Executive answer
The OECD opened a public consultation from June 1 through July 22, 2026 to revise Chapter VII of its Transfer Pricing Guidelines on intragroup services. The proposal seeks to modernize the chapter, align it with principles in other chapters, improve clarity and add examples. The official page anticipates a meeting to discuss outcomes in November 2026.
The consultation document does not represent consensus, is not final text and should not be treated as current law. For a Mexican company, proper readiness means comparing the existing file with concepts that may change or be clarified, strengthening evidence useful under both scenarios and continuing to apply current Mexican statutes, rules, criteria and OECD guidance according to their respective status.
Verification cutoff: August 2, 2026. The comment period ended July 22, but the consultation remained a proposal at cutoff. Check for later text before updating policy.
What the OECD seeks to review
The initiative updates special considerations for intragroup services and aligns them with delineation, methods and comparability. It includes questions and examples for public comment.
It does not presume every general principle changes. Read the introduction and status before interpreting new wording.
What a public consultation is
It is a development stage during which stakeholders comment on a draft. Language may remain, change or be withdrawn. The announced meeting also does not automatically finalize the proposal.
Label every quotation “2026 OECD proposal.” Do not mix it with current paragraphs.
Current Mexican framework
Companies must satisfy arm’s-length pricing, deductibility and documentation under current Mexican sources. For services, actual provision, benefit, business connection, recording and price matter.
The consultation does not amend Mexican law or administrative criteria by itself.
Two-column analysis
Create one column for the current requirement and another for the proposal. Add potential change, common evidence, additional evidence, risk and action.
This structure supports readiness without premature adoption.
Service inventory
List provider, recipient, description, people, frequency, system, contract, invoice, cost, markup, allocation key and deliverable. Group by real service rather than a generic management-fee invoice.
The inventory supports any later approach.
Delineation
Describe request, execution, control, risks and benefit. Separate services from royalties, reimbursement, shareholder activity, duplication or cost sharing.
The contract label does not decide the nature.
Request a gap assessment to compare the current file with the 2026 proposal and prioritize evidence that remains useful regardless of final text.
Benefit test
Document why an independent company would pay for or perform the activity. Identify decision, need, expected result and alternative. “Supports the business” is insufficient.
Connect the benefit to the recipient and period.
Shareholder activities
Classify activities performed because of group ownership or governance that should not be charged as a service under the applicable analysis. Document the rationale and removed costs.
Department names are not conclusions.
Duplication
Compare central activities with local functions and other providers. Temporary overlap may be justified, but needs a reason, duration and incremental value.
Record exceptions and approval.
Incidental and passive benefits
Group membership can create benefit without an identifiable service. Separate passive synergy from an activity performed for the recipient.
Do not charge for group reputation as a service without delineation.
Provision evidence
Preserve tickets, agendas, reports, files, system access, hours, communications, decisions and acceptance. Select evidence by service type and frequency.
A contract and invoice prove formalization, not complete execution.
Provider personnel
Map name or role, capability, location, time and activity. Reconcile payroll or costs. For included third parties, keep invoices and scope.
Avoid allocating people who did not perform the service.
Cost base
Define included and excluded accounts, pass-throughs and shareholder costs. Reconcile to accounting and document adjustments.
A broad base can distort a charge even with a reasonable markup.
Allocation keys
Choose a key related to expected benefit: headcount, users, transactions, assets, revenue or another driver. Test data and exceptions.
Ease of calculation does not establish causation.
Markup and method
Determine whether cost plus, CUP or another method is appropriate. Separate services needing their own analysis. Do not apply one rate for convenience.
Preserve the benchmark, years and update policy.
Low-value services
Compare current definition, exclusions, simplification and documentation with the proposal. In Mexico, do not presume the OECD simplified approach automatically establishes deductibility.
Evidence of provision and benefit remains central.
Contracts
The agreement addresses scope, owners, price, allocation, deliverable ownership, confidentiality and termination. Update prospectively when facts change.
Do not backdate a contract to cure nonperformance.
Invoicing and Mexican electronic receipts
Reconcile period, currency, description, tax, withholding and accounts. The description should link to the inventory.
Avoid annual invoices that cannot be disaggregated.
Mexican materiality
Build the file from request through payment. Relate it to administrative criterion 44/ISR/PI without calling the criterion legislation. Separate existence from price.
The OECD proposal does not displace Mexico’s administrative position.
Current-proposed matrix
Fields include topic, current paragraph, proposed text, status, difference, Mexican impact, existing evidence, gap, owner and date. Add the official link.
Do not publish conclusions without a status column.
Scenarios
Scenario A assumes similar final text. Scenario B assumes material revisions. Scenario C assumes delay or withdrawal. Identify no-regret actions: inventory, reconciliation, evidence and contracts.
Defer policy changes that make sense only under nonfinal wording.
Consultation governance
Global tax monitors OECD; Mexico validates local effect; legal reviews contracts; shared services produces evidence; accounting reconciles costs. A committee approves change.
Record the date and source of every update.
