headline verdana bold operationalizing transfer pricing ... · the way tp true-ups are implemented...
TRANSCRIPT
Headline Verdana BoldOperationalizing Transfer PricingFrom Theory to PracticeDeloitte Belgium, 16 May 2017
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 2
Agenda
Operationalizing Transfer Pricing From Theory to Practice
Topic Content Presenters Timing
Introduction • Concepts & Framework Thierry Chaumantin 3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Session 1: Implementing a TP Policy
• Manage E2E Cycle
• Structure operations
Jeroen Lemmens 3:15 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Session 2: Addressing Common Challenges
• Indirect Tax
• Management Reporting
• System Data Gaps
Liesbet Nevelsteen
Thierry Chaumantin
4:00 p.m. – 4:40 p.m.
Coffee Break (20 min)
Session 3: Case study: Applying Technology to manage E2E Process for Transfer Pricing on Goods
• Scenario
• Tool Demo
Thierry Chaumantin
Delphine Maeckelberghe
5:00 p.m. – 5:50 p.m.
Conclusion • Key Messages
• Next Steps
Jeroen Lemmens
Liesbet Nevelsteen
5:50 p.m. – 6.00 p.m.
Reception
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 3
Introduction
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 4
Transfer Pricing
Some Concepts often misunderstood by Business Finance Teams
Arm’s
Length
Mark-up
True-upVAT
Man
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 5
Operationalizing Transfer Pricing
The Building Blocks
2. Structure TP operations 3. Address common challenges
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
Indirect Tax
Management Reporting
System Data Gaps
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post) Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
Plan
Operate
Defend
1. Manage E2E TP life cycle
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 6
Traditional Transfer Pricing
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante
documentation
TP procedures
(Ex-post)
Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
TP local file
TP master file
CbCR
Others
Plan
Black boxes
Defend
Documentation Focused
TP tax audit
TP policy
TP benchmarks
I/C agreement
I/C flow
Guidelines
Operating procedure
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 7
Operationalized Transfer Pricing
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante
documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post)
Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
Manage the Numbers: Calculate, Process & Control
Plan
Operate
Defend
Specific
“know how”
required
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 8
Session 1
Implementing a TP Policy
Manage E2E TP Cycle & structure Operations
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 9
Implementing a TP Policy
Manage the E2E TP Life Cycle
2. Structure TP operations 3. Address common challenges
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
Indirect Tax
Management Reporting
System Data Gaps
1. Manage E2E TP life cycle
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post) Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
Plan
Operate
Defend
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 10
Manage the TP Life Cycle
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante
documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post)
Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
“Plan” Phase – Check List TP
Manager
Plan
Operate
Defend
I/C flows classification
I/C agreements
Valid TP benchmarks
Actionable TP procedures
Procedure to identify change in business model
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 11
Manage the TP Life Cycle
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante
documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post)
Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
“Defend” Phase – Check List TP
Manager
Ex-post documentation available
Alignment between ex-post and ex-ante documentation
Consistency between ex-post documentation of different countries
Plan
Operate
Defend
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 12
TP Life Cycle
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante
documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post)
Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
“Operate” Phase – Check ListTP
Manager
Plan
Operate
Defend
Effective tools to calculate TP on goods
Effective tools to calculate TP on services
Adequate I/C invoice process
Approach to handle I/C price correction
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 13
Poll Survey
TP Life Cycle – Preliminary Assessment
1 I have a very accurate overview of all material intercompany flows in my supply chain.
2 There are effective internal procedures in place to rapidly detect any new intercompany flow that occurs during the fiscal year.
3 Each material intercompany flow can be easily referenced back to an up-to-date and valid TP Benchmark study (i.e. accepted during a tax audit).
4 Each material intercompany flow can be easily referenced back to an up-to-date and valid intercompany agreement (i.e. accepted during a tax audit).
5For each material intercompany flow, there is an effective internal procedure to check whether the activities performed by the related parties as described in the intercompany agreement match the ones used to perform the TP Benchmark study.
