Transfer pricing and the comparability analysis in times of crisis – An approach to comparability adjustments in the Covid-19 era : the Colombian case

La pandemia cambió las relaciones comerciales, particularmente en las transacciones entre partes relacionadas, sujetas al régimen de precios de transferencia. Así, surgieron desafíos económicos que afectaron la forma en que las empresas realizaron sus análisis de comparabilidad y, en consecuencia, los ajustes. En ese contexto, analizamos las recomendaciones de la OCDE y sus probables efectos en el cumplimiento del régimen de precios de transferencia en Colombia. Al hacerlo, esperamos determinar cómo las circunstancias económicas afectan las funciones, activos y riesgos asumidos por las empresas multinacionales (MNE) en el contexto de sus transacciones controladas y su impacto en el análisis de comparabilidad. Además, señalamos los problemas que pueden surgir debido a la falta de coordinación entre los Estados en la materia. Como resultado, destacamos los aspectos críticos de la implementación de dichas recomendaciones, para inferir que el TPG no proporciona suficiente orientación para cumplir con los regímenes internos de precios de transferencia, especialmente en tiempos de crisis. Finalmente, concluimos que las MNE deben considerar realmente un alcance más profundo en el análisis de comparabilidad y los ajustes transaccionales, utilizando herramientas que se encuentran habitualmente en el Derecho Privado, las ciencias económicas y los principios del régimen de precios de transferencia.The pandemic changed business relations in international commerce, particularly in transactions among/between related parties, subject to the transfer pricing regime. In that order, those economic challenges arose in a way that impacted how companies performed their comparability analyses and, in consequence, the adjustments to be made. In that context, we analyze the OECD recommendations and their probable effects in compliance with the transfer pricing regime in Colombia. In doing so, we expect to determine how the economic circumstances affect the functions, assets, and risks taken by the MNEs (Multinational Enterprises) in the context of their controlled transactions and their impact on the comparability analysis. In addition, we point out the problems that may arise due to the lack of coordination between States on the matter. As a result, we highlight the critical aspects of the implementation of such recommendations, to infer that the TPG does not provide enough guidance to comply with the internal transfer pricing regimes, particularly in times of distress. Finally, we conclude that MNEs should really consider a deeper scope on the comparability analysis, and the transactional adjustments, using tools that are usually found in Private Law, economic sciences, and the principles of the transfer pricing regime.MaestríaMagíster en Derecho del Estado con énfasis en Derecho Tributari

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research