Automating Country-by-Country Reporting Data
Country-by-Country Reporting requires compiling revenue, profit, tax paid, headcount, and other financial data for every entity in the group broken down by jurisdiction, and doing that consistently is harder than it sounds because different entities and finance teams around the group often report figures on slightly different bases, a revenue figure that includes intercompany transactions in one entity's submission and excludes them in another, a headcount figure counted differently by a subsidiary using a different definition of full-time equivalent, and those inconsistencies produce a CbCR report that looks internally contradictory even when every individual entity's underlying figures are accurate. A tax authority receiving a CbCR report with entity-level inconsistencies has grounds to question the group's overall reporting reliability, well beyond whatever the specific inconsistency was actually about.
STARTING PRICE
From €799
Complex tier · Multi-system orchestration, custom logic, and higher-volume or higher-risk processing.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 15-30 hrs per reporting cycle for a group with a meaningful number of entities, plus a materially more defensible, internally consistent report.
How the automation works
We compile CbCR data from every group entity against one consistent definition set, applied uniformly regardless of which entity or local finance team the data originates from, so revenue, profit, tax paid, and headcount are calculated the same way across the whole group rather than each entity applying its own local convention. Every entity's submission is checked against the group's consistent definitions before it's included in the compiled report, and a figure that looks inconsistent with the entity's own prior period pattern, or with how a comparable entity elsewhere in the group reported the same category, is flagged for clarification before the report is finalized, not discovered by a tax authority comparing entities against each other after filing.
Process flow
- 01
Establish consistent definition set trigger
A single, group-wide definition set for revenue, profit, tax paid, headcount, and related CbCR data categories is established and communicated to every entity.
- 02
Collect entity-level data integration
Data is collected from every group entity's local finance system against the consistent definition set for the reporting period.
- 03
Check consistency across entities and periods ai
Each entity's submitted data is checked against the group definitions, its own prior period, and comparable entities elsewhere in the group for internal consistency.
- 04
Flag inconsistencies for clarification output
Figures that appear inconsistent with the group definition or with the entity's own historical pattern are flagged for clarification before the report is finalized.
- 05
Compile the final CbCR report output
The full, cross-checked group report is compiled by jurisdiction, ready for review and filing ahead of the deadline.
Inputs
- Group-wide CbCR data definitions
- Entity-level financial and headcount data by jurisdiction
- Prior period entity data for consistency comparison
- CbCR filing deadline
Outputs
- Consistent, group-defined entity data collection
- Cross-entity consistency check flags
- Clarification requests ahead of finalization
- Compiled, filing-ready CbCR report by jurisdiction
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- A revenue or profit figure that one entity reports on a basis including intercompany transactions and another reports net of them produces a CbCR report that looks internally inconsistent to anyone reviewing it, even though both entities individually reported accurate figures on their own local basis, consistency has to be enforced at the definition level before data is compiled, not caught by chance during a final review.
- Headcount, in particular, is prone to inconsistent definitions across entities, full-time equivalent calculated differently, contractors included by some entities and excluded by others, and CbCR headcount figures that vary by definition across the group produce numbers that don't reflect actual comparable staffing levels even if each entity's own number is internally correct.
- This process compiles and checks consistency of data your entities provide, it does not determine the group's overall transfer pricing position or interpret what the compiled CbCR data implies for risk assessment, that analysis belongs with your tax and transfer pricing team once the data itself is reliably consistent.
- A figure flagged as inconsistent needs a real clarification cycle with the originating entity before it's corrected or explained, not a default assumption about which version is right, an apparent inconsistency sometimes reflects a genuine, defensible business difference between entities rather than a data error, and treating every flag as an error to overwrite risks losing real information.
Frequently asked questions
Does this determine our group's transfer pricing position from the CbCR data?
No, this compiles and checks the underlying data for internal consistency across entities; interpreting what the compiled data implies for transfer pricing risk assessment is analysis your tax team or advisor performs separately.
How does this catch inconsistency across entities that each report accurate local figures?
Every entity's data is checked against one consistent group-wide definition set, and any figure that departs from that definition, or from the entity's own historical pattern, is flagged for clarification before compilation, rather than each entity's local convention simply being accepted as-is.
What happens when a flagged inconsistency turns out to be a genuine, defensible difference?
Flags go through a clarification cycle with the originating entity rather than being automatically corrected, since an apparent inconsistency sometimes reflects a real business difference that should be preserved and explained, not overwritten.
Is this built around the OECD BEPS Action 13 CbCR framework?
Yes, the data categories and structure follow the OECD BEPS Action 13 framework most jurisdictions' CbCR requirements are based on.