ZATCA’s Audit Approach: A Maturing Enforcement Environment
ZATCA’s TP enforcement posture has changed materially since the Bylaws were introduced in 2019. The June 2024 Guidelines signal an authority that has moved beyond framework-setting and is increasingly focused on operational enforcement. TP review is integrated into ZATCA’s annual assessment process — the Disclosure Form is its primary risk-screening tool.
The June 2024 Guidelines (Chapter 13) confirm the enforcement framework: where a taxpayer has not prepared TP documentation in accordance with the Guidelines, the burden of proof on that taxpayer is increased. ZATCA will assess to what extent the taxpayer has provided sufficient information to meet requirements under the increased burden. In practice, this means documentation absence shifts evidentiary leverage to ZATCA before any dispute begins.
Risk Indicators That Attract ZATCA Scrutiny
| Risk Indicator | Why It Attracts Scrutiny | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Persistent Saudi entity losses in profitable group | Suggests profit shifted out via over-priced charges or under-priced sales | High |
| Disproportionate management fees or royalties as % of revenue | Classic profit-shifting indicator; intragroup charges consuming most Saudi revenue | High |
| Transactions with entities in low-tax jurisdictions | Profit-shifting risk highest where counterparty pays materially lower tax rates | High |
| Incomplete or inconsistent Disclosure Form | Missing information, discrepancies vs. prior years, or descriptions not matching known activities | High |
| No documentation produced within 30-day window | Failure to produce shifts burden of proof and suggests TP was not properly considered | High |
| Business restructurings disclosed | Transfer of functions/assets/risks out of Saudi Arabia requires TP analysis and may require compensation | Medium-High |
| Significant IP royalty payments without clear value creation | Royalties eroding the Saudi tax base must be supported by evidence of genuine commercial value | Medium-High |
| Intercompany debt at below- or above-market rates | Under/over-pricing of intercompany loans represents implicit profit transfer | Medium-High |
Article 4 Adjustment Powers
Taxpayer’s self-adjustment obligation (Article 4(A)): Where controlled transaction conditions are not arm’s length, the taxpayer must make adjustments to its tax or Zakat base and report these in the annual declaration. This is a self-assessment obligation — taxpayers are required to identify and correct non-arm’s-length pricing, not wait for ZATCA.
ZATCA’s adjustment powers (Article 4(B)): Where the taxpayer has not made necessary adjustments, or ZATCA disagrees with the taxpayer’s position, ZATCA may: (1) direct that the tax or Zakat base be adjusted to include the returns that should have accrued; or (2) reallocate or disregard the result of a controlled transaction to reflect what would have arisen in a comparable arm’s length transaction. This second power — to disregard a transaction — is most likely exercised where substance differs materially from form.
Adjustment to the most appropriate point in the range: Under Article 12, ZATCA adjusts to the point within the arm’s length range that best reflects the facts and circumstances — not automatically to the median.
The Burden of Proof: How It Shifts
| Documentation Status | Burden of Proof Position | Practical Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Contemporaneous Local File and Master File meeting Guidelines’ requirements | Shared — ZATCA must demonstrate the pricing is not at arm’s length | Taxpayer has a clear evidentiary foundation to defend its position |
| Absent or inadequate documentation | Materially shifted against the taxpayer | ZATCA may proceed on available information; taxpayer must demonstrate arm’s length without contemporaneous support |
| Documentation prepared retrospectively after audit contact | Weaker than contemporaneous — even if technically correct | ZATCA and experienced practitioners identify retrospective preparation from structure, content, and timing |
Corresponding Adjustments and MAP
When ZATCA makes a TP adjustment, the consequences extend beyond the Saudi entity:
Primary adjustment: ZATCA’s upward revision of the Saudi entity’s taxable income or Zakat base to reflect arm’s length conditions.
Corresponding adjustment (Article 20): If the primary adjustment is consistent with the arm’s length principle, ZATCA makes a corresponding reduction to the tax base of the related foreign party, to eliminate economic double taxation. This requires the foreign jurisdiction to agree — typically through MAP under the applicable tax treaty.
ZATCA may reject a corresponding adjustment application where: (1) the arrangement is artificial, abusive, or primarily tax/Zakat motivated; or (2) a final, unappealable judicial decision on the matter already exists.
The Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) is available under Saudi Arabia’s tax treaties for disputes involving taxation not in accordance with the treaty. Where ZATCA makes a primary adjustment and the foreign authority does not agree to the corresponding reduction, the taxpayer can request MAP through both competent authorities. Without a qualifying treaty or an effective MAP, double taxation on the adjusted profit results.
