Questions we get asked.

Both, deliberately. The platform does the assembly and the running. An iVC transfer pricing specialist reviews what comes out and signs it. You are not buying a licence and then hiring someone to operate it.

No, but the value compounds. Documentation alone still helps, because the file is assembled rather than written. It helps far more when Design and Implementation are feeding it, because then the file describes work that actually happened rather than work that was described.

At minimum: the group structure, the list of controlled transactions, accounting data at the level you want to price on, and the functional information behind each transaction. The information tracker requests what is missing, with owners and dates, and stores answers against the transaction they support.

The calculations run on accounting data, and how that data arrives is a question for the scoping conversation rather than something to promise on a website. Tell us what you run and we will tell you plainly what is straightforward and what is not.

An iVC transfer pricing specialist, named in the deliverables tracker against the deliverable they signed. That record is part of the audit trail, not a marketing claim.

Drafting and assembly. Pulling structured facts into the right sections, drafting language consistent with the policy, and screening large comparable sets. It is not deciding characterisation, choosing a method, or judging whether a comparable is genuinely comparable. Those are the parts a person signs.

It depends almost entirely on the state of your existing data and how many jurisdictions are in scope. We would rather scope it against your structure on a call than publish a number that is wrong for most groups.

Intra-group financing is covered through thin capitalisation analysis and CUP benchmarking for financing, which together address the questions most groups face on intra-group loans, cash pooling and guarantees.

Both. iVC designs, implements, documents and defends transfer pricing policies, and audit defence is available as part of the engagement. The platform matters here more than anywhere else, because a defence is only as good as the record behind it: the comparables rejected and why, the agreement version in force for the year under review, and the date each fact arrived.

Existing studies, agreements and files are loaded into the deliverables tracker with their dates in force, so the history is preserved and the refresh cycles are visible. You do not start from an empty system.

Then we say so on the call. A group with two entities and one management fee does not need a platform, and telling you that is cheaper for both of us than finding out later.