6 There is an annual review process to check whether existing intercompany agreements are still consistent with the way the supply chain operates.
7There is a TP policy that describes how the transfer prices need to be calculated for each intercompany transaction in order to meet arm’s length principles requirements.
8If it exists, the TP policy is rigorously followed in practice. More specifically, the setting of transfer prices is never the outcome of internal negotiations between the managers of the related parties.
9The way the transfer prices on tangible goods are set up do not have any impact on the performance bonuses of the local sales teams and/or manufacturing teams; more specifically, for the employees of a legal entity with a routine margin function (i.e. limited risk distributor, contract manufacturer).
10 There is an annual review process to check whether the TP policy is consistent with the way the supply chain operates.
11 The budget numbers are used to calculate transfer prices on tangible goods that need to be applied for the next fiscal year.
12There is a process to regularly calculate the correct transfer prices on tangible goods based on YTD actuals and the forecasts for the remainder of the year. These recalculated transfer prices are subsequently updated in the ERP.
13For legal entities with several functions (e.g. distribution and manufacturing), there is an easy mechanism to segment the entity EBIT by function so that the actual profit margin each function can be monitored separately.
14 Actual YTD EBIT segmented by function can easily be obtained on a quarterly basis both in management GAAP (IFRS) and in local GAAP.
15 Pro-active updates of transfer prices are regularly performed during the fiscal year to avoid large year-end TP true-up adjustments.
16 The allocation keys used for calculating intercompany recharge of services are well documented.
17The types of evidence needed to substantiate whether a given intercompany service has been actually performed, have been defined. The related supporting documentation is archived so that it can be easily retrieved during a tax audit.
18There is a well-defined procedure to identify which cost components are to be included or excluded (shareholder costs) from the cost base of intercompany service recharges.
19 The VAT treatment of all intercompany invoices (goods, services) has been reviewed and signed-off by the Indirect Tax team.
20The Indirect Tax impact (customs and VAT) of TP true-up invoices has been evaluated and potential negative consequences (e.g. custom fees & duties exposure, Intrastat reporting) are mitigated.
21The way TP true-ups are implemented (credit note/debit note vs marketing fees allocation) between related parties is consistent with the roles & responsibilities described in the related intercompany agreement.
22 The VAT treatment and VAT compliance of TP true-up invoices have been reviewed and signed off by the Indirect Tax team.
23 The way TP true-ups are booked, does not affect the business units’ Management Reporting (i.e. TP true-ups are always booked “below the line”).
24The financial reports required for local TP documentation (e.g. EBIT segmented by function, amount of intercompany sales & purchases by transaction type and counterpart) can be easily produced from my company’s ERP/financial systems.
25There is an annual review process to check whether the financial data included in the local TP documentation is consistent with the TP Benchmark studies and the TP policy.
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 14
Plan
TP Life Cycle – Preliminary Assessment result
78%
74%
61%
Percentage of those who think that it is not easy to reference back the material intercompany flow to an up-to-date and valid TP Benchmark study (i.e. accepted
during a tax audit).
Percentage of those who think that there are no effective internal procedures in place to rapidly detect any new intercompany flow that occurs during the fiscal year.
Percentage of those who think there is no proper annual review process to check whether the TP policy is consistent with the way the supply chain operates.
Business model
Ex-ante documentation
TPprocedures
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 15
Operate
TP Life Cycle – Preliminary Assessment result
50%
83%
61%
Percentage of those who think that the Indirect Tax impact of TP true-up invoices
has not been evaluated, nor that the potential negative consequences (e.g.
custom fees & duties exposure, Intrastat reporting) are being mitigated.
Percentage of those who are not sure whether that the transfer prices on tangible goods for the next fiscal year are based on the budget numbers.
Percentage of those who find it difficult to obtain the actual YTD EBIT segmented by function on a quarterly basis both in management GAAP (IFRS) and in local GAAP.
Calculate
Process
Control
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 16
Defend
TP Life Cycle – Preliminary Assessment result
56%
78%
Percentage of those who are not sure that there is an annual review process to check whether the financial data included in the local TP documentation is consistent with
the TP Benchmark studies and the TP policy.
