{"id":6334,"date":"2026-06-26T12:27:29","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T10:27:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maraz.es\/?p=6334"},"modified":"2026-07-06T06:20:46","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T04:20:46","slug":"transfer-pricing-comparables","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maraz.es\/en\/transfer-pricing-comparables\/","title":{"rendered":"Transfer Pricing Comparables : How to select and databases"},"content":{"rendered":"

Transfer Pricing Comparables<\/h2>\n

In Spain, related-party transactions and transfer pricing policies have consolidated as one of the areas of greatest supervision by the Tax Authority (AEAT). For a corporate group, sound financial management does not consist solely in maximising value and cash generation, but also in preventively mitigating the risk of a tax adjustment that would erode liquidity.<\/strong> It is one more piece of the financial direction and fractional CFO<\/a> of any group with intra-group operations.<\/p>\n

The cornerstone of any transfer pricing system is the comparability analysis and the benchmarking study. The arm’s length principle requires that transactions between related entities be valued as independent parties would in the open market.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article sets out, in a practical manner, how to determine comparables, which databases to use in Spain and Europe, which adjustments to apply and how to defend the benchmark before a tax audit in light of the most recent case law and administrative doctrine.<\/p>\n

The benchmarking process: steps to determine comparables<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The comparability analysis is not a matter of extracting a listing of companies from financial software. It is a structured process which must comply with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2022 version) so that the outcome is defensible in an inspection.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Functional analysis of the related-party transaction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Before touching any database, one must define the profile of the transaction:<\/strong> functions performed, assets (tangible and intangible) employed and risks (commercial, financial, operational) borne by each party. An independent distributor purchasing on its own account and assuming inventory and credit risk does not have the same profile as a limited-risk distributor with capped profitability; nor does a full-risk manufacturer compared with a contract manufacturer operating with raw material and instructions supplied by the parent company.<\/p>\n

2. Selection of the tested party<\/strong><\/h3>\n

This is the entity to which the profitability test is applied. The OECD rule: it must be the party with the least complex functional profile<\/strong> \u2014 the one which does not own valuable or unique intangibles and whose risks are more circumscribed. This choice makes it easier to find reliable external comparables and increases the technical robustness of the study.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Example. A group has its parent in Germany, which owns the brand and the technology (unique intangibles), and a Spanish subsidiary which merely distributes with limited risk. The tested party must be the Spanish subsidiary: its profile is the simplest and the market offers numerous comparable independent distributors. Analysing the German parent would be an error, because its unique intangibles have no reliable comparables in any database.<\/em><\/p>\n

3. Selection of the method<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The method must align with the economic reality. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP)<\/strong> is well suited to loans or leases; but for distribution, manufacturing or services, practice relies predominantly on the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM),<\/strong> which analyses the net margin against an appropriate base (sales, costs or assets). The Profit Level Indicator (PLI) is chosen by function:<\/strong> mark-up on costs for manufacturers and services, operating margin on sales for distributors, and the Berry ratio for intermediaries. Correctly determining market profitability connects with business valuation<\/a> and margin analysis for the business.<\/p>\n

Example (PLI selection). A commission agent which merely intermediates, without assuming inventory or product risk, bills \u20ac20m but its value added is reflected in its operating expenses (\u20ac2m), not in sales. Applying a margin on sales would distort the result; the correct measure is the Berry ratio (gross margin \/ operating expenses): if the gross margin is \u20ac2.4m, the Berry ratio is 1.20, i.e., it recovers its operating expenses with a 20% mark-up. Choosing the correct PLI completely changes the conclusion of the study.<\/em><\/p>\n

The map of financial databases in Europe<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The robustness of a benchmark depends on the reliability of the source.<\/strong> In Spain and Europe the market is dominated by solutions from Bureau van Dijk (Moody’s) and S&P Global Market Intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Database<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

Coverage<\/strong><\/td>\nTransfer pricing application<\/strong><\/td>\nDistinctive features<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
SABI<\/strong><\/td>\nSpain and Portugal<\/td>\nLocal comparables for Iberian tested parties<\/td>\n\n

Excellent for SMEs; if the sector is a niche, requires broadening the search<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Orbis<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

Global<\/td>\nCross-border analyses and pan-European searches<\/td>\nOver 625 million entities; retains historical data (no survivorship bias)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fame<\/strong><\/td>\nUnited Kingdom and Ireland<\/td>\nComparables from the British and Irish markets<\/td>\n\n

Exclusive variables (VAT, import\/export); retains historical data<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

S&P Global<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

Global<\/td>\nInterest rates, guarantee fees, credit risk<\/td>\nCreditModel and PD models to assess subsidiary solvency<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Intra-group financial transactions (loans, cash pooling, guarantees) merit a separate mention:<\/strong> their pricing requires determining the market interest rate based on the subsidiary’s credit rating, which links directly to financing structuring<\/a> of the group and to debt restructuring and refinancing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The transition from Amadeus to Orbis and the survivorship bias<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A relevant structural change: the discontinuation of Amadeus, historically the European reference tool (which filtered by default companies with turnover above \u20ac10m, assets above \u20ac20m or more than 150 employees). Its migration to Orbis introduces a technical challenge \u2014 and a defensive opportunity \u2014: the control of survivorship bias.<\/p>\n

Amadeus automatically eliminated from the system companies inactive for 4-6 years. That purge biased the studies, because it excluded independent companies which had gone into liquidation or ceased operations due to adverse market conditions during the analysed cycle. Orbis and Fame, by contrast, retain the historical data on inactive companies. This is valuable in the face of an AEAT inspection: it enables the margins of the tested party to be justified using a sample which reflects the actual economic cycle of the sector, including failed independent operators.<\/p>\n

Screening strategy: quantitative and qualitative<\/strong><\/h2>\n

A defensible interquartile range requires that the final sample be the result of a rigorous funnel, in two phases: systematic quantitative screening and manual qualitative refinement.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Quantitative filters<\/strong><\/h3>\n