Kamenitza AD had acquired the Kamenitza trademark from a related party, StarBev Netherlands B.V., in 2014 for €40.1 million. The tax authorities challenged the pricing of the transaction, arguing that the trademark’s market value was significantly lower. Relying on a 2009 sale price of €12.75 million, the the tax authorities priced the transaction using the CUP method and concluded that Kamenitza AD had overvalued the trademark. This reassessment resulted in additional corporate tax liabilities for the years 2014-2016, along with interest charges. Kamenitza AD filed an appeal with the administrative court, asserting that the 2014 purchase price was based on an Ernst & Young valuation using the relief-from-royalty method, a widely accepted approach in transfer pricing. The company further argued that the 2009 sale price was not a valid comparable due to changes in economic conditions. It also objected to the tax authorities application of the 2017 OECD Guidelines, specifically the guidance on DEMPE functions for intangibles, which were introduced after the transaction took place. The company maintained that these guidelines should not be retroactively applied to assess a 2014 transaction. The administrative court upheld the tax authorities’ decision, largely reproducing the reasoning provided by the tax authorities. Kamenitza AD appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, arguing that the lower court had failed to conduct its own independent assessment. Judgment The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision of the administrative court and ruled parcially in favour of Kamenitza AD and remanded the case. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the administrative court had not justified its reliance on the 2009 valuation over a 2012 valuation of the same trademark. It also ruled that the administrative court had failed to address the applicability of the 2017 OECD Guidelines and had disregarded expert reports that contradicted the tax authorities conclusions. Due to these procedural violations, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the corporate tax reassessment and remanded the case for reconsideration by a different panel of the Administrative Court. However, it upheld the tax authorities’ decision regarding withholding tax liabilities on payments made to foreign service providers, confirming that the company had failed to apply the correct withholding tax rules. The ruling is final and not subject to further appeal. Excerpts in English “First of all, it is rightly pointed out by the appellant that the court did not set out its own reasoning, but reproduced in full the reasoning and legal conclusions set out by the Director of the Directorate of the ETRS Sofia in the decision confirming the RA. In the contested judgment there is no ruling on issues of substance, as the administrative court referred to the ruling of the decision-making body on the appellant’s objections, which, however, cannot properly replace the need for the court to set out its own reasons and legal conclusions. The failure to state reasons constitutes an infringement of the procedural rules of the substantive kind, since, in addition to constituting a failure by the judge to fulfil the imperative duty imposed on him to state reasons for his decision, it infringes the rights and the opportunity of the parties to defend themselves, precludes the possibility of cassation review and infringes the principle of the two-instance nature of judicial review. In addition, the judgment does not rule at all on the objection of Kamenitza AD in relation to the valuation of the trademark used by the revenue administration as a market analogue in 2009 instead of the valuation of the same asset in 2012. Since it has been categorically established in the case that the conclusion of the auditing authorities on the non-market nature of the price of the 2014 transaction was formed after comparison with the valuation of the 2012 transaction, the question why the latter was not used as a comparable uncontrolled transaction in this case, but the 2009 one, is essential for the proper resolution of the dispute. In this regard, the court did not provide any reasoning, i.e. it did not decide whether the 2012 valuation of the intangible asset, prepared by the same valuer as that of the 2014 transaction at issue, should be taken into account in determining the market value under the comparable uncontrolled price method applied by the revenue authorities. As the sole ground for not applying the 2012 valuation, the court referred to the absence of a forensic accounting expert engaged by the appellant, for which, however, no instructions were given to the party in accordance with the requirement of Article 171(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 171(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. § 2 of the RPC and in violation of the principle of enhanced ex officio principle in the administrative process (Article 9(3) of the APC in conjunction with § 2 of the RPC). In its ruling on the merits, the court was first of all obliged to answer the disputed question referred to above – whether there are grounds for applying the 2012 valuation of the asset in the transaction between independent traders when determining the market value of the asset in the 2014 transaction. Instead, the administrative court only discussed the legality and reasonableness of the market value determined on the basis of the 2009 valuation of the mark, without providing its own reasoning on another of the company’s main complaints – the application of the OECD Guide, as revised in 2017, in assessing the terms of the 2014 transaction at issue. In this respect, the general reasoning of the tax director is reproduced in full, but no definitive conclusion is formed by the court as to whether the depreciation method – the DEMPE functions, which were introduced by the OECD Guide in its 2017 edition – was correctly applied by the auditing authorities in determining the market price of the asset.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