Percentage of those who do not think that the financial reports required for local TP documentation can be easily produced.
(Ex-post) Documentation
(Ex-post) Documentation
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 17
Implementing a TP Policy
Structure TP Operations
2. Structure TP operations 3. Address common challenges
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
Indirect Tax
Management Reporting
System Data Gaps
1. Manage E2E TP life cycle
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post) Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
Plan
Operate
Defend
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 18
Identify Gaps in Roles & Responsibilities (Illustration)
TP Governance
TP Manager
FP&A Finance
IT
SSC
Indirect Tax
Ex-ante documentation
TPprocedures
Calculate Process ControlEx-post documentation
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 19
From generic TP Guidelines to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
TP Procedures People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
Statement of intent in terms of TP compliance
Key considerations in terms of I/C flows
PLI (Profit Level Indicator) to use for key flows
Who to contact for new I/C flows
Not an operational document for Finance/SSC
How is a TP procedure usually structured (if it exists)?
Goods – How To:
Use Budget & Forecast numbers
Segment P&L
Calculate TP
Update price in ERP
Generate & book TP true-up
Service – How To:
Determine cost base & cost components (shareholder, pass-through and conversion)
Collect and apply allocation Keys
Generate & book VAT invoice
How should the TP procedure be written to be operational: task
description & scheduling
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 20
TP Delivery
Aligning Data Flows with FP&A Cycle
Calculate
Control
Process
Transfer price to be applied to each
I/C flow
I/C invoice according to calculated
transfer price
Profit Level (PLI) of routine
functions: monitoring & adjusting
Budget
Actuals
Forecasts
FP&A
Finance Cycle
1
5
4
2
3
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 21
Maturity Level Assessment Score Card(Illustration)
Operationalizing Transfer Pricing
Ex-ante documentation
TPprocedures
Calculate Process ControlEx-post documentation
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
Strong
Weak
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 22
Session 2
Address Common Challenges
Indirect Tax, Management Reporting and System Data Gaps
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 23
Implementing a TP Policy
Address Common Challenges
2. Structure TP operations 3. Address common challenges
People & Organization
Policy & Process
Data & Technology
Indirect Tax
Management Reporting
System Data Gaps
1. Manage E2E TP life cycle
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post) Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
Plan
Operate
Defend
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 24
Two Different Worldviews
Transfer Pricing and Indirect Tax
• Profit allocation
• Routine margin
• Remuneration of intangibles
Transfer Pricing Impact on Indirect Tax
• Supply of goods & services
• Place of supply
• Supply value
Routine margin
Upward adjustment
Obtaining the ”right profit” based on functions, assets and risk
Applying the “right tax” based on transaction type
Indirect Tax
Mgt. Reporting
Data Gaps
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 25
TP True-Up Upward Adjustment and Credit Note
Typical Indirect Tax Challenge – Case 1
Import fees & duties leakage
Intrastat reporting
Reference to original invoices
CIT exposure for LRD
Entrepreneur Distributor (LRD)
I/C Goods supply
LRD remuneration is too LOW
Routine margin }
Upward adjustment
Transfer Pricing
Take no actionTake no action Issue credit note Issue credit note
Impact on Indirect Tax
Prices used for purchase of IC goods
are too HIGH
Decrease inventory valuation & COGS
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 26
TP True-Up Downward Adjustment and Debit Note
Typical Indirect Tax Challenge – Case 2
Import fees & duties exposure
Intrastat reporting
Reference to original invoices
CIT exposure for
Entrepreneur
Entrepreneur Distributor (LRD)
I/C Goods supply
LRD remuneration is too HIGH
Routine margin
}Downward adjustment
Transfer Pricing
(Except in some countries
where downward
adjustments are not CIT
deductible leading to
double taxation)
Take no actionTake no action Issue debit note Issue debit note
Impact on Indirect Tax
Prices used for purchase of I/C goods
are too LOW
Increase inventory valuation & COGS
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 27
TP True-Ups as Marketing/Sales Support Service Allocation
Typical Indirect Tax Challenge -3
Case 1LRD remuneration is too LOW
Case 2LRD remuneration is too HIGH
LRD needs to be remunerated for its local marketing support
Entrepreneur needs to be remunerated for its sales support
Main Supply
