How we think about the work · Margyn
Beliefs that shape how
we approach every engagement
Advisory work in international tax is only as useful as the thinking behind it. This page sets out the principles we start from — not as marketing language, but as an honest account of how we approach the work.
Back to homeOur foundation
Where the work begins
Cross-border tax advisory that actually helps clients starts with two things: an accurate picture of their situation, and a clear understanding of what the engagement is meant to address. Without those, work produces outputs that are technically complete but practically limited.
Margyn is built around these starting conditions. Scope is defined before substantive work begins. Deliverables are agreed in advance. The analysis that follows is structured around the actual facts of the engagement — not around what a standard template calls for.
Engagements begin with a scoping review — before analysis, before documentation, before fees are incurred on work that may not match the actual need.
Every engagement produces a defined output — a memorandum, a documentation package, or a filing plan — not informal advice that doesn't translate into action.
The cross-border frame is the starting point, not an afterthought. Obligations in multiple jurisdictions are addressed together, not managed in parallel without coordination.
Philosophy
Cross-border tax is a coordination problem as much as a technical one
Tax obligations across multiple jurisdictions are rarely designed with each other in mind. Treaties exist to address double taxation but require proactive claiming. Transfer pricing rules apply across borders but are enforced locally. Filings in different countries often proceed independently even when they reflect the same underlying facts.
The technical knowledge to navigate these frameworks matters — but coordination is equally important. Positions taken in one jurisdiction affect positions in another. Documentation prepared for one purpose may need to stand up in a different context. Advisory that doesn't account for these interdependencies addresses part of the problem while leaving the rest unexamined.
Core beliefs
What we hold to be true about this work
Scope agreed upfront is not optional
Work that begins without a clear definition of what it's meant to achieve tends to expand unpredictably. A scoping review at the start of every engagement is not a preliminary step — it is part of the work itself.
Minimum compliance is not the same as adequate compliance
Filing the minimum required documentation satisfies a legal obligation in the narrow sense. It doesn't address whether that documentation would support the analysis behind it if reviewed by a tax authority — and the gap between those two things has a practical cost.
Treaty positions need to be claimed to exist
Applicable treaty relief doesn't apply automatically. It must be identified, evaluated, and claimed within the right window in the right jurisdiction. Positions not identified at the relevant time often cannot be recovered retrospectively.
Consistency across jurisdictions is a risk factor in its own right
When filings in different countries are prepared separately without a shared view of the overall position, inconsistencies emerge. Those inconsistencies don't always surface immediately — but they represent a latent risk that grows the longer it isn't addressed.
The right output format matters as much as the content
Informal advice that cannot be shared with a local advisor, filed with a tax authority, or referenced in a future review has limited practical value. Deliverables should be fit for the purpose the client actually needs them for.
International complexity doesn't justify unclear communication
Cross-border tax is technically complex. That complexity doesn't require outputs that are hard to read. Analysis should be clear enough that the client can act on it — and that a local advisor in another jurisdiction can understand it without losing the reasoning behind it.
In practice
How principles translate into how the work is done
Stated values are only meaningful if they affect how work is actually conducted. These are the points where Margyn's principles show up in the structure of every engagement.
Scope review before substantive work
Transaction types, entity arrangements, and individual circumstances are reviewed before the engagement design is finalised. This shapes deliverables, timelines, and investment on a factual basis.
Treaty network review as standard scope
Applicable bilateral treaties are reviewed within the engagement rather than being left to the client to identify. This is part of how cross-border work should be approached, not an optional extra.
OECD-aligned analysis, not minimum documentation
Transfer pricing work follows OECD guidelines and accounts for jurisdiction-specific requirements. The benchmark is what can withstand scrutiny — not what satisfies a filing threshold without further analysis.
Coordinated filing, not parallel filing
Multi-jurisdiction obligations are addressed together. Filing coordination means the positions taken across jurisdictions are consistent with each other — not just technically complete in isolation.
Defined output at every engagement's end
Each engagement concludes with an agreed deliverable — a structuring memorandum, documentation package, or filing plan — accompanied by a walkthrough of key findings and implementation steps.
The individual dimension
Situations, not categories
Cross-border tax questions arise from specific facts: a particular structure, a set of transactions, an individual's location history. Generic frameworks are useful as a starting point but often don't map cleanly onto the actual situation.
Margyn engagements begin with the facts rather than a template. The jurisdictions involved, the transaction types, the structure of related-party arrangements — these shape the analysis, not the other way around. This is how work that produces defensible, applicable outputs tends to be structured.
