We review intercompany transactions, assess how prices are supported and coordinate documentation reflecting the functions, assets and risks involved.
A client came to ARG after transfer-pricing work had started without a clear sequence. ARG examined the Bulgarian rules alongside the client’s cross-border facts and prepared a position that could be used with the accountant, bank and counterparties.
Coordinating the issue as a whole helped the client understand how each document supported the wider position. The same approach matters when a Bulgarian company must connect its related-party transactions, pricing analysis, accounting records and tax documentation without treating each item in isolation.
ARG can help when you need to
Provide the ownership and control chart, director links and counterparties; connected persons extend beyond subsidiaries.
Bring last year’s accounts and a transaction register so the Article 71b exemptions, thresholds and aggregation rules can be tested.
Keep contracts, actual deliverables, loan terms, allocation calculations and financial data supporting the price.
A required local file is due by 30 June next year; arrange the multinational master file and annual updates separately.
A related-party transaction in Bulgaria is any transaction between connected persons where the pricing can affect the tax result, and the key question is whether the agreed terms match what independent parties would have accepted in the same market conditions. For transfer pricing, that matters because Article 15 of the Bulgarian Corporate Income Tax Act, the ZKPO, requires the tax result to be determined as if the related parties had acted independently when their terms differ from arm’s-length terms and change the taxable outcome. The rule is not about a formal label on the contract. It is about whether the economic result reflects market behaviour. Corporate Income Tax Act
If a Bulgarian company sells goods, provides services, charges interest, licenses intangibles, or allocates costs to an affiliated entity, the transfer-pricing issue is whether the price, margin, fee or allocation can be defended as arm’s length. That is why documentation exists. It is the evidence that shows how the company tested the price, what comparables or method it used, and why the result is commercially defensible. Without that support, the taxpayer is left arguing the conclusion after the fact instead of showing the reasoning in advance.
The arm’s-length rule is also distinct from the separate anti-avoidance rule in Article 16 of the ZKPO. Article 15 deals with related-party pricing and the adjustment of the tax result to an independent-party outcome. Article 16 is broader. It allows the authorities to ignore a transaction, some of its terms, or its legal form when the structure is used to avoid tax, and then to replace it with an ordinary market-priced transaction that achieves the same economic outcome without avoidance. In practice, that means a transfer-pricing file does not solve every tax risk. It addresses the related-party price. It does not immunise a structure that the authorities may view as abusive. Corporate Income Tax Act
For a company planning or reviewing related-party dealings, the practical decision is whether the transaction needs an arm’s-length analysis and organised supporting evidence. If the answer is yes, the company should not treat the price as a purely internal commercial choice. It should document the business rationale, the functions and risks of the parties, and the basis on which the price was set. That is especially important where the arrangement affects profit, loss, deductions or the taxable base.
A simple example makes the distinction easier to see. If a Bulgarian subsidiary pays its foreign parent a management fee, the transfer-pricing question is whether the fee is priced like a real market service. If the arrangement is instead designed to shift profit without a genuine service or without a market basis, the problem can move beyond transfer pricing and into the wider anti-avoidance rule. For that reason, the first legal question is not only whether the parties are related. It is whether the terms can withstand an arm’s-length challenge and whether the file supports that position.
The useful habit is to document the price before the audit, not after the challenge.
In practice, ARG’s role at this stage is to help a client sort the commercial deal into the correct tax category, identify which related-party flows need analysis, and determine what evidence will actually matter if the National Revenue Agency asks for it later. That is the point of the service. It turns a pricing decision into a defendable tax position rather than a retrospective explanation.
A controlled transaction is a commercial or financial arrangement between related persons: the connection can arise through ownership, control, management or the other relationships in DOPK §1, point 3. The arm’s-length rule in Corporate Income Tax Act Article 15 applies to domestic as well as international dealings. The formal local-file obligation is narrower. Article 71b of the Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code excludes taxpayers conducting controlled transactions only within Bulgaria, alongside its size and other exemptions. A domestic group therefore still needs defensible prices, even when it does not need the prescribed local file. DOPK Articles 71a–71b and additional definitions
The first step is to separate three different obligations that clients often mix together.
That distinction matters because a company can be compliant on one track and still exposed on another. A transfer-pricing file may support the local pricing analysis, but it does not replace country-by-country reporting where that regime applies. Likewise, a correct file does not prevent a structure from being challenged under the wider anti-avoidance rule if the authorities say the arrangement was used to avoid tax. National Revenue Agency transfer pricing guidance
The company must be able to substantiate its related-party prices under DOPK Article 116. For a management fee, that means showing who performed the work, what the Bulgarian business received, why the cost allocation reflects that benefit and how the markup was selected. An invoice saying “group support” proves neither the service nor its value. For a loan, the analysis instead needs the currency, term, security, borrower’s credit position and actual repayment conditions. Those differences determine the evidence and the appropriate comparison.
