---
id: KB-CD-012
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/credits-and-billing/splitting-the-cost-between-group-companies
idioma: en
categoria: creditos
audiencia: administrador
nivel: avanzado
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-CD-006, KB-ET-014]
citadoPor: [KB-CD-020]
---

# Splitting the cost between group companies

_When one company pays and three use it, and it has to be justifiable._

**Responde a:** recharging cost to subsidiaries · splitting costs between group companies · justifying usage per entity · intercompany billing of shared services

In a group it is common for one company to contract and the others to use. It works fine until someone — the tax adviser, an audit, a minority partner in one subsidiary — asks for the split to be justified. And then you need a criterion and data behind it.

## The three ways to split

| Criterion | When it fits | What you need |
| --- | --- | --- |
| By actual usage | When use differs a lot between entities | The breakdown by organisation or area |
| By a fixed key | When use is similar and a split would be arguable | A written, stable criterion (headcount, turnover) |
| Mixed | Part fixed, part by usage | Both, and the reasoning |

> [!IMPORTANT]
> What does not work is having no criterion. Splitting "as always" with no document explaining it is what gets questioned in an inspection or when a new partner joins a subsidiary.

## How to back it with data

1. **Separate what can be separated** — If each entity is its own organisation, consumption is separated at source.
2. **If they share one, separate by area or team** — It allows attribution without splitting operations.
3. **Pull the data for the same period you bill** — Monthly with monthly. Reconstructing at year end is where discrepancies appear.
4. **And write the criterion down, once** — With a date. Changing it later is legitimate; changing it without a trace is not.

> [!WARNING]
> If you are considering separate organisations solely to split costs, think twice: running five organisations costs more than the split it solves. Separate for other reasons, and use the breakdown for the split.

## What the adviser usually asks for

**En corto**

- The criterion, written and dated.
- The period's usage data, not an estimate.
- And consistency: the same criterion every month.

With those three the split defends itself. Without them, every financial year reopens the argument from scratch.

> [!NOTE]
> Beyond the split, the breakdown does something almost nobody looks at: it reveals that one area accounts for half the total. That information is more useful for managing than for billing.

**Can each entity have its own balance?**

If they are separate organisations, yes: each holds its own.

**What if a subsidiary leaves the group?**

With separate organisations it is clean; if they shared one, the separation needs planning.

**Is an equal split acceptable?**

If usage really is similar and it is written down, it is a valid criterion.

## Ejemplos

**A group splits the cost equally between four companies and one objects.**

- Pulls the usage breakdown by area for the last quarter
- Writes a mixed criterion and applies it from the next period

→ The split stops being argued and the company that barely used it pays accordingly.

**Cost is split equally between companies.**

- Checks each one's real consumption

→ The split rests on data.

**One group company says they spend less.**

- Shows them their consumption breakdown

→ The conversation closes on the figure.

**Each company wants its own control.**

- Separates consumption by organisation

→ Each one sees their own.

**The split is done by hand every month.**

- Checks the breakdown already calculated

→ The close stops taking an afternoon.

**A new company joins the group.**

- Adds its consumption to the same breakdown

→ The split keeps working the same way.