Routine margin
}Upward adjustment
Routine margin
}Downward adjustment
Correction
Entrepreneur Distributor (LRD)
I/C Goods
Entrepreneur Distributor (LRD)
I/C Services
Buyer Seller
Local marketing support
Seller Buyer
Sales support
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 28
Difference in Transfer Pricing & Indirect Tax Reasoning
TP True-Ups as Marketing/Sales Support Service Allocation
Transfer Pricing
Reasoning• LRD guaranteed routine margin is
based on mutual services performed
by both the LRD and Entrepreneur
• Distribution agreement describes
services performed by LRD &
Entrepreneur and mutual obligations
• Distribution agreement is aligned
with facts (i.e. headcounts in LRD
and Entrepreneur performing
services mentioned)
Transfer Pricing
Reasoning
Indirect Tax
Reasoning
• Qualification of supply: Supply
provider (Entrepreneur vs. LRD) can
alternate from one period to the
other
• Supply value: Supply value can
vary based on LRD profit margin
• Place of supply: Local marketing
service from LRD can trigger non-
recoverable foreign VAT for the
Entrepreneur in some countries
Indirect Tax Exposure
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 29
TP True-Ups – Pro Active Price Adjustments (1)
Resolving Transfer Price and Indirect Tax Requirements Conflicts
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
}
TP1 1
2
3
1
2
Set up transfer price
Calculate Actuals YTD margin
3 Extrapolate year-end margin
Main Supply
Entrepreneur Distributor (LRD)
I/C Goods
Routine margin }
Routine margin
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 30
TP True-Ups – Pro Active Price Adjustments (2)
Resolving Transfer Price and Indirect Tax Requirements Conflicts
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
}
TP1
5
4
5
Calculate upward/downward adjustment on extrapolated year-end margins
Calculate new transfer price for upcoming quarters
}TP2
6TP2
6 Set up new transfer prices
4
Routine margin
}
Main Supply
Entrepreneur Distributor (LRD)
I/C Goods
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 31
TP True-Ups – Pro Active Price Adjustments (3)
Resolving Transfer Price and Indirect Tax Requirements Conflicts
Key benefits
• Steer Year-End YTD margins with transfer prices updated on a periodical basis
• Aligned with TP requirements(reach routine margin)
• Aligned with Indirect Tax (VAT, Customs requirements): consistent supply of goods
Points of attention
• Transfer Price calculationIncrease frequency to avoid big swing from one period to another
• Simulation tool to manage:
− Volume, product mix, overhead cost allocation
− Constraints (e.g. Transfer Pricing above product cost, regulatory price,...)
− As If scenarios (e.g. stock increase, stock duration,…)
• Automated interface to ERP to manage regular price updates
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 32
Two Different Worldviews
Transfer Pricing and Management Reporting
• Legal entity
• Routine vs. entrepreneur
• Controlling transfer price
Transfer Pricing Management Reporting
• Product line / Business unit
• End to End margin
• Eliminating transfer price
“Profit allocation based on value drivers”
”Optimizing E2E margin”
Manufacturer Distributor
Transfer price
Manufacturer Distributor
Supply chain
Costs Revenues
E2E marginRoutine margin
Residual profit
Indirect Tax
Mgt. Reporting
Data Gaps
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 33
Inventory Valuation/COGS Accounting – Challenge Example
When Transfer Prices & Management Reporting Conflict
Manufacturer Distributor
Transfer price
Costs (*) Revenues
• Material
• Labor
• Machine
Standard (actual)
cost{
• Standard (actual) cost
• TP margin
(*) simplified: real case also contains
packaging and transportation costs &
overhead
• E2E margin
• Standard (actual) cost
Transfer Pricing Management Reporting
Distributor COGS
Standard (actual)
cost
Distributor COGS
Transfer price
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 34
Inventory Valuation/COGS Accounting – Solution Example
When Transfer Prices & Management Reporting Conflicts
1 Booking inventory at standard cost, expensing TP margin
2 Manage COGS account roll-up: Transfer Pricing vs. Management Reporting
COGS booked at standard cost2
3 Re-Classify PPV to inventory for unsold stock at year-end for statutory reporting
Inventory (B/S)
Standard cost
100 €
IC AR/AP (B/S)
Transfer Price
110 €
PPV (*) (P&L)
TP margin
10 €
(*) PPV = Purchase Price Variance
Inventory (B/S)
Standard cost
100 €
COGS
Standard cost
100 €
Transfer Pricing Management Reporting
COGS (*)
(*) PPV is left “Below the Line” in the Management Roll-Up
Standard cost
100 €
COGS & PPV
Standard cost
100 €
TP margin
10 €
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 35
Key Principles – TP Components should be booked Below The Line
Transfer Pricing and Management Reporting
Ensure that all TP components are
“Below the line”
Transfer Pricing Management Reporting
Focuses on “Above the line”, i.e.
