April 2018 Issue
Today’s transfer pricing landscape is very different from the one that existed just a few years ago. Across the globe, the implementation of an effective transfer pricing policy is among the most problematic taxation issues currently facing companies. Impacting this space in particular are the recently announced US tax reforms and the continued adoption of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiatives. With new technologies and regulatory changes shaping how transfer pricing is undertaken, the outline for the future tax environment is clear, although details remain uncertain.
FW: What do you consider to be the major trends currently shaping the transfer pricing environment?
Carden: Currently, there are three general trends which, on a global level, are influencing the transfer pricing environment. Unfortunately, these trends are, to some degree, contradictory. The first is that major countries are pursuing more competitive tax systems, either through rate reductions and intellectual property (IP) incentives, such as in the UK, or more fundamental reform efforts, as in the US. This has reduced the differences in rates across major countries. Second, as countries implement the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) BEPS initiatives, the traditional balance in transfer pricing analysis between functions, assets and risks is tilting toward functions. This creates significant challenges for multinationals because the value of business functions is often less subject to third-party benchmarking than assets, for which there are often comparables, and risks, for which there are often economic models. Finally, several countries are pursuing anti-base erosion measures, sometimes connected with so-called ‘digital economy’ initiatives, which attempt to increase the portion of income taxed in countries where customers or end users are located. Taken together, these trends create a very significant risk of double taxation, which could be the most significant transfer pricing challenge in years to come.
Gaspar: Multinationals have become more concerned with transfer pricing in Brazil in recent years. Not only are we seeing specialised consulting firms offering transfer pricing-related services to companies, but companies are also hiring in-house tax staff with some level of transfer pricing experience. This is justified by the current discussions regarding intangibles valuation, risk and ownership, value creation and, ultimately, information management. Having an in-house transfer pricing specialist can be fruitful to the extent that transfer pricing regulation has to be taken into account when designing businesses and deals to prevent or mitigate a potential future tax assessment and litigation and to protect the information confidentiality. From a global perspective, BEPS, as well as regional and local unilateral tax reforms, are indicative of a new level of scrutiny and added demand for transparency.
Musselli: The major trends shaping the transfer pricing environment are related to new concepts surrounding the acquisition of ownership of intangible property introduced by the OECD’s BEPS initiative. European countries will probably implement the concept that value is ‘created’ in locations where important intangible functions are actually developed, and not where contracts and related funding of intangible development are located. In addition, European countries will also soon enforce tax rules on companies in the country where sales are made through web platforms managed abroad. However, at present, it is not clear whether the concept of control over intangible related functions introduced by BEPS will be accepted in US tax courts.
Gracia: In a post-BEPS world, with its specific EU features and developments, it is likely that we will see greater scrutiny by national tax authorities on where the added value is generated in the value chain within multinational groups in order to avoid profit shifting through the transfer pricing policy. Consequently, for taxpayers, this entails enhanced documentation efforts and new reporting obligations, for example tax ruling exchanges and country-by-country reporting (CbCR) obligations and exchanges, increased risk of cross-border disputes and more legal uncertainty in the international arena for the taxpayer because, although transparency itself is not bad, the subjectivity in the interpretation of the data will generate legal uncertainty.
FW: To what extent is the OECD’s BEPS initiative redefining transfer pricing? How are issues such as disclosure, intangibles, risk and dispute resolution being affected?
Gracia: The most important impact will be on tax planning activity when it is not substantiated with the right allocation of assets, functions and risks. Increasingly, tax authorities are insisting that they will not abide by the content of relevant intra-group agreements, but instead will look at the facts to draw conclusions about the real interaction between related entities before assessing the arm’s length transactions on the basis of a real or otherwise reconstructed transaction. This approach will definitely curtail paperwork and oblige companies to be consistent when it comes to establishing an intangibles holding subsidiary in a tax-friendly jurisdiction, for example.
Gaspar: Multinationals have been monitoring the BEPS initiatives for the past few years and there are few differences between the initiative and how transfer pricing is done in Brazil. The outcome to Actions 8-10 were published in 2015 but it is still difficult to understand if and how it will impact Brazil, given that Brazil is not an OECD country and that the local fixed margins practices differ materially from it. Also, the submission and operationalisation of CbCR are under close monitoring in order to understand the impacts going forward, mainly concerning information confidentiality and the automatic exchange of information in order to be prepared to answer any government requirement. In many cases, the BEPS outcomes are not exactly new in comparison to the then existing standards, but refocus on expectations, behaviours and transparency.