Advance Pricing Agreements: Certainty for Complex Transactions
The APA framework was formally introduced by Article 23 of the TP Bylaws via the March 2023 amendments — a significant development enabling upfront certainty for qualifying taxpayers. Key features:
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Minimum transaction value | SAR 100 million per transaction (ZATCA Governor may exempt complex transactions) |
| Lead time required | At least 12 months before the first covered fiscal year begins |
| Pre-filing meeting | ZATCA holds a preliminary meeting before accepting the application |
| APA term | Three years, with annual compliance reports required |
| Application | Prospective only — does not apply retroactively to years under examination |
The APA framework was established in March 2023. The practical procedures, timelines, and ZATCA’s processing capacity are still developing. Taxpayers considering an APA should verify the current status directly with ZATCA or through a qualified TP advisor before committing to the application process.
APAs are available in unilateral form (ZATCA only) or bilateral form (ZATCA and the foreign competent authority under an applicable treaty). A bilateral APA provides certainty on both sides of the transaction and eliminates double taxation risk for the covered period.
Common Mistakes That Compound TP Audit Risk
- Treating the Disclosure Form as a formality. ZATCA uses every line — transaction type, counterparty jurisdiction, TP method, amounts — as an audit selection tool. Careless preparation creates exactly the triggers ZATCA looks for.
- Accepting ZATCA’s initial position without analysis. ZATCA’s initial TP adjustment proposal is not necessarily the final word. A well-prepared Local File and economic analysis are the tools for contesting it.
- Not pursuing corresponding adjustments. When accepting a primary adjustment, consider whether to seek a corresponding reduction in the foreign jurisdiction through MAP. Without this, double taxation results on the same profit.
- Not updating documentation for business changes. A restructuring, new intercompany arrangement, or change in functional profile all require documentation to be updated. Last year’s Local File for a materially different business is non-compliant.
- Ignoring the APA option for material transactions. For high-value, complex arrangements above SAR 100M, the APA removes audit uncertainty entirely for the covered period. The 12-month lead time means APA planning must begin well before the transaction year.
Worked Example: ZATCA TP Adjustment
Al-Tamimi Trading Co. — Distributor Under Scrutiny
Al-Tamimi Trading Co. is a Saudi-based distributor of imported capital equipment (70% German-owned / 30% Saudi-owned). It has reported operating losses in three of the last four years — margins ranging from -3% to -6% — while the German parent reports strong consolidated profitability.
ZATCA’s analysis: Al-Tamimi’s own Local File benchmarking study (TNMM on operating margin) shows an IQR of 2%–9% for comparable independent distributors. Al-Tamimi’s -3% to -6% results are below the lower bound of its own analysis. Al-Tamimi holds inventory, bears collection risk, manages the local sales force, and has minimum purchase volume commitments — a risk profile that should produce a positive, stable return under the arm’s length principle.
The adjustment: ZATCA applies TNMM and adjusts Al-Tamimi’s purchase price from the German parent to produce operating margin at the lower bound of the range (2%). For the year where Al-Tamimi’s revenue was SAR 120M and operating loss was SAR 3.6M (margin: -3%), the arm’s length operating profit at 2% = SAR 2.4M. Primary adjustment = SAR 2.4M − (−SAR 3.6M) = SAR 6 million additional taxable income. Additional CIT at 20%: SAR 1.2 million on the 70% non-Saudi share.
Cross-regime consequence: The SAR 6M adjustment simultaneously increases Al-Tamimi’s CIT base (on the 70% non-Saudi share) and potentially its Zakat base (on the 30% Saudi share). Both must be addressed.
The documentation gap: Al-Tamimi’s Local File contains a TNMM analysis but does not adequately explain the multi-year losses or document specific adverse business circumstances that might justify below-range performance. Without contemporaneous explanation, ZATCA’s adjustment stands.
Frequently Asked Questions
- ZATCA uses the TP Disclosure Form as its primary audit risk-screening tool. Treat it with the same care as the tax return itself.
- Under Article 4 of the Bylaws, ZATCA can adjust controlled transactions that are not arm’s length — and can disregard transactions where substance differs from form.
- The burden of proof shifts materially against the taxpayer where documentation is absent or inadequate. Contemporaneous documentation does not guarantee success — but its absence makes success very difficult.
- When accepting a primary adjustment, always consider whether a corresponding adjustment from the foreign entity’s tax authority should be sought — through MAP or bilateral agreement. Without this, double taxation results.
- The APA framework (Article 23, March 2023) provides three years of certainty for complex transactions above SAR 100M. Planning must begin at least 12 months before the covered fiscal year.
Also worth reading
This article reflects the Saudi Transfer Pricing Bylaws (March 2023 version) and the ZATCA Transfer Pricing Guidelines (June 2024 edition). It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Readers should confirm the current position with ZATCA guidance or a qualified Saudi TP advisor. dariba.co is an independent platform with no consulting relationships.
Leave a Reply