what can be managed by the
Business Finance managers
• Dedicated TP GL account or sub-account in management GAAP
• Set up management vs. statutory accounting roll-up
• Configuration of BI management and statutory report – dual GAAP
Sales
(COGS)
(Overhead)
Management OP
Above the line: should not contain any TP component
(I/C services)
(I/C TP components)
(I/C TP true-ups)
Below the Line: will be eliminated during I/C elimination
Statutory OP
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 36
Common Issues – Data
Transfer Pricing & System Data Gaps
Budgets are prepared using Management Reporting dimensions but not legal entity dimensions: • Business Units • Product Group• Market /Customer Group
02
01If EBIT Budget & Forecast can be linked to a legal entity, there is no automatic segmentation by function 04
03
05Forecasts do not usually contain volume information (only monetary equivalent)
Budget, Forecast and Quarterly Actuals are usually in management GAAP (IFRS, US GAAP) vs. local GAAP
Budget & Forecast are externally focused and do usually not contain• I/C margin on tangible
goods • I/C recharge of services
Indirect Tax
Mgt. Reporting
Data Gaps
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 37
Common Issues – Technology
Transfer Pricing & System Data Gaps
Challenges in getting adequate reports for calculation purposes• BI reports: gross margin by
product and EBIT reports • GL account analysis: manual
GL journals/postings – PPV, inventory valuation
02
01Challenges in updating ERP back• Pricing procedures/tables
update • I/C invoice processing (TP
true-up)03
Complex calculations in Excel spreadsheets to manage• Mapping • Reconciliation• Segmentation • Simulation • Output reports
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 38
Pricing & modelling tool
• Benefit of Excel in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness
• Additional functionality
− Audit trail - update
− Server storage
− Workflow
Common Solutions
Transfer Pricing & System Data Gaps
TechnologyData
Data
Rules & formulas
• Extrapolation IFRS to Stat adj.
• Extrapolating volume forecast
• EBIT segmentation by product SKU
Part of ERP/EPM upgrade (S/4 HANA)
• Entity dimension
• I/C service recharge
• Fully loaded entity P&L
Short & Medium Term
Long Term
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 39
Session 3
Case Study
Applying Technology to manage E2E Process for Transfer Pricing on Goods
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 40
Luminova: Manufacturer of Lighting Systems
Demo Case
BE10
FR10
NL10
CZ30
• HQ based in Geneva, Switzerland
• 3 sales organizations in Belgium, the Netherlands and France
• 2 production plants: Belgium and France
• 1 Shared Service Center in Czech Republic
• Luminova has a Swiss principal company
• Headcount: 320 employees
Sales Organization
Sales Organization & Plant
Shared Service Center (SSC)
Principal
CH10
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 41
Luminova – Organizational Structure
Demo Case
Group
Functions
Legal entities Luminova
BE10 FR10 NL10 CZ30 CH10
Manuf. Distr. Manuf. Distr. Manuf. SSC Principal
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 42
Luminova – TP Pricing Model Structure
Demo Case
Manufacturing Company
Principal (HQ) Distributing company
Budget Standard
cost
Budget Standard
cost
Budget Standard
cost
Manuf. margin
Manuf. margin
Manuf. margin
Principal margin
Principal Margin
Sales margin
A
B
C
Clients
Goods flow
Invoice flow
Sale Price composition
Goods flow
Invoice flow Invoice flow
Sells at A Sells at B
Sells at C
NCP%
OM%
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 43
Luminova – TP Pricing Model Assumptions
Demo Case
Production costs & inventory
For demo purposes, we have assumed that• the labor costs & the cost of raw
materials are consistent between countries
• the sales volume will be equal to the production volume.
