Intra-group services costs and the benefit test – key changes in the proposed OECD guidelines

The issue of the benefit test has currently become a hot topic within the OECD. On 1 June 2026, a draft amendment to Chapter VII of the OECD Guidelines was published, which in practice entails the need to review the existing approach and adjust both the actions taken and the scope of documentation. Although the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines are not directly binding law in Poland — they are so-called soft law — Polish transfer pricing regulations were based on them. Therefore, in practice, the OECD Guidelines constitute valuable material for interpreting Polish regulations concerning transactions between related parties, covering many issues that Polish transfer pricing provisions do not address directly.

Key directions of changes in the OECD guidelines

There is visible change towards an operational approach, based on evidence and analysis at the level of each individual service recipient. The five main areas of change are presented below.
 

1. Clear emphasis on the need for ex ante analysis

The OECD clearly indicates that the benefit test should be assessed from the perspective of the moment when the transaction is entered into, i.e. on an ex ante basis, and not on the basis of actual results.

The key expectation is the need to document the business rationale and expected benefits of acquiring the services already at the time of entering into the transaction, even if:

• the benefits ultimately do not materialise;
• the service recipient remains unprofitable.

Examples of potential benefits include, among others, increased revenues, reduced costs, operational efficiency, and expected - though not guaranteed - results.
 

2. Obligation to perform the analysis at the level of each service recipient

The draft explicitly states that the benefit test must be prepared and applied at the level of each entity using the services, i.e. on an entity-by-entity basis. As a consequence, it is necessary to attribute benefits to specific entities, while the following become unacceptable:

• global allocations without a specific justification of the benefits for individual entities;
• settlements without identifying the actual beneficiaries.
   

3. Separation of the benefit test and remuneration

One of the most important provisions from a practical perspective is that the OECD clearly distinguishes between the existence of the service, i.e. the benefit test, and its pricing, i.e. the arm’s length principle. The taxpayer must separately demonstrate that:

• the service was actually performed and generated, or could have generated, a benefit; and
• the remuneration is arm’s length.

This is also consistent with the logic reflected in Polish regulations concerning the arm’s length principle. An arm’s length price is not limited solely to the amount of remuneration, but also encompasses the overall terms of cooperation to which independent entities would have agreed. In the case at hand, it should therefore be concluded that a rationally acting independent entity would not be interested in paying for a service that was not performed, did not generate measurable benefits, or was not fully aimed at supporting the business activity carried out.

4. Expanded evidentiary requirements

The draft amendments to the OECD Guidelines present a catalogue of evidence that may support the benefit test analysis. This may include, among others:

• a description of expected benefits on an ex ante basis;
• project and operational documentation;
• internal communications, including email correspondence, summaries or minutes from important meetings;
• tangible results of the services, such as reports, analyses and other deliverables resulting from the services provided;
• detailed descriptions of functions and activities.

For intra-group services, this means a transition from general provisions in the group transfer pricing policy to specific operational evidence available and determined for the given service recipient.
 

5. Need to justify benefits that have not materialised

Another new element is the explicit requirement that, where the assumed effects have not been achieved, taxpayers should:

• explain the reasons;
• demonstrate that the further acquisition of services remains commercially rational;
• prove that an independent entity would have made a similar decision.

Areas of increased tax exposure

Summary

The draft amendments to the OECD Guidelines confirm the direction already observed in the practice of Polish tax authorities and courts. The benefit test is becoming one of the key elements of risk management in the area of corporate income tax and transfer pricing.

The greatest challenge is now the ability to demonstrate specific benefits at the level of individual service recipients, or to explain a temporary lack of benefits; to describe the commensurability of the services with the benefits received; to demonstrate the rationality of the services, including positioning the service recipient within the group’s value creation chain, i.e. explaining the need for the services in line with the business model; to prove the absence of duplication; to address the allocation principles; and to manage the evidence-gathering process itself.

The final shape of the amended OECD Guidelines is still to be awaited. Nevertheless, taking into account the planned changes, it may be expected that the solutions and approach expressed in the OECD Guidelines will in practice be used by the authorities when reviewing intra-group settlements, similarly to the current reliance on the OECD’s work in the area of financial transactions or debt capacity analyses.

If you need support in planning a benefit test and properly documenting intra-group services within your corporate group, please contact our Deloitte transfer pricing team — we will be pleased to assist you at every stage of the preparation process.