentation refresh to be addressed at all |
| Method rationale | Rejected alternative methods documented alongside the chosen one, strengthening the defensibility of the choice | Often a single method applied by default with limited explanation of why alternatives were not used |
| India-UAE coordination | Available where the group also has Indian related parties, aligning UAE Article 34/36 and Indian Section 92 positions | Typically UAE-only, with no visibility into a parallel Indian transfer pricing obligation |
| Fee structure | Fixed fee agreed in writing, scoped to entities and transaction categories before work begins | Varies; some providers bundle policy work into a broader retainer with less visibility into what is actually delivered |
What the PNPC package includes
- 01
Related-party and connected-person mapping tested against Articles 35 and 36
- 02
Transaction inventory and materiality screening by category, including aggregated smaller transactions
- 03
Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis for each material transaction category
- 04
Method selection and testing across all five OECD-recognised pricing methods
- 05
Defensible pricing band design, typically expressed as an interquartile range from screened comparables
- 06
Connected Person benchmarking — owner remuneration, director-owned premises rent, shareholder loan interest
- 07
Qualifying Free Zone Person impact check on related-party pricing
- 08
Written, Board-ready transfer pricing policy document
- 09
Internal senior review ahead of Board or governance sign-off
- 10
Implementation handover to finance covering day-to-day application of the pricing bands
- 11
New-arrangement pricing framework for transactions arising outside the annual cycle
- 12
Direct feed-through into the next Local File, Master File, and disclosure form preparation
- 13
Annual policy refresh option aligned to the Corporate Tax return cycle
- 14
India-UAE coordination for groups with related parties in both jurisdictions
Design the pricing before the invoice is raised, not the justification after it — talk to PNPC's Dubai transfer pricing desk about a Board-ready policy build.
Jurisdiction
Free zone, mainland & offshore
Ready to get started?
Tell us about your requirement — a UAE specialist responds within 24 hours.