Australia vs Satyam Computer Services Limited, October 2018, Federal Court of Australia, Case No FCAFC 172

Category: Royalty and License Payments, Tax Treaties | Tag: ,
« | »

The question in this case was whether payments received by Satyam Computer Services Limited (now Tech Mahindra Ltd) from its Australian clients – that were royalties for the purposes of Article 12 of the tax treaty with India, but not otherwise royalties under Australian tax law – were deemed to be Australian source income by reason of Article 23 of the tax treaty and ss 4 and 5 of the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 and therefore included in the company’s assessable income for Australian tax purposes.

The answer provided by the Federal Court confirmed this to be the case.

 

Click here for other translation

2018FCAFC0172





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Preface paragraph 9The main mechanisms for resolving issues that arise in the application of international tax principles to MNEs are contained in these bilateral treaties. The Articles that chiefly affect the taxation of MNEs are: Article 4, which defines residence; Articles 5 and 7, which...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.144The provisions of paragraph 2.10 related to the use of rules of thumb apply to determinations of a correct transfer price in any controlled transaction, including cases involving the use or transfer of intangibles. Accordingly, a rule of thumb cannot be used to...
  1. German Guidance on Business Restructuring and Valuation issued in October 2010In 2008 German legislation on business restructurings was updated to align with the new chapter XI in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. § 1 para. 3 AStG and the “Regulation on the application of the arm’s length principle according to §1 para. 1...
  2. OECD: Report on harmful tax practices, 16 October 2017The OECD report on harmful tax incentives provides details on reviews of 164 preferential tax regimes. Some preferential tax regimes are considered harmful – where these encourage the erosion of other jurisdictions’ tax bases. All 102 members of the BEPS Inclusive Framework have...

Related Case Law

  1. Spain vs “XZ Insurance SA”, October 2022, Tribunal Economic-Administrative Central (TEAC), Case No Rec. 00/03631/2020/00/00“XZ Insurance SA” is the parent company in a group engaged in insurance activities in its various branches, both life and non-life, finance, investment property and services. An audit was conducted for FY 2013-2016 and in 2020 an assessment was issued in relation...
  2. France vs Société Planet, May 2022, Conseil d’État, Case No 444451In view of its purpose and the comments made on Article 12 of the OECD Model Convention, the Conseil d’État found that Article 12(2) of the Franco-New Zealand tax treaty was applicable to French source royalties whose beneficial owner resided in New Zealand,...
  3. France vs. SA Bossard Consultants, March 1998, Adm. Court, no 96pa00673N° 96PA00673A subsidiary company, which paid royalties for a licence of a trademark to its parent company, could not deduct part of the sums paid as a temporary increase of the royalties by one point because it could not justify the benefit from the...
  4. Netherlands vs “Tobacco B.V.”, December 2023, North Holland District Court, Case No AWB – 20_4350 (ECLI:NL:RBNHO: 2023:12635)A Dutch company “Tobacco B.V.” belonging to an internationally operating tobacco group was subjected to (additional assessment) corporate income tax assessments according to taxable amounts of €2,850,670,712 (2013), €2,849,204,122 (2014), €2,933,077,258 (2015) and €3,067,630,743 (2016), and to penalty fines for the year 2014...