.jpg)
Transfer pricing becomes a financial control issue the moment related entities exchange goods or services. For U.S.-Canada groups, it also becomes a cross-border compliance requirement touching tax, accounting, and operations. The U.S. applies IRC Section 482. Canada applies ITA Section 247. Both rely on OECD principles, but administer, document, and audit them differently.
Many mid-market companies only realize their exposure when the IRS or CRA raises questions. Although agreements and benchmarking studies are in place, operations, accounting records, and actual pricing often deviate from the documented models. When this occurs, transfer pricing can turn into a liability.
A defensible U.S.-Canada framework must be consistent, documented, and integrated into monthly accounting workflows. Below are the core issues we see across cross-border groups along with how to build a model that withstands IRS and CRA review.
Transfer Pricing Is a Financial Control, Not Just a Tax Calculation
Too many companies treat transfer pricing as a tax compliance exercise. In reality, it shapes revenue, COGS, margins, and entity-level results. If pricing changes quarter to quarter without rationale, both the IRS and the CRA question whether the group is artificially allocating income.
Equally important: GAAP requires intercompany revenue, expenses, and margins to reconcile logically. Year-end adjustments destroy margin visibility and compromise financial controls.
Example: Inconsistent Markups Erode Credibility (Chicago, IL / Vancouver, BC)
A Chicago-based tech company charged a Canadian subsidiary using a “cost-plus” method. In practice, the markup ranged from 8% to 22% across quarters. No documentation supported the changes.
CRA and the IRS both challenged the pattern.
TYM Consulting rebuilt the model, documented comparable ranges, and embedded the markup into monthly close cycles - eliminating late adjustments.
Value Creation Must Drive Pricing — Not Year-End Targets
Authorities prioritize substance over form. A Canadian entity engaged in basic distribution activities earns a standard return. Conversely, if it takes on strategic roles like marketing, account management, or IP development, its return should be higher. Relying solely on year-end pricing seems artificial.
Year-end true-ups are audit red flags. IRS looks for Q4 income shifts. CRA evaluates whether results fall outside comparable ranges.
Example: Service Fees Not Tied to Real Activity (Austin, TX / Montreal, QC)
A U.S. parent company charged a fixed management fee to its Montreal subsidiary, but when the CRA requested proof of services rendered, none could be provided.
TYM Consulting built a service allocation model tied to time records and activity support.
The updated structure aligned returns with economic reality and satisfied both the IRS and the CRA.
Weak Documentation Is the Most Common Failure Point
The IRS and CRA penalties often arise not from incorrect pricing but from insufficient documentation.
A defensible file requires:
- A functional analysis aligned with actual operations
- Explanation of the chosen method
- Benchmarking and defined ranges
- Updated intercompany agreements
- Links to financial statements and cost pools
- Evidence of consistent application
Most mid-market groups miss at least two of these.
Example: Documentation Gaps Expand Audit Scope (Phoenix, AZ / Winnipeg, MB)
Agreements were outdated. Benchmarking has expired. Cost allocations lacked support.
CRA escalated testing.
TYM Consulting has completely reconstructed the file. During the following CRA review, audit inquiries dropped by 72%.
.jpeg)
Transfer Pricing Must Run Through the Monthly Close
A model that “works” only at year's end is indefensible. IRS and CRA expect a stable application throughout the year.
Weak month-end alignment leads to:
- inconsistent cost pools
- fluctuating markups
- late true-ups
- inflated intercompany balances
- unreliable GAAP margins
Example: Misaligned Cost Base Creates Audit Exposure (Seattle, WA / Ottawa, ON)
A cost-plus model used a cost base that didn’t match GAAP. Some departments booked expenses only quarterly.
Margins shifted unpredictably.
TYM Consulting standardized cost centers, aligned the cost base with accounting records, and automated entries. Variances stabilized within the documented range.
How to Build a Defensible U.S.-Canada Transfer Pricing Framework
A sustainable framework has five components:
1. Functional Mapping
Identify what each entity actually does, what assets it uses, and which risks it manages.
2. Method Selection (with justification)
Select cost-plus, resale-minus, TNMM, or CUP and document why alternatives were not chosen.
3. Benchmarking and Ranges
Maintain current comparable margins. Refresh benchmarking when functions change.
4. Operational Integration
Embed pricing into:
- cost centers
- monthly close
- KPIs
- intercompany workflows
5. Documentation and Governance
Maintain agreements, benchmarking, financial links, and a complete audit file. Assign owners in tax, accounting, and FP&A.