“Pharma Seller Ltd” — a Slovenian member of a multinational pharmaceutical group — had argued that, after a 2012 restructuring in which warehousing and logistics for South-Eastern Europe were moved to a newly formed Hungarian affiliate, it became merely a routine service provider entitled to a modest cost-plus return. During an audit the tax authorities concluded that “Pharma Seller Ltd” still performed the critical, value-creating functions for drug sales in the region: marketing to doctors, tender management, price setting, credit-risk monitoring and other commercial activities. Those activities were carried out by more than thirty highly qualified employees who remained on the Slovenian payroll, demonstrating that know-how, customer relationships and commercial risk control—constituting a marketable marketing intangible—had not migrated to Hungary. The tax authorities therefore treated the Hungarian company as performing only low-value distribution services, rewarded it with a 5 percent cost-plus mark-up, and allocated the residual (“non-routine”) profit to “Pharma Seller Ltd” through a notional royalty. An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court. Judgment The Administrative Court accepted the approach taken by the tax authorities, relying on Article 16 of the Corporate Income Tax Act, the Slovene Transfer Pricing Rules and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, which allow a profit-split method when traditional cost-based methods do not reflect the arm’s-length outcome. The Court held that “Pharma Seller Ltd”, bore the burden of supplying reliable comparables; because “Pharma Seller Ltd”’s own analyses used advertising-agency data unrelated to the regulated pharmaceutical context and failed to match its true functions, the tax authority was entitled to substitute the cost plus method with its own method. The partial relief previously granted on 2011 assessments was unaffected; for 2014 the additional corporate income tax of € 943,821.48 and related interest remain payable. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

The case concerns the legality of a diverted profits tax (DPT) assessment issued by the tax authorities against three UK-based companies in the Thomson Reuters group. The total amount assessed was in excess of £167 million, with Refinitiv Limited receiving the largest assessment. The issue is whether the tax assessments for FY 2015-2018 under UK diverted profit tax-provisions were inconsistent with an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) previously agreed between the companies and the tax authorities in January 2013. The APA, which covered the period from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014, established a transfer pricing method (TNMM/Cost Plus Method) for the pricing of certain intercompany services between UK companies and a Swiss company of the Thomson Reuters group. The UK companies (TRUK) provided intellectual property (“IP”) services to a Swiss group company (TRGR) which held the group’s main IP assets. According to the tax authorities, these services increased the value of the IP held by the Swiss company and resulted in high profits being allocated to the Swiss company, which was taxed at much lower rates than the UK companies. According to the tax authorities, the UK companies did not receive the compensation for providing those services that they would have done if the services had been provided at arm’s length. In broad terms, this remained the position until the IP was sold by the Swiss company in 2018 for a very substantial gain, as part of a disposal by the Thomson Reuters group of its “Financial & Risk” (“F&R”) business unit to a new joint venture company, Refinitiv Holdings Limited. It was also part of the tax authorities’ case that the services supplied by the UK companies to the Swiss company throughout the period from 2008 to 2018 contributed (a) to the generation of annual profits by the Swiss company in future years (as well as in the year of supply) and (b) to the value of the IP sold in 2018, and thus to the capital profits made on the sale by the Swiss company in 2018. Following the expiry of the APA the tax authorities formed the view that in later accounting periods (FY 2015 and onwards) it was no longer appropriate to use a cost-plus methodology in relation to the IP-related DEMPE-services supplied by UK companies to the Swiss company, but a profit-split methodology should be used instead. “TRUK, through its value-adding services, makes a significant contribution to the value of TRGR’s intangibles and, therefore, it is appropriate that it is compensated by reference to a share of the returns earned by TRGR from the exploitation of the intangibles in two ways: first, by using the intangibles to sell products and services as part of its commercial operations; and second, by selling the intangibles as part of the disposal of the F&R business. Therefore, it is in line with the arm’s length principle for TRUK to be rewarded by reference to a share of the profits generated by TRGR from both the use of intangibles to sell products and services to customers and the IP value crystallised on the sale of the F&R business in 2018.” The companies appealed, arguing that the tax authorities were bound by the transfer pricing method agreed and applied under the APA. