Stablecoins and Transfer Pricing: The Arm’s Length Principle in the Digital Asset Era
BECTRA | International Tax • Corporate Finance • Digital Assets
Introduction — New payment rails, established international tax principles
Stablecoins offer an additional way to execute international payments. Multinational groups may consider using them to settle obligations between affiliates, subject to the applicable financial, monetary and exchange-control rules.
Does a related-party payment made in stablecoins require a different transfer pricing analysis from a bank transfer? The starting point remains the same: the terms of transactions between associated enterprises should be consistent with those independent parties would have agreed in comparable circumstances.
The payment instrument does not itself create economic value or justify a higher intercompany price. It may, however, affect conversion costs, liquidity exposure, settlement timing and the allocation of operational responsibilities. These features must be analysed rather than assumed.
1. The arm's length principle remains the benchmark
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2022) provide a principal international reference for analysing controlled transactions. A reliable assessment identifies the actual transaction, the functions performed, assets used, risks assumed, contractual terms and economic circumstances.
A French company buying IT services from a US affiliate must support the arm's length price of those services whether it pays by bank transfer or in a dollar-referenced stablecoin. If payment arrangements alter economically relevant costs or risks, they may affect the comparability analysis or give rise to a separate service, but they do not automatically change the price of the underlying service.
The means of payment does not, by itself, determine the arm's length price.
2. Three economic layers that should not be confused
The underlying controlled transaction
This is the actual supply of goods, services, financing, intellectual property or other economic activity between associated enterprises. Its pricing must be assessed using an appropriate transfer pricing method.
The settlement mechanism
Relevant features include the token, reference currency, conversion and redemption conditions, settlement date, spreads, transaction charges and the party bearing each cost. The token's market value at settlement must be distinguished from the arm's length consideration for the underlying supply.
Potentially separate intragroup services
An affiliate may genuinely provide custody, conversion, payment orchestration or liquidity management to other group companies. Such services may require their own functional and pricing analysis. Merely signing or transmitting an on-chain transaction does not automatically establish a separately remunerable intragroup service.
3. Costs, risks and the functional analysis
A stablecoin settlement may involve conversion spreads, network fees, issuer and custodian counterparty exposure, liquidity constraints, depegging risk, wallet compromise or an erroneous irreversible transfer. These risks must be analysed in light of the actual facts.
A risk premium is not warranted merely because a risk can be named. The analysis should establish which entity contractually assumes the risk, has the capacity to control it, makes the relevant decisions and has the financial capacity to bear its consequences. Holding a private key is not, by itself, conclusive evidence of economic control of the risk.
The OECD's guidance on financial transactions is particularly relevant where the arrangement involves genuine intercompany financing, guarantees or centralised liquidity functions. Payment execution should not be casually recharacterised as a loan or a treasury service.
4. Worked example — A $100,000 intercompany service
Assume a French affiliate purchases an IT service from its US affiliate for a contractually agreed price of $100,000. For illustration only, the French company settles using a USD-referenced stablecoin and incurs the following charges:
Item — Amount
Contract price of the service — $100,000
Third-party conversion charges — $300
Network transaction fees — $50
Total economic cash outlay — $100,350
The illustration assumes conversion at par, with no difference between the stablecoin's realised value and the dollar amount due. The $100,350 total outlay does not mean that the arm's length price of the IT service automatically becomes $100,350.
Where the buyer pays independent third parties to execute its own settlement, those charges may be distinct from the service price. If the contract reallocates expenses that independent parties would have borne differently, that allocation may need to be considered in the comparability analysis. Actual facts, contracts and economic substance determine the conclusion.
5. On-chain evidence is not transfer pricing evidence by itself
Blockchain records can help establish that a specified quantity of tokens moved between addresses at a given time, subject to the limitations of the network and data source. They do not, alone, prove who economically controls an address, that the underlying service was delivered, or that the invoiced amount was arm's length.
A defensible audit trail links transaction hashes, addresses and timestamps to contracts, invoices, evidence of performance, accounting entries, valuation and conversion records, counterparty identification and the group's functional analysis.
Technical traceability is not a substitute for economic substantiation.
6. National and regional frameworks
France — Article 57 of the General Tax Code
Article 57 of the French General Tax Code addresses indirect transfers of profits in qualifying cross-border relationships. Where the statutory conditions apply, the tax administration may scrutinise the commercial and financial terms of a controlled transaction regardless of the settlement instrument. The exact scope, evidentiary requirements and documentation obligations depend on the taxpayer's circumstances.
European Union — MiCA is not a transfer pricing method
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) establishes rules for various categories of crypto-assets. Article 49 addresses the issuance and redemption of e-money tokens, including issuance and redemption at par. These rules concern the rights and obligations associated with qualifying tokens; they do not prescribe a transfer pricing method or establish that a particular cross-border payment is lawful in every relevant jurisdiction.