How to Build a Defensible U.S.-Canada Transfer Pricing Framework
1. Functional Mapping
A defensible framework begins by understanding what each entity actually does. Document the functions performed on each side, including management, production, distribution, and service delivery. Identify the assets used, including equipment, technology, and intangible property. Describe the risks borne by each entity, such as inventory exposure, credit exposure, regulatory exposure, and decision-making authority. Build a clear picture of the value chain so that each entity’s contribution is transparent and supported by evidence.
2. Method Selection with Justification
Select the transfer pricing method that best matches the functional reality. Cost Plus is common for routine service providers or low-risk entities. Resale Minus fits distributors that do not own significant intellectual property. TNMM is appropriate when net margins provide more reliable comparability. CUP may apply if genuine third-party pricing exists. The justification must explain why the chosen method is the most reliable and why the alternatives are not suitable, using IRS section 1.482, CRA IC87-2R, and OECD guidance as the standard.
3. Benchmarking and Arm’s Length Ranges
Support the selected method with a current, defensible benchmarking study. Maintain a comparable set that matches functions, assets, and risks. Document search criteria, screening logic, and the final arm’s length ranges. Refresh the benchmarking analysis when the business model changes or when new functions or risks are created. Compare actual results to the arm’s length range throughout the year to stay compliant and make year-end adjustments when necessary.
4. Operational Integration
Ensure the transfer pricing policy operates inside the business rather than only on paper. Integrate the model into cost centers, monthly close procedures, budgeting, forecasting, and internal workflows. Configure intercompany invoices and allocations so they reflect the documented pricing. Align KPIs and performance measures so they do not conflict with the model's economic logic. Transfer pricing should function automatically within accounting and FP&A processes.
5. Documentation and Governance
Maintain complete and well-organized documentation that can be provided to the IRS or CRA at any time. Keep signed intercompany agreements, the full benchmarking file, functional mapping, financial schedules, allocation workpapers, and narrative support. Ensure the documentation is updated annually and reflects actual conduct. Assign clear ownership across tax, accounting, and FP&A for maintaining the policy, executing transactions, and reviewing results. The goal is to maintain a consistent, transparent, and audit-ready transfer pricing framework.
CPA-Led U.S.-Canada Workflow
- Perform functional analysis tied to actual operations
- Select and document the method
- Build comparables and define ranges
- Implement cost pools, markups, and automated entries
- Maintain documentation, agreements, and audit links
- Refresh the model every 2-3 years
Results from TYM Clients
- Audit queries reduced by 54%
- Forecast accuracy improved by 27% after linking transfer pricing with FP&A
Common Errors That Trigger IRS and CRA Audit
- Fixed margins without a documented method
- Quarterly pricing changes without a rationale
- Outdated agreements
- Failure to update the model when functions change
- Relying on advisors without operational execution
Example: Outdated Agreements Undermine the File (Boston / Edmonton)
A Canadian subsidiary assumed new supply chain and customer onboarding roles.
Agreements still defined it as a “routine distributor.”
CRA questioned the mismatch.
TYM Consulting updated agreements, refreshed analysis, and recalculated target margins - closing the audit without adjustments.
Transfer Pricing Impacts FP&A and Forecasting
Intercompany pricing shapes margins, segment results, and forecasts. If pricing fluctuates or drivers are unclear, variance analysis becomes unreliable.
Example: Misaligned Pricing Reduces Forecast Accuracy (Denver / Toronto)
A Canadian distributor took on additional marketing roles, but the pricing model never changed.
Margins drifted outside target ranges.
TYM Consulting updated the functional analysis and aligned the pricing method.
Forecast variance dropped 36%.
Finally
Transfer pricing is not just a tax requirement.
It is:
- a financial control,
- a tax compliance obligation,
- a forecasting driver,
- and a cross-border governance framework.
A defensible U.S.-Canada model requires documentation, consistency, and operational alignment, not year-end adjustments.
If your intercompany pricing varies, documentation is outdated, or year-end adjustments keep growing, your group is already on the IRS/CRA radar.
Want to Strengthen Your Transfer Pricing Framework?
TYM Consulting provides CPA-led transfer pricing support for U.S.-Canada groups:
- Method selection & benchmarking
- Intercompany policy design
- Monthly close integration
- Documentation and audit file preparation
- Cross-border tax alignment (IRS & CRA)
Book a free consultation with our CPA team to assess your transfer pricing model and reduce audit exposure.
.jpg)
.jpg)
