Canada vs Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd., April 2011, Tax Court of Canada, Case No 2011 TCC 232

Category: Arm's Length Principle, Services and Fees, Transfer Pricing Methods | Tag: , , , , , ,
« | »

Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd (APC, the taxpayer) was a Canadian manufacturer of custom prototype circuit boards. The manufacturing process was initially manual and later automated.

In 1996, a Barbados company, APCI Inc.,  was formed via a complex ownership structure.

The Barbados company provided services to Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd. by performing setup functions, software and website development, and maintenance services. APCI charged the appellant a fixed fee for the setup services and a square-inch fee for non-setup services. Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd charged the same fee for the same services to third-party customers.

The tax authorities asserted that the Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd overpaid APCI $3.4 million because the terms and conditions of the agreements differed from those that would have been entered at arm’s length.

Alberta Printed Circuits Ltd provided evidence of internal comparable transactions and transfer prices were determined by the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method.

The court held that the price paid to APCI for the setup fees was arm’s length. It allowed the appeal for those amounts but found that the appellant failed to establish that it did not overpay for the non-setup services.

The court disagreed with the CRA’s application of the transactional net margin method. The TCC judge instead accepted the hierarchy of methods established in the 1995 OECD guidelines, which shows a preference for traditional transaction methods and cites the CUP method as providing the highest degree of comparability. Thus, the court preferred the appellant’s internal comparable transactions.

 

Case No 2011 TCC 232

Canada vs Alberta Printed Circuits 2011





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.32It may be necessary to perform a functional analysis of the various members of the group to establish the relationship between the relevant services and the members’ activities and performance. In addition, it may be necessary to consider not only the immediate impact...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.15Following the principles in Chapter I, an uncontrolled transaction is comparable to a controlled transaction (i.e. it is a comparable uncontrolled transaction) for purposes of the CUP method if one of two conditions is met: a) none of the differences (if any) between...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.64The transactional net margin method examines the net profit relative to an appropriate base (e.g. costs, sales, assets) that a taxpayer realises from a controlled transaction (or transactions that are appropriate to aggregate under the principles of paragraphs 3.9-3.12). Thus, a transactional net...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.24In some cases, an indirect-charge method may be necessary due to the nature of the service being provided. One example is where the proportion of the value of the services rendered to the various relevant entities cannot be quantified except on an approximate...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.22An MNE group may be able to adopt direct charging arrangements, particularly where services similar to those rendered to associated enterprises are also rendered to independent parties. If specific services are provided not only to associated enterprises but also to independent enterprises in...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.171In considering whether controlled and uncontrolled transactions are comparable, regard should be had to all the factors which may affect the guarantee fee including: the risk profile of the borrower, terms and conditions of the guarantee, term and conditions of the underlying loan...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.47The following activities would not qualify for the simplified approach outlined in this section: services constituting the core business of the MNE group; research and development services (including software development unless falling within the scope of information technology services in 7.49); manufacturing and...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.16Another issue arises with respect to services provided “on callâ€. The question is whether the availability of such services is itself a separate service for which an arm’s length charge (in addition to any charge for services actually rendered) should be determined. A...
  1. Additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishmentsThe OECD has released additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. This additional guidance sets out high-level general principles for the attribution of profits to permanent establishments arising under Article 5(5), in accordance with applicable treaty provisions, and includes examples...
  2. 2018: ATO Taxpayer Alert on Mischaracterisation of activities or payments in connection with intangible assets (TA 2018/2)The ATO is currently reviewing international arrangements that mischaracterise intangible assets[1] and/or activities or conditions connected with intangible assets. The concerns include whether intangible assets have been appropriately recognised for Australian tax purposes and whether Australian royalty withholding tax obligations have been met. Arrangements...

Related Case Law

  1. Russia vs LLC Bogoroditskoye, February 2019, Court of Appeal, Case No. Ð62-8105/2017LLC Bogoroditskoye processed and preserved fish and seafood. During the period under review, these products were sold only to related parties. Following an transfer pricing audit, where the TNMM method was used, the tax authority concluded that the price of products paid by...
  2. Russia vs PJSC Uralkali, November 2019, Supreme Court Review Panel, Case No. Ð40-29025/2017PJSC Uralkali, produced and sold fertilizers (“potassium chlorideâ€) through a related Swiss trader. Uralkali had informed the authorities about the controlled transaction and submitted the required TP documentation. To substantiate the pricing of the transaction they had applied the transactional net margin method...
  3. France vs. Sté Amycel France, 16 March 2016, CE, No 372372),In Sté Amycel France the Court held that the Tax Administration must use an “appropriate” comparable when making transfer pricing adjustments. The French company was selling goods to both group companies and unrelated final customers. The tax administration had used a transaction with...
  4. Romania vs “Stone” A SRL, July 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 3217/2020“Stone” A SRL had bought stones/minerals from related parties and paid for certain services. Following an audit the tax authorities had issued an assessment, where the price paid for stones had been adjusted based on cost plus method and deductions for costs of...