United States — Internal Revenue Code Section 482
Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code and its Treasury regulations address allocations among commonly controlled taxpayers. The applicable arm's length standard requires the controlled transaction and its economically relevant characteristics to be analysed. Payment in stablecoins does not remove the need to select and support an appropriate pricing method.
Nigeria — The 2025 tax reform and the arm’s length standard
The Nigeria Tax Act 2025, effective from 1 January 2026, requires related-party arrangements to satisfy the arm’s length standard and empowers tax authorities to adjust non-compliant arrangements under the Transfer Pricing Regulations. The provision is section 191(1)–(2) in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette (Act No. 7 of 2025). A NIPC reference copy labels the corresponding provision section 192; this article follows the Official Gazette, which NIPC identifies as legally authoritative. The stablecoin’s conversion value must be analysed separately from the arm’s length price of the underlying goods, services or financing. Payment and foreign-exchange compliance require a separate assessment.
Ghana — Transfer pricing and the virtual-assets framework
Ghana's Transfer Pricing Regulations 2020 (L.I. 2412) provide a framework for transactions between associated enterprises. The Virtual Asset Service Providers Act 2025 (Act 1154) provides a legislative basis for the oversight of virtual-asset service providers. Ghana's Securities and Exchange Commission has publicly described its implementation through a regulatory sandbox and activity-based licensing arrangements.
These are different legal questions. Regulatory oversight of a provider does not establish that every cross-border trade payment in stablecoins is permitted, nor that the underlying intercompany price satisfies the arm's length principle.
Kenya — The statute and its implementing rules
Section 18(3) of Kenya's Income Tax Act and the Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Rules 2006 are relevant to controlled transactions. The Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, No. 20 of 2025, establishes a legal framework for virtual-asset service providers. Draft implementing regulations were circulated for consultation in 2026.
The fiscal treatment of an intercompany payment must be distinguished from the permissions and requirements governing its execution. A third-party custodian or exchange does not, merely by being used, create an additional controlled transaction.
South Africa — Transfer pricing, reporting and advance pricing agreements
Section 31 of South Africa's Income Tax Act addresses affected transactions under its transfer pricing framework. The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework has applied since March 2026 to relevant reporting obligations; reporting does not, in itself, demonstrate arm's length pricing.
Since 1 September 2026, the South African Revenue Service has accepted applications to a restricted advance pricing agreement (APA) pilot. It concerns treaty-based APAs, subject to stringent eligibility criteria, including standalone turnover exceeding R10 billion and qualifying distribution, manufacturing or intragroup service transactions. Financial assistance and certain intangible-property transactions are excluded. The pilot is not a general means of obtaining advance clearance for stablecoin-funded intragroup transactions.
Senegal — Transfer pricing and external financial relations
Article 17 of Senegal’s General Tax Code addresses indirect profit transfers between related enterprises. Article 638 requires qualifying Senegalese legal entities to maintain transfer pricing documentation, including where annual turnover excluding tax or gross assets amount to at least CFAF 5 billion, or where specified ownership conditions apply. Ministerial Order No. 025840 of 1 August 2023, reproduced in the official January 2025 annotated Code, sets out master-file and local-file content and submission rules. The amending Act No. 2025-17 of 27 September 2025 does not directly amend articles 17 or 638. The 2026 Finance Act (No. 2025-19 of 22 December 2025) has been identified, but its complete provisions and subsequent amendments have not been exhaustively checked; no claim of full legislative currency is made. The UEMOA foreign-exchange regime must be assessed independently: these tax provisions do not authorize cross-border stablecoin settlements.
CEMAC — Regional foreign-exchange and payment rules
CEMAC Regulation No. 02/18/CEMAC/UMAC/CM governs foreign exchange. BEAC Instructions No. 006/GR/2019 and No. 007/GR/2019 address export proceeds and import settlement respectively, while Regulation No. 04/18/CEMAC/UMAC/COBAC governs payment services. None of these sources, on its own, establishes blanket permission for cross-border intercompany stablecoin payments. The legal characterization, intermediaries and applicable declarations must be reviewed transaction by transaction.
7. Transfer pricing and exchange control are independent obligations
Multinational groups must separate two assessments. Transfer pricing asks whether associated enterprises agreed economically defensible terms. Exchange-control, payments and financial regulation ask whether and how value may lawfully move across a border.
In Senegal, the WAEMU framework and BCEAO instructions govern aspects of external financial relations. In South Africa, National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank published a draft cross-border Crypto Assets Manual in August 2026. That draft was a consultation proposal, not an enacted general permission for companies to settle international obligations in stablecoins. The authorities' August statement envisaged, at that stage, externalisation via authorised service providers for individuals within specified allowances; this should not be transposed to corporate intercompany payments.
In Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya, virtual-asset provider regulation must be read alongside national payments and foreign-exchange rules. Provider licensing does not necessarily authorise every commercial payment structure.
A transaction may be arm's length yet impermissible under exchange-control rules. Conversely, a legally permitted settlement does not prove that the underlying related-party price is arm's length.
The sequence is therefore: identify the actual transaction; document functions, assets and risks; test the price; assess token valuation and settlement costs; and separately verify the legal payment route in each jurisdiction.
8. Three lessons for multinational groups
First, established transfer pricing principles continue to apply. A stablecoin does not automatically change the nature of a controlled transaction.
Second, settlement arrangements may matter economically. Conversion costs, liquidity exposure, custody functions and contractual allocation of risks may affect comparability or create distinct, genuinely performed services.
Third, compliance is multi-layered. The arm's length nature of the underlying price, the regulatory status of the token and its providers, and the legality of the international settlement are separate questions.
Conclusion — Adapt the analysis, not the principle
Stablecoins may improve the mechanics and traceability of cross-border settlement, but they do not displace established transfer pricing rules. The correct starting point is the actual economic transaction, followed by the functions and risks genuinely assumed and the consequences of the chosen settlement mechanism.
Blockchain records can corroborate the movement of tokens; they cannot substitute for the economic and legal documentation of the underlying transaction.
The challenge is not to invent a universal stablecoin transfer pricing method, but to apply existing methods rigorously to the actual economic and operational characteristics of the arrangement.
Primary sources and further reading
1. OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2022): https://doi.org/10.1787/0e655865-en
2. OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions (2020): https://doi.org/10.1787/794bcddd-en
3. France, General Tax Code, Article 57: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000048838867/2026-05-17
4. EU, MiCA, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, Article 49: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj
5. US Internal Revenue Service, IRC §482: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-011-005
6. Nigeria, Transfer Pricing Regulations 2018: https://old.firs.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Income-Tax-Transfer-Pricing-Regulations-2018-2.pdf
7. Ghana, Transfer Pricing Regulations L.I. 2412: https://gra.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Transfer-Pricing-Regulations-2020-LI-24121-_231207_142107.pdf
8. Ghana SEC, Act 1154 implementation: https://sec.gov.gh/press-release-official-announcement-of-virtual-asset-sandbox-participants/
9. Kenya Law, VASP Act No. 20 of 2025: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2025/20/eng@2025-11-04/source
10. South African Revenue Service, APA pilot: https://www.sars.gov.za/guide-to-advance-pricing-agreements/
11. South African Reserve Bank, draft cross-border Crypto Assets Manual: https://www.resbank.co.za/en/home/publications/publication-detail-pages/media-releases/2026/crypto-assets
12. Senegal DGID, General Tax Code 2025 edition: https://www.dgid.sn/storage/docs/CGI-2025.pdf
13. BCEAO, WAEMU Regulation 06/2024: https://www.bceao.int/fr/reglementations/reglement-ndeg062024cmuemoa-relatif-aux-relations-financieres-exterieures-des-etats
14. BEAC, CEMAC exchange-control regulations: https://www.beac.int/p-des-changes/reglements/
Editorial note: this comparative article is not an opinion on the legality of a specific payment route. Verify local implementing rules and current legislation before execution.
BECTRA — Advisory • Research • Financial Intelligence
Legal source review note (19 October 2026)
Senegalese provisions were checked against the official DGID January 2025 annotated Tax Code. The Nigerian Official Gazette places the arm’s length provision in section 191, notwithstanding section 192 in a NIPC reference copy. CEMAC rules must not be read as general authorization for cross-border stablecoin settlement. This article is a general analysis, not legal advice on any specific transaction.
• Senegal DGID: https://www.dgid.sn/storage/docs/CGI-2025.pdf
• Nigeria Tax Act: https://www.nipc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Nigeria-Tax-Act-2025.pdf
• BEAC foreign exchange: https://www.beac.int/p-des-changes/reglements/
• BEAC instructions: https://www.beac.int/p-des-changes/instructions/instructions-vf/
National legal-source update — 19 October 2026
• Nigeria Official Gazette, Nigeria Tax Act 2025, s.191: https://nass.gov.ng/documents/download/11249
• Senegal Official Gazette No. 7853, amending Act 2025-17: https://www.archives.sn/api/fichiers/7e2be547-54b4-48c9-91f1-158a5f045dda
• Senegal Official Gazette No. 7873, Finance Act 2026: https://www.archives.sn/docs/journal-officiel/JO-7873-du-08-janvier-2026-numero-special
Comments