For a client, the decision point is whether the company has related-party flows that are material enough to require organised defence now. If it does, ARG can map the transactions, identify which obligations are triggered, and coordinate the documentation track with the company’s accountant and other relevant professionals. The immediate value is avoiding a mixed approach where one team prepares the accounting records, another handles the tax filing, and no one has a complete arm’s-length file ready if the NRA asks for it.
The documentation track is therefore narrower than many businesses assume, but also more important. It is narrower because it is aimed at related-party pricing. It is more important because the NRA treats it as proof, and because the same set of facts may also trigger separate reporting or anti-avoidance questions. The right next step is to determine the company’s transaction profile, confirm whether the large-enterprise documentation duty applies, and then choose the correct compliance track before the year-end filing pressure begins.
Start with the preceding year’s 31 December figures. The size exemption in Article 71b(2)(3) uses assets of €20 million, net sales of €40 million and average staff of 250; the formal regime generally requires exceeding at least two indicators, subject to the other exclusions. Then test each controlled transaction or properly aggregated set against Article 71b(5)–(9): goods, other transactions, loans and loan-related income have different thresholds. Comparable transactions can need aggregation across counterparties, while inseparable transactions with one related party have their own rule. Splitting one commercial arrangement into several invoices does not settle the threshold question. Transactions with individuals other than sole traders are excluded from the prescribed local file, but pricing and hidden-distribution rules still matter.
Prepare a threshold worksheet showing the relevant reporting year, company figures, transaction category, counterparties, aggregation decision and original currency. This lets management see why a file is required or why an exemption applies. It also prevents a size exemption from being mistaken for permission to use an arbitrary shareholder-loan interest rate. DOPK Article 71 b
Tell us where you live, how your business works and what you want to change. We will help you identify the questions to resolve and the next steps to consider.
The statutory deadline for the local file is 30 June of the following year, under DOPK Article 71д(1). For a multinational-group member required to keep a local file, the master file must be available within 12 months after that deadline. It covers the ultimate parent’s tax year beginning on 1 January or later in the local-file year. The Bulgarian company may obtain a master file prepared by the ultimate parent or another group entity; this is a duty to possess the relevant group documentation, not a duty imposed only on the parent. The file is retained and supplied when the revenue authority requests it, rather than routinely attached to the corporate return. DOPK Articles 71b(10),71д and 71 е
Article 71в specifies what the local file must contain. It connects the Bulgarian business and ownership structure with the controlled transactions, contracts, comparability analysis, selected method, tested party where relevant, comparables and financial reconciliation. Group services require an explanation of allocation keys; a profit-split analysis requires the chosen factors and their weights. Existing foreign pricing rulings or advance pricing agreements relevant to the transactions also belong in the record. The following working materials support those statutory requirements.
That checklist is useful because transfer-pricing documentation fails most often at the coordination stage, not at the legal theory stage. A company may have the contract, but not the comparable analysis. Or it may have accounting entries, but not the business explanation for why the fee, margin or allocation was set that way. ARG’s role is to turn those separate pieces into one defensible file, rather than leave the company with disconnected records that cannot answer the same question in the same way.
The local file explains the Bulgarian entity’s own functions, assets, risks and transactions. The master file explains the multinational group’s business, intangible assets, financing and pricing policy. Ask the group tax team for the correct reporting-year version and identify any missing information early. Article 71в(3) allows information required for the master file but absent from it to be included in the local file. A generic group presentation or an earlier year’s organisation chart does not automatically meet those requirements.
This is also where the service becomes commercial rather than purely legal. A tax consultant does not just draft text. The consultant has to decide what evidence is needed, who in the client organisation holds it, what needs translation or consolidation, and which facts must be consistent across the transfer-pricing file, the annual corporate tax return and the underlying bookkeeping. If those layers do not match, the NRA can treat the file as weak even if the form looks polished.
A useful way to think about it is this. The accountant usually owns the numbers. The business team owns the commercial explanation. ARG connects those two so the local file is not written as a legal essay detached from the real pricing process. That coordination is often the difference between a file that exists and a file that can actually defend the company.
A good local file is not a report about the transaction. It is the evidence trail behind the price.
Where the group is late in supplying its master file, identify the missing sections, the responsible group contact and the statutory availability date. Complete the local analysis using reliable local evidence, record outstanding group information and obtain the finished master file within the separate legal deadline. An “interim position” does not extend that deadline. The practical objective is to preserve a clear audit trail: when information was requested, what was received, which assumptions were replaced with evidence and how the final group account reconciles with the Bulgarian business.