Musselli: The BEPS initiative mainly came about due to industrialised countries’ concerns that a low taxation company which finances new intangibles research and development will be entitled to a major portion of integrated profits. However, BEPS has opened the door to an unclear concept: ‘activity creating value, non-objectively assessable’. Therefore, the risk is now great that a country may consider that value is created solely by any ‘important intangible activities’ they consider to be performed in its territory. Moreover, the arm’s length principle is becoming more subjective regarding its practical enforcement. In my view, many countries wish to maintain political control over dispute resolution, without leaving the outcome to technical entities such as arbitrators.
Carden: Despite the name of the BEPS Actions 8-10 report, ‘Aligning Transfer Pricing with Value Creation’, the result of the BEPS initiative seems clear – increasing the role of functions, as compared to assets and risks, in determining transfer pricing outcomes. Tax authorities seem focused on the so-called ‘DEMPE’ functions, often arguing that a relatively small functional contribution may outweigh significant assets and risks. It is not clear that the OECD intended such an outcome, nor that this imbalance will not be corrected over time, but for the moment it presents significant challenges to multinational corporations. In particular, the way in which entities should value intangibles in circumstances where DEMPE functions may change over time is far from clear, which creates significant uncertainty when undertaking internal reorganisations or simply adapting transfer pricing to changing business operations.
FW: In your opinion, have the changes made to tax regulatory frameworks helped multinationals to understand their potential transfer pricing liabilities?
Gaspar: The arm’s-length standard (ALS) has gradually been introduced within some of the Brazilian methods and a number of the BEPS Actions are being rolled out in Brazil. This may be fruitful in the long term, but this is still a time for caution and for companies to pause for a moment to evaluate how this is going to unfold. Meanwhile, multinationals need to be aware of their compliance procedures to protect their positions. It is wise to always bear in mind the added transparency expectations from tax authorities worldwide, as well as access to information.
Musselli: Multinationals are clear about the increasing risks their transfer pricing policies are facing. This is especially true for firms engaged in so-called ‘aggressive planning’ to achieve fiscal savings. But it also relates to firms doing business across the globe and how they comply with different countries’ tax systems. Generally speaking, financial officers of firms believe that transfer pricing is the most problematic taxation issue they are currently facing.
Gracia: The aim of the changes has been to gain in transparency while helping multinational companies to phase the necessary changes in the way they run their transfer pricing strategy. However, the new regulation will lead to an increase in tax litigation because now there is much more subjectivity than before BEPS on the evaluation of the value added by each group’s entity contributing to the value chain. BEPS is led and driven by agencies seeking to collect more revenue, and each tax authority will put the emphasis on different items of the same value chain.
Carden: Historically, most tax authorities respected contractual provisions that defined asset ownership and risk allocation, assuming that there was enough functional control over assets and risks to give the transactions substance. While this approach led to some policy debates and transfer pricing controversies, most multinationals had a reasonable amount of certainty regarding the application of the rules. The emergence of DEMPE functions as the primary, or sole, basis for determining arm’s length prices has created substantial uncertainty, since countries’ application of DEMPE principles varies widely and the way in which the BEPS Actions 8-10 report will apply in intercompany asset transfers and changing functional profiles is far from clear.
FW: In what ways have recent developments impacted the way organisations go about implementing their tax planning strategies?
Musselli: Following the response of industrialised countries to the 2008 recession, which was mainly conducted via the OECD, I believe that the so-called ‘aggressive planning’ practiced by some firms, many of which are large entities, is almost at an end. The majority of firms now attach a lot of importance to the potential for reputational damage as a consequence of aggressive planning, and have now adapted their approach so that they are satisfied to be able to comply with the tax laws of all the countries in which they do business.
Gracia: On an international level, clearly the most significant developments have arisen from the BEPS project. Actions 8-10 amending the OECD’s guidelines and, above all, Action 13 on the introduction of CbCR for the largest multinationals, set a precedent which might give rise to further developments at national or regional level covering a wider scope of companies or to public disclosure. The extension of the EU Directive on Mutual Administrative Assistance to embed CbCR within EU legislation and the new obligation among EU tax authorities to exchange information on any tax rulings and advance pricing agreements (APAs) are also relevant.
