Austria vs Wx-Distributor, July 2012, Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Case No RV/2516-W/09

Category: Benchmark, Range and Median, Interquartile range and median, Losses that continue indefinitely | Tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

Wx-Distributor (a subsidiary of the Wx-group i.d.F. Bw.) is responsible for the distribution of household appliances in Austria. It is wholly owned by Z. Deliveries to Wx-Distributor are made by production companies of the Group located in Germany, Italy, France, Slovakia, Poland and Sweden with which it has concluded distribution agreements to determine transfer prices. On average Wx-Distributor had been loss-making in FY 2001-2005.

Following an tax audit, the intra-group transfer prices were re-determined for the years 2001 to 2004 by the tax authorities. It was determined that the transfer prices in two years were not within the arm’s length range. The review of the tax authorities had revealed a median EBIT margin of 1.53% and on that basis the operating margin for 2001 were set at 1.5%. For the following years the margin was set at 0.9% due to changed functions (outsourcing of accounts receivable, closure of half the IT department). The resulting adjustments were treated as hidden distribution of profits to the parent company.

An appeal was filed by Wx-Distributor.

Judgement of the Court

The Court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities.

Excerpts
“The functions and risks described above do not justify distribution agreements that do not ensure that the applicant, as a limited risk distributor, will not be able to achieve an overall (cumulative) positive operating result over a reasonable (foreseeable) period of time. This is also the case if this would be associated with higher losses for the independent production companies.”

“In the view of the UFS, the use of the median in the event that the EBIT margin achieved is outside the range is to be applied in the present case because, according to the study, there is no ‘highly reliable’ range (cf. Loukota/Jirousek comments on the criticism of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 ÖStZ 2011) due to comparability deficiencies.
Insofar as the applicant assumes that the correction of the EBIT margin to the median value constitutes an impermissible punitive taxation and possibly seeks an adjustment to the lower bandwidth value, whereby it recognisably refers to a decision of the BFH of 17 October 2001 I R 103/00, according to which an estimate is based on the upper or lower value of the bandwidth of arm’s length transfer prices, which is more favourable for the taxpayer. In addition to the existing comparability deficiencies, which in themselves justify an adjustment to the median, reference should also be made to the transfer pricing study by Baker&McKenzie from 2005, which was also submitted by the applicant.
It may be true that transfer prices have to be fixed in advance, but in the case at hand no transfer prices were fixed per transaction carried out; instead, distribution agreements had been concluded in unchanged form since 1999 and the arm’s length nature of these agreements was justified by the results of comparative company studies.
From the above point of view, it is permissible to use a study (Baker&McKenzie) for the further assessment of the arm’s length nature of the EBIT margin, which was prepared at a time (here 31 December 2005) that follows the period in which the net returns to be assessed were generated (2001 to 2005), but which refers to data material that originates from this period (2002 to 2004).
This is because a comparison of the net returns achieved in the period under review (2001 to 2005) with comparable enterprises based on data from the years 1996 to 1999 can at best be used for planning purposes, but subsequent significant developments in the period under review (e.g. economic downturns…) are not (or cannot be) taken into account.
According to Baker&McKenzie, the data material used in this process led to the result of comparable net yields with a median of 2.3% and a quartile range between 1.3% and 3.9%.
An appendix to this study, which was prepared especially for the company and deals with the special features of inventory adjustment, accounts receivable and accounts payable, shows a comparable median EBIT return for the company of 2.6% with a quartile range of 1.5% to 4.1%.
The values shown were achieved by comparable companies in the audit period and are consistently above the adapted median according to the transfer pricing study by Ernst & Young, which is why the adjustment to the lower range requested by the applicant is also unjustified for this reason.
If the UFS bases its assessment of the arm’s length transfer price on the Ernst & Young study and uses the median achieved there, this is because it follows the applicant’s argumentation regarding the price determination required in advance and for this reason bases its considerations regarding comparable net returns on the modified Ernst & Young transfer price study.
There are no other particular influencing factors that would make an adjustment of this study necessary.
In view of the above considerations, the UFS assumes that the median net return of 1.49% determined in the modified comparative study by Ernst & Young submitted by the applicant is appropriate and should be applied for the audit period.”

Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation

Austria vs Distributor UFS 30-7-2012 RV-2515-W-0960673-1





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.61If the relevant condition of the controlled transaction (e.g. price or margin) falls outside the arm’s length range asserted by the tax administration, the taxpayer should have the opportunity to present arguments that the conditions of the controlled transaction satisfy the arm’s length...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.62In determining this point, where the range comprises results of relatively equal and high reliability, it could be argued that any point in the range satisfies the arm’s length principle. Where comparability defects remain as discussed at paragraph 3.57, it may be appropriate...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1135. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9, except that Company S now enters into a three-year royalty-free agreement to market and distribute the watches in the country Y market, with no option to renew. At the end...
  4. OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 41When considering the risks assumed by a party to a controlled transaction, tax administrations should carefully consider the commercial rationale for any purported change in the risks assumed by a party before and after the outbreak of COVID-19 (and taking into consideration the...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1239. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9 with the following additions: By the end of Year 3, the R brand is successfully established in the country Y market and Primair and Company S renegotiate their earlier agreement...
  6. OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 39In all circumstances it will be necessary to consider the specific facts and circumstances when determining whether a so-called “limited-risk” entity could incur losses at arm’s length. This is reflected in the OECD TPG which states that “simple or low risk functions in...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.60If the relevant condition of the controlled transaction (e.g. price or margin) is within the arm’s length range, no adjustment should be made....
  8. TPG2022 Chapter II Annex I paragraph 2Under Illustration 1, if a taxpayer is operating with an associated manufacturer as in case 2 while the third party “comparables” are operating as in case 1, and assuming that the difference in the extent and complexity of the marketing function is not...
  1. EU: Public Country-by-Country Reporting?Proposal directive of public country-by-country reporting in the EU Ministers held an exchange of views (public session) on how to take the proposed directive forward. Tax transparency is a fundamental principle in any democratic society. It enables policy makers to take informed decisions...
  2. OECD Publishes Manual on Bilateral Advance Pricing ArrangementOn 28 September 2022 OECD published a new manual for entering bilateral advance pricing arrangement (APA’s) which has been approved by the Inclusive Framework on BEPS, as well as all members of the FTA, on 6 July 2022. The Bilateral Advance Pricing Arrangement...

Related Case Law

  1. France vs SASU Menarini Diagnostics France, November 2023, CAA de Paris, Case No. 21PA06233SASU Menarini Diagnostics France (a French subsidiary in the Italian Menarini Group) buys and resells diagnostic equipment and products for self-diagnosis and laboratories. Since its creation it had recurring operating losses, despite the profitability of each business line and irrespective of sales trends,...
  2. Panama vs “Petroleum Wholesale Corp”, September 2020, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-062“Petroleum Wholesale Corp” is engaged in the wholesale of petroleum products, accessories and rolling stock in general in Panama. Following a thorough audit carried out by the Tax Administration in Panama, where discrepancies and inconsistencies had been identified between the transfer pricing documentation...
  3. Spain vs “Benchmark SA”, November 2021, TEAC, Case No Rec. 4881/2019The tax authorities excluded some of the entities selected by the taxpayer in a benchmark study, as it considered that they did not meet the necessary comparability requirements, and also included some of the excluded entities, as it considered that they were comparable....
  4. Norway vs Orange Business Norway A/S, January 2020, Borgarting Lagmannsrett, Case No 2018-84331Orange Business Norway AS, a subsidiary of the French Orange Telecom Group, had been issued a tax assessment for FY 2006-2008. According to the Norwegian tax authorities, Orange Business Norway had determined the remuneration by applying a Profit Split Method in a way...