For businesses expanding across borders
Entity structure, intercompany pricing, and treaty position are addressed as an integrated set of questions — not handled separately by advisors without visibility into each other's work.
For multinationals with existing structures
Transfer pricing documentation, treaty positions, and compliance coordination are reviewed against current OECD standards and jurisdiction-specific requirements, with specific findings rather than general observations.
For internationally mobile individuals
Departure and arrival filings, employer reporting, and ongoing compliance are handled with a shared understanding of the overall position across jurisdictions — not as separate local filings with no coordination.
Considered development
Updating methodology when the frameworks change
OECD guidelines evolve. Jurisdictions update their domestic requirements. Transfer pricing enforcement focus shifts. Advisory that relies on frameworks built for a previous version of the regulatory landscape produces positions that may have been adequate when first prepared but are less defensible at the time of review.
OECD guidelines
Transfer pricing work is aligned to current OECD standards — not to guidance that predates recent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting updates.
Jurisdiction-specific requirements
Local filing requirements and documentation thresholds are reviewed for each engagement rather than applied from a fixed template.
Regulatory context
Advisory positions account for the current enforcement environment rather than treating risk as static across different periods and jurisdictions.
Integrity and transparency
Honest about what we do and don't cover
Advisory relationships that obscure limitations — about what an engagement covers, what positions are well-supported, or where uncertainty exists — tend to create problems that surface later at the worst possible time. Margyn is direct about those things from the outset.
Scope defined clearly at the start
What the engagement covers — and what it doesn't — is agreed at the outset. If something falls outside the scope, that's identified explicitly rather than discovered later through an unexpected invoice.
Positions stated with appropriate confidence
Where a position is well-supported, that's stated clearly. Where uncertainty exists — a jurisdiction's application of a rule is unsettled, or a treaty position could be read differently — that's noted rather than papered over.
Pricing transparent before commitment
Service investment is set out at the service level and refined through the scoping review. There's no ambiguity about what an engagement costs before work begins.
Referral when the right answer is elsewhere
Not every cross-border question falls within Margyn's scope. Where local counsel, a specialist in a particular jurisdiction, or a different type of advisor would better serve the client's need, that's said directly.
Working together
Engagements as collaborative work, not service delivery
Cross-border tax advisory depends on information that only the client has — the facts of their structure, their transaction history, their jurisdictional footprint. Engagements that treat this as a one-way information flow from advisor to client tend to produce outputs that don't reflect the situation accurately.
Margyn works through the engagement with the client rather than to them. Findings are reviewed together. Implementation steps are discussed rather than prescribed. Where local advisors are involved in other jurisdictions, coordination is designed to include them rather than produce outputs they can't use.
Joint scoping
The scoping review is a conversation, not a questionnaire. What matters is understanding the actual situation well enough to design an engagement that addresses it.
Shared review of findings
Deliverables are walked through with the client. Questions are addressed. Implications are discussed. The output is intended to be understood and used, not filed and forgotten.
Local advisor compatibility
Where local advisors are involved in specific jurisdictions, outputs are structured to be readable and usable by them — not produced in formats that create additional translation work.
Long-term view
Positions that hold up, not ones that need revisiting
The value of cross-border advisory is not measured at the point of delivery. It's measured when a transfer pricing file is reviewed, when a treaty position is assessed, or when an expatriate's filing history is examined. Work that holds up at those points — because it was built to withstand them — represents the right kind of long-term outcome.
Defensible positions
Timely treaty claims
Consistent filings
Updated methodology
For you
What these principles mean in practice
You know what the engagement covers before it starts
A scoping review defines the scope, deliverables, and investment before substantive work begins. There's no ambiguity about what you're commissioning or what you'll receive.
The documentation you receive is designed to hold up
Structuring memoranda and transfer pricing files are prepared to a standard that supports the positions behind them — not to satisfy minimum filing requirements while leaving the underlying analysis unexamined.
Your cross-border obligations are addressed together
Filings, treaty positions, and intercompany arrangements are handled as a coordinated whole. The positions taken in each jurisdiction are consistent with each other because they've been designed that way from the start.
You leave with steps you can act on
Every engagement concludes with a walkthrough of findings and implementation steps specific to your situation — not general observations that require further translation before they can be used.
Next step
See whether this approach fits your situation
Describe your cross-border situation and we'll assess whether and how we can assist — no commitment required at that stage.
Get in touch