Controlled Transaction Reports in Practice: 4 Errors the SRS Will Spot First

In recent years, transfer pricing regulation in Latvia has gradually shifted away from formal document checks toward evaluating the economic substance of transactions. Recent amendments to Section 15.² of the Law on Taxes and Duties clearly reinforce this direction: the State Revenue Service (SRS) will receive structured information regarding transactions with related parties, which the SRS will evaluate as analyzable data rather than descriptive documentation.

This signifies a major shift in how companies approach transfer pricing daily. Until now, many companies viewed transfer pricing as a “documentation issue”—something prepared only if requested by the SRS or if mandatory submission criteria were met. Going forward, the primary tool for the SRS will be data analysis. Consequently, transfer pricing will become more critical, as errors most often occur not at the time of submission, but much earlier—when the company itself has not fully understood why prices are set as they are.

While certain aspects of submitting the controlled transaction report (CTR) are still being refined in practice, the essential point is already clear: the report is submitted to the SRS in a structured data format, and the focus will be on numerical indicators. In this format, specific errors and inconsistencies become immediately apparent, regardless of the volume of explanations provided. Below are four common errors that will be visible in the structured data from the very first report.

Error 1: Focusing on Form Rather Than Economic Justification of Prices

Companies currently often focus on how to correctly fill out the CTR form in the EDS (Electronic Declaration System) rather than on what this data reveals in substance. However, it is the content, not the form, that will be decisive.
The essence of transfer pricing is not the form, but the price—specifically, whether the price at which a company sells goods or provides services to its related party matches the price that unrelated companies would apply under similar circumstances. This is precisely what the arm’s length principle dictates.

What the SRS will see:

The SRS will not see the company’s explanations or intentions; the SRS will see numbers. Profit levels, markups, revenue-to-cost ratios, price fluctuations over the years, and the chosen pricing method. If these indicators do not form a logical overall picture, a technically correct report will not improve the situation.

Why this happens:

In practice, companies often postpone price evaluations with the excuse that “nothing needs to be submitted yet” or “no one is asking for anything for now.” However, structured data means the SRS can very quickly compare similar companies and notice cases where profits or prices significantly deviate from industry levels, subsequently requesting explanations or documentation.

Why this is a risk:

If a company cannot clearly explain to itself why a price is set as it is, it will eventually have to provide that explanation during an SRS tax audit.

In practice, this means:

If a price is not economically justified today, it will not be justified tomorrow—regardless of how accurately the CTR fields are filled. Transfer pricing begins not with document preparation, but with an understanding of your business and how prices are formed in transactions with related parties.

Error 2: Choosing a Market Pricing Method Without Evaluating the Economic Substance of the Transaction

Many companies use the same pricing approach for years without truly considering why that specific method was chosen. Often the answer is simple: “that’s how it was before” or “a consultant recommended it several years ago.”
However, in transfer pricing, the method is not a technical formality. It determines which question the company is trying to answer when justifying its price. In other words, the method defines exactly what we are comparing against the market. For example, one method compares the price of a specific transaction, while another compares profit levels. If the method is chosen incorrectly, even a price that seemingly aligns with market levels may fail to meet market price conditions.

Why the method is so important from the SRS perspective:

With structured data, the SRS will see not only the final result but also how the company arrived at it. If different or obviously inappropriate methods are applied to similar types of transactions across different companies, it will immediately signal a potential risk to the SRS.

What the SRS will see:

The SRS will see if the same method is applied to completely different transactions—for example, to both simple, low-risk administrative services and strategically significant, profit-generating functions. In such cases, a valid question arises: does the method reflect the economic reality of the transaction at all?

Why this is a risk:

Every transaction has its own substance—who assumes the risk, who makes the decisions, who invests the assets, and who actually creates value. The market pricing method must reflect these aspects. If the method ignores them, the price becomes vulnerable—not because it is “too high” or “too low,” but because its justification is illogical.

In practice, this means:

An incorrectly chosen method makes the price contestable even if the figure itself looks reasonable. Conversely, a correctly chosen and justified method is often the strongest defense tool before the SRS—even in cases where the result is not ideal.

Error 3: Inappropriately Selected Comparable Data for Determining Market Prices

When companies first encounter transfer pricing, one of the most common surprises is the requirement to use comparable data. From the outside, it may seem simple—find a few similar companies, look at the numbers, and compare. However, in practice, this is where some of the most serious risks arise.