If a corrective annual corporate tax return changes the transfer-pricing analysis, the company does not start from zero. The NRA guidance says the local file must be updated within 14 days after the correction is filed, but no later than 30 September of the current year. The trigger is the filing of the corrected return under Article 75(3) of the ZKPO, and the consequence of missing the deadline is that the file no longer reflects the corrected tax position on time. National Revenue Agency transfer pricing guidance
That timing rule is important because a corrective return can change more than the final tax number. It can change the transfer-pricing logic itself. For example, a corrected royalty deduction, a revised service fee or a restated year-end adjustment may alter the margin analysis that supported the original file. In that situation, the company must decide whether the existing file can be updated with targeted changes or whether the correction is so substantial that the supporting analysis should be rebuilt.
The practical sequence is usually straightforward.
That sequence matters because the file is only as credible as its internal consistency. A corrected return that changes profit but leaves the transfer-pricing file untouched invites questions about whether the company is documenting the right version of events. ARG’s role is to identify the exact knock-on effect of the correction and make sure the file tracks the new position rather than repeating the old one with a small note at the end.
A corrective filing can be routine, but it can also be a signal that the original pricing analysis needs a second look. If the correction reflects a material business change, the company should not treat the update as a clerical task. It should check whether the facts used for the arm’s-length analysis have changed. If they have, the update may need additional benchmarking, a new explanation of functions or risks, or a fresh link between the transaction and the profit outcome.
This is where a transfer-pricing consultant adds value beyond drafting. The consultant tests whether the correction is only numerical or whether it undermines the original method. That distinction matters commercially because a weak update can leave the company with two inconsistent positions. One in the tax return and one in the file.
If the correction is minor, the company may only need a targeted amendment. If it is significant, ARG would usually recommend revisiting the whole transaction set for the year, because one changed entry can affect the credibility of the broader file. The right next step is therefore not simply to edit the document. It is to check whether the correction changes the company’s transfer-pricing story and, if so, to refresh that story before the NRA asks for it.
A pricing adjustment and hidden profit distribution are distinct questions. Under ZKPO §1, point 5, an above-market benefit accrued, paid or otherwise distributed to shareholders, members or persons related to them can qualify as hidden distribution; Article 26(11) then denies the relevant deduction. Article 267 provides a 20% sanction with a statutory exception where the distribution is disclosed in the tax return. The correct response is to establish the recipient, actual benefit, amount and disclosure history before calculating consequences. A transfer-pricing adjustment does not make every related-party transaction a hidden dividend. NRA explanation of pricing and hidden distribution
The practical meaning is simple. If the authority challenges the price, the company must be ready to defend three things at once. First, why the price was commercial. Second, why the expense or margin should remain deductible. Third, why the facts do not justify a hidden-distribution characterisation. That is why the file must do more than show a calculation. It must show the transaction substance, the business purpose and the market basis together.
A hidden profit distribution finding can be more damaging than a routine transfer-pricing adjustment because it changes how the payment is viewed for tax purposes. Instead of being treated as an ordinary deductible business cost, the amount may be treated as a profit extraction from the company. That can affect the corporate tax result, the client’s position with counterparties and the way the accounting team books the item going forward.
For the company, the next decision is usually whether to contest the authority’s view, to amend the documentation and pricing policy, or to settle the issue prospectively by changing the pricing method. The right route depends on the strength of the comparables, the commercial logic of the arrangement and whether the documentation gap is narrow or structural. A one-off outlier can often be explained. A repeated pattern of non-market pricing is much harder to defend.
ARG’s practical value here is to separate the technical from the strategic. The technical question is whether the arm’s-length range was respected. The strategic question is whether the company should rebuild the transaction profile, update its evidence and align the transfer-pricing position with the wider tax filing and accounting treatment. If the answer is yes, the priority is to act before the issue is raised in a control procedure, because once the authority has framed the amount as hidden profit distribution, the company is already defending on a narrower field.
A client facing this risk should therefore review the pricing method, the local file, the group facts and any related reporting in one coordinated pass. That is the most practical next step, because the consequence of a weak defence is not confined to one year. It can shape how the same related-party flow is treated in future years as well.
Under Article 71е, files are prepared annually. If comparability factors have not materially changed, the search for comparable transactions or businesses must still be refreshed at least every three years, and the comparables’ financial data every year. A business restructuring, change in functions or new financing terms may require an earlier fresh analysis. Retain the search strategy, rejection reasons and source data so another reviewer can reproduce the conclusion.
Article 278a(5) separately penalises failure to prepare a required local file by up to 0.5% of the transactions for which it was required; for loans the base is the loan amount. Failure to produce the file within the authority’s requested deadline is treated as failure to prepare it. The master-file and inaccurate-data breaches have separate sanctions. This is why the final package needs an accessible location, an identified custodian and a reconciliation to the signed accounts, alongside the commercial analysis. DOPK Articles 71е and 278 a
Compare the related procedures in this category, including their requirements and the stage at which you need them.
.svg)
.svg)
