2026/03/23 8 min read
The FY2026 Tax Reform Outline (published Dec 12, 2025) introduces tighter documentation rules for intra-group transactions, affecting companies of all sizes. This measure specifically targets arbitrary pricing or lack of documentation for intra-group services (including IP transfers and loans), such as shared cost facilities.
Under these arrangements, common functions like R&D, advertising, or IT are centralized in one entity, with costs allocated to group members based on usage or benefit-derived criteria. While the effective date remains undecided, this reform aims to address long-standing transfer pricing challenges.
Despite the prevalence of these transactions, verifying the amount of payments remains difficult because paperwork detailing the nature of the services or the specific basis for the payment amount is often inadequate or missing. Consequently, existing records are frequently insufficient to justify the arm's length nature of the payments.
The primary objective of this new requirement is to ensure that entities operating in Japan proactively prepare and preserve documents related to these shared service costs, enabling them to furnish such records without delay during tax examinations.
The new requirement is for entities residing in Japan carrying out “Specified Transactions” (transactions that generate service costs, such as: the transfer or loan of industrial property rights like technology or copyrights; provision of R&D and advertising; provision of dedicated assets; and managerial services) with a “Related Party” (defined as per transfer pricing rules, i.e., 50% or more equity holdings or other substantial managerial/transactional relationships), to prepare and preserve “Transaction-Related Documents” (including order forms, contracts, invoices, receipts, quotations, and equivalent electronic records)[1].
These documents must contain the necessary details to justify the amount of payment related to those service transactions. Most importantly, failure to comply may result in the revocation of Blue Return filing status, which affords taxpayers various preferential tax treatments in Japan, such as the ability to carry forward net operating losses (NOLs).
To comply with the new requirements and mitigate tax examination risks, multinational companies with operations in Japan must understand the difference between “global” standards and Japanese tax practice.
Japanese tax audits are known for their broad scope and the continuous addition of data requests. While examiners aim to grasp the overall scope of the corporate group, foreign headquarters often feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the request.
Japanese authorities prioritize consistency and supporting evidence. Verbal explanations are rarely sufficient; examiners expect detailed vouchers or records to back every claim.
The challenge is that documents prepared at global headquarters often lack the granularity required in Japan. Low-quality or inconsistent data inevitably triggers additional, more intrusive requests.
To safeguard your Blue Return status, the following actions are essential:
Identify all “Specified Transactions” and verify if current contracts or invoices clearly explain the service nature and calculation basis (e.g., cost allocation).
Obtain supplemental data, and if global records are insufficient, proactively prepare supplementary electronic records, such as time-logs or asset usage reports.
Enhance collaboration communication between the Japanese subsidiary and the overseas parent. It is vital to clarify the examiner’s intent before submitting data to ensure the response is high-quality and prevents misunderstandings.
Carry out cross-departmental review, and align accounting, legal, and business units to ensure internal pricing policies are consistently documented and reflected in actual transactions.
retention obligations” as a formal ground for revoking a taxpayer’s Blue Return status. If enacted, this change could weaken the historical legal shield of Corporate Tax Law Section 130, which has generally protected Blue Return filers from the application of Estimated Assessment (Section 131) based on external indicators.
Estimated Assessment allows authorities to calculate income based on broad factors (assets, production volume, employee count) when records are missing (as opposed to Presumptive Taxation in transfer pricing, which requires more detail to estimates the arm’s lengths nature of foreign related party transactions). While this does not currently apply to Blue Return corporations, authorities could invoke it by first revoking the Blue Return status. This in theory grants authorities significantly more tactical flexibility, allowing them to move beyond strict transfer pricing comparability requirements and determine income based on various indirect evidence.
While the risks highlighted above are technically possible, the practical application in the field is expected to be more measured:
The following details remain fluid and require further confirmation:
[1] Source: Ministry of Finance, “Outline of the FY2026 Tax Reform”, p70-72, issued December 2025.
FY2026 JCT Reform Update: Extended 8-Year Transitional Deduction Schedule and Reduced JPY 100M Cap for Non-Registered Supplier Purchases
Under Japan’s consumption tax rules, input tax credits for "adjustable fixed assets" are credited upon acquisition. However, if the use of assets changes within three years, an adjustment is required.
Revenue recognition is a key performance metric affecting financial figures. This article explores examples of differences between accounting and tax treatment in Japan.
The quality of AI outputs is improving with a pace too significant for it to be discounted. The oft repeated phrase is that AI and automation is ideal for tasks that are repetitive, follow a specific set of rules, and take a long period of time with manual input. For example, current AI can assimilate information from a Local File and use this to evaluate the comparability of comparable companies based on their business description and other information, providing acceptance and rejection reasons accordingly.
On February 19, 2024, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published its final report on Pillar 1 Amount B to simplify and streamline the application of the arm's length principle to baseline marketing and sales activities, with a focus on the needs of countries or regions with low tax enforcement capacity.
On October 8, 2021, it was announced that 136 of the 140 member countries of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, representing more than 90% of global GDP, agreed on new international tax rules, which is the Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy (“digital taxation”). As of November 15, 2023, 140 countries/regions have agreed.This digital taxation consists of “Pillar One” and “Pillar Two” and is a response to the situation where the current principles of international taxation are no longer fully functional as the economy becomes increasingly digitalized.
If you are interested in receiving our latest insights, You can sign up to our mailing list.
