This master’s thesis has analyzed the issues multinational enterprises (MNE) have when determining the arm’s length price from intra group services rendered from a group service center (GSC). The thesis is based on the recommendations from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the legislations in Sweden, Germany, USA, and Denmark. There are several factors that could cause issues for services rendered from a GSC.

GSCs render services to the members of a MNE. These types of services are often managerial, supervisory, marketing, or other kinds of services, which are preformed more efficiently if centralized in the MNE rather than if each member of the MNE would perform the services themselves. The research has shown three specific issues that have caused problems for MNEs: When is a service chargeable? Is the applied method for charging appropriate? And, how should the remuneration be determined? The concerned countries have different rules and regulations towards dealing with these issues, which have caused problems for MNE operating in these countries.

There is no other category of transaction that has caused as much disagreement between taxpayers and tax authorities as intra group services. Countries seem to have different approaches towards when services are chargeable, which in situations create disputes between taxpayers and the countries’ tax authorities.

The appropriate method for charging is dependent of the concerned countries. Three of the countries have a negative attitude towards indirect charging, while one has no preference. Consequently, this has caused problems for MNE to price services.

Three of the countries apply the OECD’s recommendations, when determine the appropriate pricing method. OECD has a hierarchy of the methods, whereas USA applies the best method rule, which means that they have no preference over a certain pricing method. The most common methods for pricing services are the cost plus method and the transactional net margin method. However, there are situations where some of the countries do not approve a profit element in the charge. In these situations, the OECD‘s recommendations do not provide a clear and straight answer, whereas the US Regulations have very strict and clear regulations when a service should be charged without a profit element.

There could be many factors to why countries have different interpretations: ambiguous recommendations from the OECD; subjective opinions from governments, tax authorities and courts; protectionism; language barriers; accounting standards; the differences in the legal value of the OECD recommendations; and probably other factors which has not been considered. Inferentially, the OECD should be more open to a “US approach”, by giving more clear, precise and direct recommendations. A “US approach” gives more predictability to practitioners. Direct, clear and precise recommendations will give less room for interpretation, thus, less confusion in practice. Even if this has to be accepted by countries it should lead to less confusion and hopefully decrease double taxation for MNEs.