Carden: Avoiding double taxation has become an increasing concern for organisations. Because different tax authorities are taking very different positions on the application of the BEPS Actions 8-10 report, the risk of double taxation is substantial. In addition, anti-base erosion efforts by market countries further complicate tax planning, since arm’s length transfer pricing rules may not dictate the results in certain countries. That being said, over the long term, we believe that the basic principle of aligning transfer pricing with business operations should govern long-term planning strategy.
Gaspar: A primary challenge for multinationals trying to implement tax planning in Brazil is the gap between local transfer pricing regulations and other countries’ rules, notably the OECD’s guidelines. While the former is based mostly on fixed margins, the latter is based upon ALS, and reconciling both can be difficult. Nevertheless, over the years, Brazil has come closer to ALS in some aspects and there is some connection between Brazil’s current PCI and Pecex methods and the OECD’s comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method, particularly when it comes to commodities. Other relevant changes in Brazil include enhancement of the PCI and Pecex methods, with additional adjustments brought by rulings IN RFB 1.458/2014 and 1.568/2015.
FW: Have you seen a noticeable increase in transfer pricing disputes between companies and tax authorities in recent times? What options are available to resolve such disputes as efficiently as possible?
Carden: In the US, there are a number of significant transfer pricing cases that have been decided by the US tax court in the last couple of years, while several other significant cases are pending. When these cases are ultimately resolved, there may be a reduction in the amount of controversy as both companies and the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) try to digest all of the implications of the 2017 US tax reform bill. However, the overall trends in global taxation – efforts to create competitive regimes, emphasis on functions and market-based anti-base erosion provisions – may lead to increasing controversy between countries looking to claim taxing rights over the same streams of income. Bilateral or even multilateral APA may be a good forum for resolving those more complex cases that require balancing different transfer pricing standards.
Gaspar: Considering the number of tax assessments related to transfer pricing in recent years, the increase has been noticeable and deserves attention from taxpayers. It is important to mention that tax assessments almost necessarily mean tax litigation, the way procedures are designed in Brazil, as it opens administrative litigation all the way to specialised administrative tax courts and, in the event the taxpayer is unsuccessful at the administrative level, usually the discussion is taken to judicial courts. The whole process generally can take more than a decade, up until a final decision is obtained at the judicial Supreme Court level. Globally, there may be an increase in transfer pricing litigation, but the format will vary from country-to-country.
Gracia: Spanish tax authorities tend to push back on the tax losses declared by the taxpayers derived from related-party transactions, as well as an increase in transfer pricing controversies between companies and the Spanish tax authorities, since the most significant tax reassessments are often issued on transfer pricing matters. A recent trend that we have noticed in tax audits is to deny the nature of a shareholder loan as a liability, giving rise to deductible financial expense and recharacterise it as equity, on the basis of the conduct of the lender and borrower when it comes to complying with obligations arising from the loan agreement on payments of interest, repayments of principal, extensions of maturity and total leverage, among others.
Musselli: There has been a substantial increase in transfer pricing litigation all over the world. It is difficult to determine what the best methods are to resolve disputes. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution as each country has its own judicial system particularities. In Italy, in cases where a dispute is not related to ownership and valuation of intangibles but to remuneration of routine functions through comparables, an efficient way to resolve a dispute is for parties to agree with authorities a specific income adjustment – a middle ground between claims.
FW: Do you foresee tax authorities collaborating more frequently on cross-jurisdictional transfer pricing audits? How does this approach affect participating countries and multinational companies?
Gracia: The Spanish Tax Inspectorate has been participating in simultaneous tax audits, mainly focused on transfer pricing issues, for at least 15 years, always in the frame of the initiatives sponsored by the EU authorities and Member States. The Spanish tax authorities consider this kind of initiative instrumental to the wider and broader gathering of information which may then be used in the course of the tax audit run at the level of the taxpayer established in Spain. Multinationals will see many more of these simultaneous audits going forward, the risk being more frequent double taxation cases, which will have to be addressed by way of mutual agreement procedures (MAPs) and arbitration panels.
