Reporting of the result on TPR-C transactions only for the tax year to which the information relates – current position of KIS

Tax payers are required to draw up local transfer pricing documentation together with a benchmarking analysis for a controlled transaction whose value exceeds the statutory documentation thresholds in the tax year. In the case of transactions carried out for many years, it may be appropriate to use comparative data for several years – according to the OECD Guidelines, a taxpayer for benchmarking may adopt a multi-annual period, allowing a better reflection of the economic reality of the sector concerned.

There have so far been doubts as to the correct demonstration of the final result on the transaction in the benchmarking analysis.

The form of documentation allows to describe the variable market situation of the audited entity, to show the actual course of the transaction, and above all to show the reasons for gaining profit or loss in a multi-annual, inter-period transaction.

The taxable persons did not know whether an average result of several years or only one year should be indicated in the case of benchmarking based on multi-annual data as a result of the transaction, due to its implementation over several trading periods. The TPR-C form, unlike the documentation, remains limited in this respect.

The taxpayer can only indicate one specific result on the transaction without being able to refer it to its current business situation and to data from previous years.

Individual interpretation of the Director of National Tax Information dated 2 April 2026 (0114-KDIP2-2.4010.46.2026.1.AS) clearly states that in the TPR-C form, in the benchmark analysis section, the result on the transaction must be shown only for the year to be examined.

This case concerns an entity that plans to start carrying out controlled transactions involving the payment of services to a related entity within the meaning of Article 11a(1)(4) of the CIT Act.

In order to verify the market nature of the determined remuneration, the entity intends to carry out a benchmarking analysis taking into account the multiannual period.

It was crucial to determine whether, in relation to the transaction and thus the undertaking by the entity to submit TPR-C information, the entity in the benchmark analysis section should demonstrate an average result from the multiannual period or only for the year considered as a result of the transaction.

KIS agreed with the applicant’s approach, considering that the taxpayer is obliged to indicate the financial ratio achieved only in the tax year for which the TPR information is submitted. The Authority stressed that since tax authorities carry out an annual analysis of TPR, it is necessary to maintain the consistency of the result for the year under review with the transfer pricing policy.

It is irrelevant to base the benchmarking on multiannual data. KIS indicates that such action serves only to determine the market range based on historical data, with which the result of the year under examination is compared. The result of the year under examination must be within the market range defined in the analysis for the tax year to which the analysis relates.

Such a position, although understandable from the perspective of the way KAS controls the transactions carried out, may be problematic for taxpayers carrying out transactions for many years, as:

1. in the case of transactions executed over several years, the reported transaction result for only one year may not reflect the actual course of that transaction;
2. the execution of a multi-annual transaction may take place on a continuous basis, accepting the contract, in connection with its functions in the transaction, may incur costs relating to the transaction in a period of time. The partial or even full execution of a given transaction on the receiving party does not always result in a reasonable income in relation to the transaction carried out during the year considered. The date of payment for the full execution of the transaction, as well as for the completion of the individual stages of the transaction in the year considered, may be the next settlement period;
3. in connection with the above-mentioned accruals, the taxable person may encounter technical difficulties in establishing and attributing the correct value of the transaction for one accounting period of one year.