Blog

Beyond Common Ownership: the Next Frontier of Transfer Pricing Rules?

By Chad Martin
October 20, 2025
shipping container ship

One of the most fundamental—and profound—questions in transfer pricing is: “What is a related party?” This question frequently arises in joint ventures, private equity portfolios, and complex group ownership structures. The answer typically centers on the concept of common control.

Both the U.S. Section 482 regulations and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines specify that transactions between associated enterprises under common control, direction, or influence are subject to transfer pricing rules. The foundation of these rules is the arm’s length standard, which requires that transactions between related entities be priced as if they were conducted between unrelated parties in an open market. 

The most common determinant of common control is common ownership—where the same related-party interests own more than half of the associated enterprises. However, both U.S. and OECD guidance clarify that common control is distinct from common ownership. Even without common ownership, transfer pricing rules may apply if two or more counterparties:

  • Share common management or decision-making
  • Act in concert with common financial objectives
  • Have incentives to shift income or misprice transactions between one another

Most transfer pricing projects I’ve worked on have involved multinational group members under common ownership. However, two major trends are challenging this norm and may significantly expand the scope of transfer pricing rules:

1. Punitive Cross-Border Trade Measures

Importers and exporters could work together to misprice transactions—for example, via allocations between goods and services—to reduce the amount of tariffs.

2. Oligopolistic, Interdependent Supply Chains

Modern supply chains—such as those involving chipmakers, data centers, and artificial intelligence firms—are increasingly characterized by cross-investment and large purchase/supply deals. These tight-knit relationships, even among unrelated parties, may soon be viewed by tax authorities as falling under the definition of common control, especially when concerted action and shared economic incentives are present.

Historically, such cases have been addressed under customs and antitrust laws. However, as tax authorities become more active and aggressive, we may soon see transfer pricing disputes spill over into pricing practices where common ownership is not involved.

Make a habit of sustained success.

Every organization deserves to realize its full potential. Let us help you find yours.
Learn More

About the Author(s)

Chad Martin

Chad Martin

Principal/Transfer Pricing Services
Chad helps his clients navigate the complexities of today's global transfer pricing rules, regulations and opportunities. He helps companies structure and defend their intercompany transactions with an 'in-house' mindset.

Material discussed is meant to provide general information and it is not to be construed as specific investment, tax or legal advice. Keep in mind that current and historical facts may not be indicative of future results. This is meant for educational purposes only. Information presented should not be considered investment advice or a recommendation to take a particular course of action. Always consult with a financial professional regarding your personal situation before making any financial decisions.