The primary adjustment changes the taxable profit. The secondary adjustment then characterises the money that never moved. If your profit is increased because an affiliate was charged too little, cash is sitting with that affiliate which, on the corrected pricing, should have come to you. The rules can treat that balance as a deemed loan to the affiliate, and a loan carries interest, which accrues for as long as the balance is outstanding. So the interest is not a penalty on the pricing. It is the consequence of the money having stayed where it was.
Do I need TP adjustments & secondary adjustments?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
Secondary adjustments can treat the difference as a deemed loan or a deemed dividend, with interest or withholding attached. The requirement usually turns on whether a transaction happened at all, not on how large it was.
Whether you need it
Secondary adjustments can treat the difference as a deemed loan or a deemed dividend, with interest or withholding attached. Repatriation arrangements and the treaty's corresponding-adjustment article are the tools that limit the compounding.

The case that is treated differently
A transfer-pricing adjustment rarely arrives alone. The primary adjustment changes the profit, and a secondary adjustment then characterises the money that never moved.
Where to go from here
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on TP adjustments & secondary adjustments. We would rather scope it properly than quote it quickly.
Read and approved for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Published as general information. For a position on your own file, call the 24-hour helpline.
Cross-border situations we are engaged for
Modelling the secondary consequences before conceding the primary figure
An auditor proposed an increase to a subsidiary's profit and the group was minded to accept it and move on. We worked out what came next: how the resulting balance would be characterised, the interest that would run on it, and what relief the other country might give. The full picture was materially different from the figure on the table. The engagement produced a costing of the whole sequence, and the group negotiated the primary adjustment knowing what each part of its outcome would carry with it.
Read how this one runsA deemed loan that had been accruing interest unnoticed
A group had settled an adjustment in an earlier year and closed the file. The balance created by it was treated as a deemed loan to the affiliate and interest had been accruing since, unrecorded in either set of accounts. We established the date the balance arose, computed the accrued amount on the basis the rules applied, brought it into both companies' records and put a repatriation arrangement in place to stop it running further. The engagement produced a reconciled intercompany balance and a closing position for the earlier adjustment.
Read how this one runsRepatriating the balance under a documented arrangement
Following an adjustment, the cash the corrected pricing said should have moved was still with the affiliate. Rather than leave it to compound, we set out the repatriation as a documented arrangement, agreed within the group and supported by the corrected pricing analysis, with the accounting entries in both jurisdictions matched to it. The engagement produced a settled intercompany balance, an audit trail linking the payment to the adjustment that created it, and the end of the interest that would otherwise have continued to accrue.
Read how this one runsPursuing a corresponding adjustment under the treaty
One country had increased a group company's profit on a pricing adjustment. The other had made no matching reduction, so the same profit was being taxed on both sides. We prepared the competent authority request under the corresponding-adjustment article of the treaty, with the functional analysis and the pricing support that the second authority would need in order to accept the first one's adjustment as appropriate. The engagement produced the request as filed and one consistent account of the transaction put to both authorities rather than two.
Read how this one runsEstablishing the characterisation before the assessment issued
An enquiry was heading towards an adjustment and the group assumed the outcome would be a deemed loan. Whether the balance would instead be characterised as a deemed dividend, with withholding rather than interest attached, changed the cost of the same adjustment considerably. We took the characterisation question on directly while the primary adjustment was still open, and documented the basis on which we said the balance should be treated. The engagement produced a written position on the secondary treatment, taken before the assessment rather than in response to it.
Read how this one runsAn adjustment accepted on one side and refused on the other
A group had agreed an adjustment in one jurisdiction on terms it could not then support to the second. The second authority declined to give relief, and the double taxation stayed. We went back through what had been conceded and why, rebuilt the pricing analysis so the same facts supported both sides, and re-opened the treaty route on that footing. The engagement produced a single evidenced position, and a working rule for the group that nothing is settled with one authority that cannot be explained to the other.
Read how this one runsA Company Abroad Owned by a US Person
A business incorporated where the owner lives is a foreign corporation to the IRS, with a reporting package of its own and schedules that need local accounts restated. Classification comes first, because it decides what is reportable and when profits are taxed.
Read how this one runsA Canadian Landlord With Property in the United States
Gross withholding on US rents takes no account of mortgage interest, tax or repairs, so a leveraged property can face tax on turnover. An election onto net basis fixes that, and it has its own timing and its own filing.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
Software revenue crosses borders by default — sourcing rules, withholding on licence-like payments and IP location decide the effective rate.
Software revenue is rarely taxed where the team sits. Licence, subscription and service income are characterised differently by each side, and the answer decides withholding at source, treaty relief and whether a foreign customer creates a taxable presence at all — questions that are cheap to settle before the contract and expensive afterwards.
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
Asked next about TP adjustments & secondary adjustments
That is the objection everyone makes, and it misreads what the adjustment is doing. The tax treatment follows the corrected pricing rather than the bank statements. Once the price is restated, the difference is an amount one group company holds that, on the restated terms, belongs to another. A deemed loan is one way of characterising that position; a deemed dividend is another, with withholding attached instead of interest. Which characterisation applies determines the cost, so it is worth establishing that early rather than after the primary adjustment is settled.
Repatriating the amount is one of the tools that limits the compounding, and it is why the characterisation question has to be settled early. A balance treated as a deemed loan grows with interest for as long as it stays outstanding, so the timing of any repatriation arrangement matters as much as the fact of it. The mechanics vary between jurisdictions and the arrangement usually has to be documented and agreed rather than simply actioned. Model the primary adjustment and its secondary consequences together, because dealing with them separately is what lets one compound.
Not by itself. An adjustment in one country does not automatically produce a matching reduction in the other, and until it does the same profit is taxed twice. The treaty's corresponding-adjustment article is the mechanism for asking, and a competent authority request under the treaty is how it is pursued. It is a process rather than a form: the other authority has to accept that the adjustment was appropriate before it will give relief for it. Start it early, and settle nothing on the primary adjustment that you cannot then support to the second authority.
Where the secondary adjustment is characterised as a deemed dividend, withholding is the attachment, in the same way interest attaches to a deemed loan. That has two consequences worth planning for. The withholding falls due on an amount nobody paid, so the cash has to come from somewhere. And whether the treaty rate applies to a deemed distribution is a question to establish rather than assume, since the answer shapes the total cost. Establish the characterisation before conceding the primary adjustment, not once the assessment has been issued.
By treating the primary adjustment as the first of a sequence rather than as the whole event. Before you agree it, work out how the resulting balance would be characterised, what interest or withholding follows, whether a repatriation arrangement can close it, and whether the other country will give a corresponding adjustment under the treaty. Those answers can change what you are willing to concede on the primary adjustment itself. Groups that accept the primary figure first, because it looks like the main number, negotiate the rest from a position they have already given away.
Cross-border tax is what applies when income, assets or people touch more than one tax system at once — someone living in one country and earning in another, a company selling or hiring abroad, a family holding property in a second country. The work is rarely one country's rules applied harder; it is reconciling two sets of rules and claiming the relief that stops the same income being taxed twice at full rates. See what we do.
No — and if you came here to calculate FTP, this is not it. Fund transfer pricing is a bank's internal allocation of funding costs and benefits between its own business units, a treasury and asset-liability management discipline used to measure branch or product profitability. Tax transfer pricing is about prices between legally separate related parties across borders, and about which country taxes the resulting profit. The words overlap; the fields do not. See our transfer pricing work.



