Skip to main content
ScotlandBusiness ManagementSyllabus dot point

What is transfer pricing, why do multinationals use it, and what are the ethical and legal issues it raises?

Transfer pricing: the prices set for goods, services and intellectual property moved between divisions of the same multinational, how it is used to shift profit to low-tax countries, and the ethical and regulatory issues this creates.

What transfer pricing means in Advanced Higher Business Management: the prices a multinational sets for internal transfers between its divisions, how it can be used to shift profit to low-tax countries, and the ethical, reputational and regulatory issues this raises.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.813 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this key area is asking
  2. Defining transfer pricing
  3. How profit is shifted
  4. The issues it raises
  5. Examples in context
  6. Why transfer pricing is examined
  7. Try this

What this key area is asking

Transfer pricing is the price one part of a multinational charges another part for goods, services or intellectual property moved between them. Because these transactions are internal, the firm has discretion over the price, and that discretion can be used to shift profit to low-tax countries. Advanced Higher expects you to explain the mechanism clearly and then evaluate the ethical, reputational and regulatory issues it raises, a textbook contemporary external issue.

Defining transfer pricing

Every multinational must set internal prices simply to account for goods moving between its units, so transfer pricing is normal and necessary. The controversy is about manipulating those prices to minimise tax rather than to reflect real value.

How profit is shifted

  • High internal prices from the low-tax unit. Components, finished goods or services are invoiced expensively from a subsidiary in a low-tax country, loading costs onto units in high-tax countries.
  • Royalties and licence fees. Brands, patents or management services held in a low-tax jurisdiction are charged out to operating units, moving profit offshore as royalties.
  • The net effect. The group's taxable profit pools in low-tax countries, cutting the total tax bill, even though the real sales and production happen elsewhere.

The issues it raises

Transfer pricing sits at the intersection of strategy, ethics and law.

  • For the firm. Lower global tax and higher retained profit, but reputational damage and possible boycotts if seen as avoiding a fair share, the risk of investigation and large back-tax demands, and heavy compliance costs.
  • For governments and society. Erosion of the tax base where value is genuinely created, a heavier burden on other taxpayers, weaker public services, and an unfair advantage over domestic firms that cannot shift profit.
  • The regulatory response. Tax authorities and the OECD enforce the arm's length principle, demand detailed transfer-pricing documentation, and pursue base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), so the practice is increasingly risky.

Examples in context

Why transfer pricing is examined

Transfer pricing is a flagship contemporary issue: it ties together the multinational, globalisation, ethics and government policy, and it is in the news through high-profile tax disputes. A strong candidate can explain the tax mechanism precisely and then judge it against the firm's reputation, the law and the public interest.

Try this

Q1. Define transfer pricing. [2 marks]

  • Cue. The price one division of a multinational charges another division for goods, services or intellectual property transferred internally, often across countries.

Q2. Explain how transfer pricing can reduce a multinational's tax bill. [3 marks]

  • Cue. A low-tax unit charges a high internal price to a high-tax unit, loading costs there and booking profit in the low-tax country, so the group's overall tax falls.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

SQA AH style6 marksExplain how a multinational could use transfer pricing to reduce its tax bill.
Show worked answer →

Explain means reasons with development. A multinational sets the prices at which its own divisions in different countries sell goods, services and intellectual property to each other. Because these are internal prices, the firm can choose them to move profit to where it is taxed least. It does this by having a division in a low-tax country charge a high price to a division in a high-tax country.

The high-tax division then records high costs and low profit, so pays little tax there, while the low-tax division records high profit but is taxed lightly. Charging royalties for brands or patents held in a low-tax jurisdiction works the same way. The effect is to shift the group's overall taxable profit into low-tax countries, cutting the total tax bill, even though the real economic activity happens elsewhere. The best answers show the mechanism, high internal price out of the low-tax unit, not just assert that tax falls.

SQA AH style8 marksDiscuss the issues that aggressive transfer pricing raises for a multinational and for society.
Show worked answer →

Discuss means weigh the case and judge. For the firm, the benefit is a lower global tax bill and higher retained profit for shareholders, and it is often legal if defensible. But the costs are serious: reputational damage and consumer boycotts if it is seen as not paying a fair share; investigation and large back-tax demands as governments and the OECD tighten rules and require the arm's length principle; and the cost of complex compliance and documentation.

For society, aggressive transfer pricing erodes the tax base of the countries where value is really created, shifting the burden onto other taxpayers and starving public services, and it disadvantages domestic firms that cannot shift profit. A strong answer weighs the private gain against the reputational, legal and social cost and judges that the practice is increasingly risky as transparency rules tighten, so the short-term tax saving may not be worth the long-term damage.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this