Transfer Pricing Tool
for Hospitality

Transfer Pricing for Hospitality: OECD Methodology

The hospitality industry has a well-established ecosystem of hotel management agreements (HMAs) and franchise agreements between independent parties, making it one of the more favourable sectors for CUP-based transfer pricing analysis. When a hotel group's management company operates properties owned by related-party entities, the management fee structure must be arm's length — and the extensive market of third-party HMAs provides directly comparable data.

Hotel management fees are typically structured in two parts: a base fee (usually 2–5% of total hotel revenue, reflecting the management company's operational responsibilities) and an incentive fee (usually 8–12% of gross operating profit above a specified threshold, aligning the manager's return with property performance). This dual-fee structure is the industry standard for both third-party and related-party management agreements. OECD CUP analysis requires matching by hotel category (luxury vs. economy), market maturity, property size, and geographic location. Hotel brokerage firms (JLL Hotels, CBRE Hotels, HVS) publish extensive data on management fee structures that can be used as comparable evidence.

For franchise and brand licensing fees, the royalty rate must reflect the value of the brand, the reservation network, and the operating standards provided. International hotel franchise agreements typically charge 4–6% of room revenue for the brand license, plus separate fees for reservation system access, loyalty programme participation, and marketing fund contributions. Where the brand-owning entity and the hotel-owning entity are related parties, each component of the franchise fee must be justified separately at arm's length. Central reservation system (CRS) charges — for booking engine access, global distribution system connectivity, and revenue management tools — may be benchmarked using Cost Plus if comparable third-party CRS pricing is not available.

Recommended Method: CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price)

For hospitality entities, the cup (comparable uncontrolled price) is typically the most appropriate transfer pricing method. This tool pre-selects this method based on industry best practice and OECD guidance. Typical arm's length ranges for hospitality are 2–8%.

Typical Hospitality Intercompany Transactions

Hotel management fees — Management company operates hotels owned by related-party entities. Fees typically structured as base fee (2–5% of revenue) plus incentive fee (8–12% of GOP above threshold). CUP based on third-party management agreements. Preferred method: CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price).

Franchise/brand licensing fees — Brand-owning entity licenses the hotel brand, reservation system, and operating standards to affiliated hotel-owning entities. Royalty rate benchmarked against independent franchise agreements. Preferred method: CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price).

Central reservation system charges — Group entity provides centralised reservation, revenue management, and distribution system access. Cost Plus or CUP depending on whether comparable third-party CRS pricing exists. Preferred method: Cost Plus Method.

Regulatory Context

Hospitality TP benefits from extensive third-party comparable data. Key risk: management fees that extract excessive profit from property-owning entities in developing countries where the hotel is located. Some countries (e.g., India, China) scrutinise hospitality management fees particularly closely.

Limitation: This tool supports CUP for management fee and franchise royalty benchmarking. The dual base/incentive fee structure should be benchmarked as a whole and also component-by-component where comparable data allows.