TP benchmarking methods
TNMM method is used with the following PLIs: NCP for manufacturers and OM for distributors.
ERP TP setup
Manufacturer is a cost plus on standard cost and distributor resale minus on list price.
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 44
Luminova – Data Flow
Demo Script
User legend
Sales Manager
Finance controller
Supply Chain Manager
Tax Manager
* Idem as Q1 Forecast steps
Perform
top-down Sales
budgeting
Step 1
Review
top-down budget and
perform bottom-up
Sales budgeting
Step 2
Budget production costs
and calculate COGS
Step 3
Actuals FY16 load
Step 0
Budget
OPEX, IC service
recharge & Allocation of
OPEX
Step 4
Transfer price
calculation for budget &
review of financial
statements
Step 5
Bottom-up Sales
forecast
Step 7
ACTUALS BUDGET Q1 FORECAST
Actuals load first three
months FY17
Step 6
Transfer price
calculation for budget &
review of financial
statements
Step 9
Copy OPEX and COGS
budget to forecast
Step 8
Maintenance
of user roles, access
rights and master data
changes
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 45
Solution built in Anaplan
Operational TP Tool Demo
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 46
Key Benefits
Transfer Pricing Modelling in Anaplan
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 47
Conclusion
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 48
Key Messages
Conclusion
Write a detailed transfer pricing policyA standard operating procedure for Finance, SSC and the IT team, including Indirect Tax aspect
Apply technology Use tools to integrate transfer pricing with the FP&A finance cycle. Tailored tools can be easily built (e.g. Anaplan)
Manage the full E2E TP CycleNot only your transfer pricing documentation
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 49
Next Steps
Conclusion
Complete a detailed “Maturity Level Assessment”Where are the gaps?
2Make a business case for an operational transfer pricing toolE2E TP process cannot be effectively managed without technology
1
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 50
Deloitte’s Quick Start Operational TP Lab
How To Get Started
Business model
Planning / Ex-ante documentation
TP procedures
Calculate
Process
Control
(Ex-post) Documentation
Defend
TP Life Cycle
Plan
Operate
Defend
One day workshop
All key operational TP stakeholders
Maturity assessment (Risks & Opportunities)
Defining the end state
Drafting an action plan
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 51
Contacts
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 52
Jeroen LemmensPartner
Liesbet NevelsteenPartner
Contacts
Thierry ChaumantinSenior Manager
Jérôme LibioulManager
Company: DeloitteOffice: ZaventemTelephone: +32 2 600 69 82
E-mail: [email protected]
Company: DeloitteOffice: Zaventem
Telephone: +32 2 600 66 53E-mail: [email protected]
Company: DeloitteOffice: Zaventem
Telephone: +32 2 600 66 08E-mail: [email protected]
Company: DeloitteOffice: Zaventem
Telephone: +32 2 749 56 39E-mail: [email protected]
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 53
Appendix
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium 54
Company and product key facts
Introduction to Anaplan
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.
Deloitte provides audit, tax and legal, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries, Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and high-quality service to clients, delivering the insights they need to address their most complex business challenges. Deloitte has in the region of 225,000 professionals, all committed to becoming the standard of excellence.
This publication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte Network”) is, by means of this publication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication.
© 2017 Deloitte Belgium