Gaspar: Despite the fact that Brazil has double taxation treaties providing language on transfer pricing, especially exchange of information, we have never heard of an actual example where a coordinated cross-jurisdictional audit has taken place. Perhaps the lack of possible credits arising from transfer pricing adjustments is the reason, or the fact that Brazil is still developing in this space. Nevertheless, the Brazilian Internal Revenue Service has included an entirely new transfer pricing item in its 2018 Annual Action Plan, indicating greater focus on transfer pricing, especially on value-aggregated intangibles and related parties financing operations.
Musselli: The tax authorities of industrialised countries have an interest in sharing actions and information with each other, mainly when low taxation countries are involved in the value chain. In any case, CbCR reporting by firms and the automatic exchange of rulings have reduced a lot of the need for tax authorities to enforce requests for exchanges of information.
Carden: In the near term, countries will likely try to better coordinate their audit efforts; the OECD’s international compliance assurance programme (ICAP) is the most high-profile example of this trend. However, the success of these efforts depends on agreed international transfer pricing rules and a reasonably consistent application of these rules. In the long term, these efforts will be very difficult to sustain because of significant differences in countries’ application of the DEMPE principles in the BEPS Actions 8-10 report.
FW: How have recent, high-profile transfer pricing disputes impacted the way companies develop and implement their transfer pricing strategies?
Gaspar: Transfer pricing disputes, as with all tax disputes in Brazil, are privileged at the administrative level. It is therefore difficult to track ongoing administrative litigation cases and, when it comes to judicial cases, there are currently very few underway. The lack of jurisprudence to guide taxpayers on how to interpret the legislation is an additional source of uncertainty, as either other taxpayers will not know about transfer pricing administrative court decisions or will find out about them many years later. More broadly, cases such as Australia’s Chevron case and Canada’s GE case have been indicative of a trend from a global standpoint.
Musselli: There are two different scenarios related to a transfer pricing policy. The first concerns affiliates where the group locates the most valuable intangibles of the integrated business. This scenario has been significantly impacted by the new BEPS rules and, for example, on US law cases such as those involving Veritas and Amazon. Furthermore, US tax court rulings have allowed for an efficient planning of intangibles, provided that efficient structures have enough substance to not be considered ‘pure cash boxes’. In the Amazon case, the US tax court opinion is that the buy-in for previous intangibles needs to be connected just to the intangibles already developed and must not include the value of the intangibles yet to be developed. It remains to be seen whether these principles will be exported outside the US after BEPS and if they are enforceable in relation to US regulations on cost-sharing issued at the end of 2008. In Italy, and in many other countries, web companies have appointed a local distributor or are now using permanent offices when selling goods or services from abroad via a web platform.
Carden: The most significant lesson of recent transfer pricing cases is that transfer pricing continues to be a highly fact-specific inquiry. The government’s approach in recent cases has, to some degree, tried to circumvent the specific facts of taxpayers’ businesses and instead apply theoretical mathematical models to reach transfer pricing results. Courts have consistently rejected this approach, which has led companies to continue to develop and implement transfer pricing approaches that reflect the particular facts and circumstances of their industries and businesses.
Gracia: Transfer pricing disputes have been aired by the media and non-governmental organisations and put at the top of the agenda of political concerns by many governments, creating an atmosphere which may impact the reputations of the firms involved. Further, APAs are being exchanged quarterly by tax authorities in the EU. Hence, other companies are adopting a wary stance when dealing with their global transfer pricing policies. Post-BEPS, corporate structures must be more sustainable than before, particularly on the risk-taking side, which requires the relevant people to be seconded to the territories where the value-added is declared.
FW: In a scenario in which a company finds itself subject to a tax audit or investigation, how should it go about responding? What steps should be taken from the outset to ensure that reputational damage, costs and so on, are minimised?
Carden: Success in audits depends on preparation before the audit begins. This means developing transfer pricing policies that reflect and are consistent with business operations, as well as ensuring consistent implementation and documentation of these policies. Once an audit begins, proactive management aimed at open communication and defence of positions, for example through presentations to tax authorities, can be an effective tool for reaching a successful resolution and avoiding escalation that could lead to financial and reputational damage.
Musselli: A defensive strategy needs to be particular to the country where the audit or the challenge is managed, with the best strategy including an appropriate study of the remedies available through the local judicial system. In any case, companies should always be ready for an audit and have documents, such as master and local files, which outline the reasons why they believe they have complied with local tax laws.