Preparing for November
The meeting planned for November 2026 may provide discussion rather than definitive text. Monitor agenda, published comments and later announcements.
Do not treat a presentation as final guidance.
Internal communication
Explain what it is, what it is not and what the company will do now. Avoid “new OECD rule now in force.”
Provide actions and a next review date.
Policy update
Only after checking final text, date, status and Mexican effect should the group decide on revisions. Prepare comparison and approval.
Retain the prior version and transition record.
Open audits
Use current guidance and Mexican sources. The draft may be technical context where relevant and clearly labeled, but should not be presented as definitive authority.
Legal counsel decides whether citation helps.
Warning signs
Warnings include removing the draft label, applying a proposed markup, assuming deductibility, ignoring materiality, backdating agreements, not reconciling costs, relying only on an invoice or mixing languages and versions.
Correct these before close.
Gap checklist
Confirm inventory, delineation, benefit, shareholder activity, duplication, evidence, personnel, costs, keys, markup, contracts, invoices, taxes, payment, accounting, policy, OECD version and Mexican source.
Assign a traffic light and owner.
Illustrative example
A regional center charges human resources, IT and strategy. The group separates services, removes shareholder governance, changes keys and collects tickets. It prices under current policy and records possible differences from the draft.
It does not change the markup solely because of the consultation. It is ready to adapt.
Chapter VII Gap Assessment product
The deliverable includes the current-proposed matrix, inventory, benefit test, layered file, gaps, quick wins, deferred decisions and monitoring calendar.
It distinguishes mandatory, recommended, proposed and pending items.
Executive change gate
Any policy amendment identifies the final OECD source, effective date, Mexican legal effect, affected services, systems change and transition. If final text is absent, the committee may approve evidence improvements but not characterize the proposal as binding.
This gate separates no-regret readiness from speculative implementation.
Sampling by service type
Design a risk-based sample rather than selecting only by amount. Include large charges, recurring services, new concepts, providers with limited personnel, unusual keys, generic deliverables and unpaid items. For each sample follow the chain from request to execution, benefit, cost, price, invoice, record and payment.
Compare evidence for IT, human resources, finance, legal, strategy, procurement and marketing. A ticket can be strong for technical support and weak for strategic advice. The internal standard should define expected evidence by service and frequency.
Regional cost-pool control
Obtain the provider’s ledger and trace accounts to pools. Identify local, regional, shareholder, pass-through and exceptional costs. Test that the distributed universe agrees with accounting and is not recovered twice.
Then validate keys against source data and recipients. A strong benefit test does not cure a contaminated pool; a clean base does not prove Mexico received the service. The layers are cumulative.
Information-request rehearsal
Run a rehearsal using a demanding internal timeline, while recognizing that the legal deadline depends on the actual act. An independent team selects invoices and requests the contract, people, deliverable, benefit, cost, allocation, benchmark, Mexican receipt and payment. Measure response time, missing documents and contradictions.
Use results to prioritize remediation. If evidence depends on one person or unarchived email, implement a repository and backup. The rehearsal prepares for any final text and for current Mexican audits.
Deferred-decision register
Not every gap requires an immediate policy change. Record the decision, reason to wait, dependency on final text, current risk, temporary control, owner and date. “Wait” then becomes governed rather than passive.
When comments, the meeting or final text appear, reassess only linked decisions. Keep separate the gaps that already fail current policy.
Assessment closure criteria
Close the project when the inventory reconciles, sampled services have evidence, pools and keys reproduce, contracts reflect facts, pricing is supported and each proposal is labeled. Open gaps move to an owned, dated plan.
Do not declare “ready for Chapter VII” where the conclusion depends on a draft. State that the current file is strengthened and ready for reassessment.
Monthly file while waiting
Until final text exists, collect evidence at each month-end. The provider archives tickets, reports and time; the recipient validates benefit; accounting reconciles the pool, key, invoice and payment; the service owner certifies exceptions. This routine reduces year-end reconstruction and does not depend on the consultation.
Review new, terminated or modified services quarterly. Update the inventory and agreements prospectively. If the consultation evolves, the team adapts fields instead of recreating a year of evidence.
Final review questions
Before closing a gap, ask whether the service occurred, who performed it, who benefited, which costs entered the base, why the key is causal, how price was determined and where it was recorded and paid. Then identify which part of the answer depends on Mexican law, current OECD guidance or the proposal.
Conclusion
The 2026 OECD consultation is important, but it remains a consultation. Its immediate value is revealing where an existing service file is already weak.
Good readiness improves facts, data and evidence that survive different final outcomes while avoiding the conversion of a proposal into law.
Request a Chapter VII Gap Assessment to compare current guidance, the 2026 proposal, Mexican requirements and evidence for every intragroup service.
Verified official sources
- OECD, public consultation on revisions to Chapter VII.
- OECD, consultation document on intragroup services.
- OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2022.
- Mexican Chamber of Deputies, current Income Tax Law.
Verification closed on August 2, 2026. The draft is not consensus or final text.