Important to understand:

In transfer pricing, it is not enough for companies to operate in the same industry or sell similar products. What is crucial is the economic role the company plays in the specific transaction. Companies with different functions, risks, and levels of responsibility should objectively not earn the same, even if they appear similar externally.

That is why market price comparisons are based not on the industry name, but on the company’s actual activities and assumed risks. If these aspects are not taken into account, the market comparison becomes formal and easily contestable.

What the SRS will see:

In the structured data, the SRS will see the sources from which comparable companies were taken, their financial indicators, and how wide or narrow the selected range is. If the comparable companies differ significantly in their business model or risk profile, it will be immediately apparent.

Why this happens:

Companies often use the first publicly available or “convenient” comparable data they find, rather than the most appropriate. The reason is usually not malice but a lack of experience—it is difficult to evaluate which data is truly comparable without a deep understanding of the market, comparable companies, and data analysis.

Why this is a risk:

If the comparable market is chosen too broadly or inappropriately, the SRS may conclude that the company’s profit level does not match the market price—even if the numbers look “normal.” The problem is not the figures, but what they are being compared against.

In practice, this means:

Poorly justified comparable data significantly reduces a company’s ability to defend its price level. Conversely, a qualitatively selected set of comparable companies is often the main argument that prevents disputes with the SRS regarding the chosen comparables and, consequently, compliance with market prices.

Error 4: Choosing the Tested Party “By Default” Rather Than by Logic

Another typical error is choosing the tested party without clear justification. For non-professionals, the concept itself often seems complex, but the idea is actually very simple.

What is the tested party (explained simply):

It is the party to the transaction whose profit we compare with the market. In other words, we choose one company and ask: does this company, with its functions, risks, and assets, earn as much as similar companies in the free market?

Why the choice is critical:

Not all parties to a transaction are equally suitable for testing. Usually, the company with the simpler business model, limited risk profile, and no significant unique assets is chosen as the tested party. If a complex, strategically important, or high-risk party is chosen for testing, the market price justification becomes not only methodologically weaker but also significantly riskier from a tax control perspective. In such cases, it is much easier for the SRS to contest both the suitability of the comparable data and the chosen approach itself, as the company’s financial results are objectively not directly comparable to market data. The submission of structured data means that such an inappropriate choice of the tested party can be identified at the initial analysis stage, without requesting additional documents.

What the SRS will see:

The SRS will see which party the company has chosen to test and will compare it with the comparable data used. If the tested party, by its nature, does not match the chosen method or data, it is a clear signal of insufficient analysis.

Why companies make mistakes here:

In practice, companies often err in choosing the tested party due to inertia and convenience rather than malice. Frequently, a previously used approach is continued without checking if it still matches the actual transaction model, or the party for which data is most easily available is chosen for testing. However, in transfer pricing, the decisive factor is not data availability, but which party is objectively most suitable for market comparison. Convenience considerations here often lead to a situation where a methodologically incorrect reference point is chosen, which later significantly weakens the entire price justification.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that many companies do not realize that choosing the tested party is not a technical formality, but a strategic decision that determines how easy or difficult it will be to defend the transaction in a tax audit.

In practice, this means:

An incorrectly chosen tested party can make the entire price justification vulnerable, even if other calculations are correct. Conversely, a logically chosen tested party makes it easier to justify the price and significantly reduces the risk of a dispute with the SRS.

If a transaction party with a complex distribution of functions, significant risks, or unique assets is chosen for testing, the SRS will have considerably more opportunities to question both the method and the final result. Under the conditions of structured data submission, such errors no longer remain “deep in the documentation” but become visible during the initial analytical comparison.

Conclusion

The new amendments to transfer pricing regulations significantly change the approach the State Revenue Service will take in evaluating transactions with related parties. The emphasis is shifting away from the formal existence of documentation and toward whether transaction prices economically align with market conditions. The submission of structured data means that the SRS will now see not only the final result but also the key methodological decisions made, the comparable data used, and the chosen tested party.

This, in turn, means that errors that could previously remain “deep within the documentation” will become noticeable much faster. An insufficiently justified method, poorly chosen comparable data, or an incorrectly determined tested party will no longer be just a theoretical risk—they could become a direct basis for SRS intervention and price adjustments.

For companies, this directly means that transfer pricing is no longer a question of whether documentation is “prepared and sitting on a shelf somewhere.” It is a question of whether transaction prices are systematically evaluated, justified, and defensible even when the SRS analyzes them automatically.

At this stage, timely professional consultation allows not only for risk prevention but also for organizing the transfer pricing approach so that it works in the company’s favor in the long term—before questions arise, not after.