Gracia: First, a company should get a good tax adviser to set the strategy of defence from the outset and make available to the tax administration the required transfer pricing documentation. In Spain, it is compulsory to make available to the Spanish tax authorities the master file, the local file and, since 1 January 2016, the CbCRs for groups with a consolidated net turnover of at least €750m in 2015. In the last couple of years, it was notable that some judgments by Spanish courts on large transfer pricing reassessments have sided with the taxpayer on the basis that, at the stage of analysing the evidence in the court file, the tax authorities did not sufficiently support their findings.
Gaspar: When it comes to audit or investigation, the best position for the taxpayer is to have prepared in advance. Having a strong internal process, analysing transactions in advance, doing thorough work fitting the method chosen – given taxpayers can generally choose the method in Brazil – to adequate legal framework and grounds and keeping documentation organised in advance, are key for a smooth process. It is worth emphasising the need for a thorough internal process within the organisation, with clear responsibilities and accountability between areas to ensure a proper audit trail along the way on costs, documents and so on.
FW: Could you outline the challenges facing multinationals in their efforts to maximise their tax efficiencies? How can organisations balance their drive for efficiencies with their transfer pricing compliance requirements?
Musselli: Striking a balance between efficiencies and transfer pricing compliance is extremely difficult. Companies need to avoid past actions such as ‘aggressive planning’ and develop new ways to drive tax efficiencies. Efficient planning related to intangibles must relate only to new research expenses, provided they reveal an unsuccessful investment. Conversely, if planning and efficient tax structures relate to already developed intangibles, high taxation countries where the intangible was developed will be allowed to tax the income sourcing from the intangible sale, voiding possible savings.
Gracia: The main challenge that multinationals face is to be able to demonstrate to the various national tax authorities that the added value has been generated in the territory where it is declared – in other words, that the added value has been correctly attributed to the various entities involved in this value chain, taking into account that each tax administration will try to justify a different attribution of the income for the benefit of its own tax collections. It is more burdensome to balance efficiency and compliance obligations, which give rise to a reduction in the number of cases in which an entity in the group based on a tax-friendly jurisdiction is attributed assets, functions and risks to participate in the value chain.
Gaspar: The first challenge multinationals find in Brazil when doing transfer pricing is that reconciling the gap between local transfer pricing regulation and the OECD’s guidelines can be difficult. Lacking certainty in applying local methods can also mean added difficulty as a result of the limited paradigms arising from rulings issued by the IRS and from the courts, meaning a lack of specific rules on intangibles, which can cause a multiplicity of possible interpretations without any guidance from rulings or case law. BEPS and other initiatives try to tackle this by looking from a global perspective, but de-risking the transfer pricing practice is still a long journey.
Carden: The most significant challenge facing companies at the moment is the high degree of variation between countries’ implementation of function-based transfer pricing principles. These differences can lead to significant double taxation risk. Managing this in the near term will be very difficult, but over the long run is likely best managed by carefully considering the key value-driving functions and assets within a company’s lines of business and aligning transfer pricing accordingly.
FW: As the evolution of transfer pricing continues via the BEPS initiative, among others, what advice do you have for companies on reviewing and updating their tax processes?
Gracia: We expect to see continuous monitoring in the area of transfer pricing over the coming years, as it becomes an increasingly important issue for multinational companies. In particular, it is important to bear in mind the reputational risks that can arise from the application of a specific transfer pricing policy. In addition, the tax function within multinational companies should be raised to and monitored by the company’s board of directors, especially in terms of the transfer pricing strategy that each multinational group decides to apply. As transfer pricing developments continue to evolve, corporate groups need to be flexible.
Gaspar: Despite the outcomes of BEPS, and the fact that Brazil was involved as a G20 member, tax authorities in Brazil feel comfortable with the current fixed margin methods and should not give up the ‘simplicity’ and ‘control’ they provide. Although we would hope for changes toward full ALS methods, and a link to the OECD’s guidelines, we do not see it happening in the near future. Nevertheless, we do believe that authorities will keep using and improving current regulations to seek more scrutiny and that tax audits will remain an important item on the IRS’ agenda.
Musselli: A review of past investments and also about the current intangible location of the integrated business is the key to understanding whether there are issues with transfer pricing or not. Furthermore, firms must comply with the new BEPS rules related to key staff controlling intangibles projects. This is a very difficult target to comply with, as the rules are unclear and allow countries to base income on upward adjustments, as well as on a subjective assessment as to the merits of the activities being performed.
Carden: US tax reform, changes in other tax laws, and the OECD BEPS initiative have increased the demands on multinationals to produce high quality, detailed financial data that can be used to support and analyse various transfer pricing positions. Consequently, tax departments must develop processes to facilitate the application of different transfer pricing methods in order to compare alternatives and satisfy competing requests from different tax authorities.
FW: Looking ahead, what trends and developments do you expect to dominate the transfer pricing space through 2018 and beyond?
Gaspar: As far as Brazil is concerned, we expect the authorities to continue to focus on transfer pricing audits throughout 2018 and with increasing sophistication. This perception is backed up by the latest Brazilian IRS’ Action Plan, which vocalised the authorities’ intent to closely monitor value-aggregated intangibles transactions and financing operations between related parties. Due to the fact that local regulation is subject to different interpretation, all transactions need to be carefully documented and the legal grounds which they rely on need to be well detailed in advance. Moreover, I would really insist on the importance of doing all the transfer pricing work in advance, and to have a clear internal process on the way to go about this between all the involved areas in the company.
Carden: The last few years have brought many changes to the international tax and transfer pricing environment. In particular, the issuance of the OECD BEPS reports, the passage of US tax reform and investigations by the European Commission into the tax practices of Member States have resulted in a transfer pricing landscape that is very different from the one that existed 10 or even five years ago. While the outlines of this new tax environment are clear, the details are much more uncertain. Consequently, the most significant developments over the next few years will likely involve filling in these details, as well as reconciling differences between approaches across countries.
Musselli: Forecasting is complicated, as many considerations need to be made when implementing a transfer pricing policy. President Trump’s tax reforms – with the corporate tax rate lowered to 21 percent – will probably change the position of many governments as regards transfer pricing. Indeed, oil giant British Petroleum has been one of the first non-US companies to announce an increase in US investments due to the new corporate tax regime. Each country is focused on protecting its tax base and I believe this is the end of the arm’s length principle. Furthermore, I expect governments across the globe to not only focus on the taxation aspects of multinationals, but also the many social forces which are reacting against globalisation and a world with unfair rules.
Gracia: There are a number of trends we expect to see moving forward. First, the outcome of the discussions on the profit split method (PSM) and on the transfer pricing on related-party financial transactions, among other continued post-BEPS discussions at OECD level. Second, the outcome of the ongoing peer review on the implementation of the BEPS Action 5 on the exchange of information on tax rulings beyond the EU borders. Third, the EU DG Competition attacks on further transfer pricing rulings granted in the past to multinationals, as well as European Court of Justice (ECJ) developments on the state aid files that have been appealed. And finally, the continued development of the arbitration procedure provided for in the MLI among the countries which opt for it.
Eduardo Gracia specialises in tax matters of M&A, real estate, finance and distressed debt, as well as international tax, European tax and transfer pricing projects. He has advised a wide range of Spanish and international corporates, funds and financial institutions on the tax planning and structuring of inbound investment into Spain. He has also advised on a considerable number of outbound investments, advising on the corporate and operational restructuring of multinationals. He can be contacted on +34 (91) 364 9854 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Fabio Gaspar is a tax lawyer with over 10 years’ professional experience. Mr Gaspar specialises in tax planning and consulting on Brazilian and international taxation, with a background in tax litigation and corporate law. He has authored a number of papers and lectured on tax subjects in distinguished publications and forums worldwide. His current role as head of upstream tax Brazil at Shell includes being responsible for transfer pricing regarding upstream assets. He can be contacted on +55 (21) 3984 7785 or by email: email@example.com.
Nate Carden focuses on both planning and controversies arising in connection with transfer pricing and related international tax issues. Building on several years of experience as a management consultant with McKinsey & Co, Mr Carden specifically concentrates on the tax aspects of ongoing business operations. He works with corporate and other clients across many industries, with a particular focus on life science, healthcare and technology companies. He can be contacted on +1 (312) 407 0905 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Andrea Musselli is a partner at Studio Musselli in Milan. An expert in business administration for 30 years, Mr Musselli’s expertise includes fiscal laws focused on transfer pricing. He is a two-time master in economics and law (University of Venice , Cà Foscari and University of Milan), a certified public accountant legal auditor and a tribunal adviser. He can be contacted on +39 02 7200 1227 or by email: email@example.com.
© Financier Worldwide