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the companies’ judicial review claim and the companies then appealed to the Court of Appeal. Judgment The Court of Appeal considered the statutory framework for corporation tax and DPT, the terms of the APA and the arguments put forward by both parties. The court concluded that the 2018 accounting period falls outside the temporal limits and effective scope of the APA. Therefore, the APA does not apply to the 2018 period and there is no public law objection to the DPT assessments made by the tax authorities for that period. The appeal was dismissed. Excerpts “Neither party, in my judgment, could reasonably have contemplated that, if (as happened) the APA was not renewed, the methodology used and applied for the years covered by the APA should have a continuing and constraining effect on HMRC’s approach to transfer pricing in future accounting periods from 1 January 2015 onwards. Those future periods lay outside the temporal scope of the APA, so in the absence of further agreement each succeeding accounting period must be examined separately for corporation tax purposes unaffected by the APA. Still less, in my judgment, could the parties reasonably have contemplated that the time-limited methodology of the APA should somehow constrain the extent or nature of any charges to DPT that HMRC might later seek to impose on TR UK under legislation that did not yet exist, and had only very recently been announced, when the five-year term of the APA came to an end on 31 December 2014.” “I am willing to accept that one of the functions of clause 3.1 is to stipulate the temporal limits of the Covered Transactions to the extent that the limits are not made clear in the relevant definitions, but that alone does not begin to explain how the agreed treatment of the transactions could continue to have effect and bind HMRC after the end of the term of the APA. There is, of course, no dispute that HMRC were bound by the APA throughout its term. They have never sought to argue otherwise, or to re-open the transfer pricing treatment agreed for those chargeable periods. But for the reasons I have already given, I can find nothing in the language of the APA to support the notion that the agreed treatment should enjoy a potentially indefinite afterlife in future accounting periods once the term of the APA had come to an end. In truth, the words which I have italicised in Mr Peacock’s submissions on this point are no more than bare assertions, and they do nothing to advance the debate.” “To conclude, therefore, I am satisfied that the 2018 accounting period of TR UK falls outside the temporal limits and the effective scope of

The business activity of A Pharma S.A. was wholesale of pharmaceutical products to external pharmacies, hospitals, wholesalers (including: to affiliated wholesalers). The tax authority had noted that the company’s name had been changed in FY 2013, and a loss in the amount of PLN […] had been reported in the company’s tax return. An audit revealed that the Company had transferred significant assets (real estate) to a related entity on non-arm’s length terms. The same real estate was then going forward made available to the company on a fee basis under lease and tenancy agreements. The tax authority issued an assessment where a “restructuring fee” in the amount of PLN […] was added to the taxable income, reflecting the amount which would have been achieved if the transaction had been agreed between independent parties. According to the company the tax authority was not entitled at all to examine the compliance of the terms of these transactions with the terms that would have been agreed between hypothetical independent entities, as the transactions in question were in fact concluded precisely between independent entities. (SKA companies were not CIT taxpayers in 2012, so they did not meet the definition of a “domestic entity” referred to in the aforementioned provision, and therefore a transaction between “related entities” cannot be said to have taken place). Moreover, the institution of “re-characterisation” of a controlled transaction into a proper transaction (according to the authority),could only be applied to transactions taking place after 1 January 2019, pursuant to Article 11e, Section 4 of the A.l.t.p. introduced (from that date). On appeal, the Administrative Court decided predominantly in favor of A Pharma S.A. and remanded the case back to the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgment The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the Administrative Court. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

“Agri B.V.” is a Dutch subsidiary of an international group active in the processing of agricultural products. Following a restructuring in 2009, Agri B.V. had declared taxable profits of €35 million, including €2 million in exit profits. This amount was adjusted to more than €350 million. According to the tax authority an ongoing business had effectively been transfered to a Swiss affiliated company as a result of the restructuring of the group, and profits from the transfer had not been declared by “Agri B.V.” for tax purposes. “Agri B.V.” then filed an appeal and in 2022, the District Court ruled largely in favour of the tax authorities. But the Court significantly reduced the value on the basis of an expert valuation report. An appeal was then filed with the Court of Appeal. Judgment The Court of Appeal largely upheld the judgment of the District Court. The Court ruled that the tax authority had made it plausible that something of additional value had been transferred to the Swiss affiliated company for which they had wrongly not stipulated any remuneration that the inspector (also in view of the minimum value calculated by an expert of what was transferred in total) was right for that reason to make a transfer price adjustment, and that he had also made it plausible that the interested party had not filed the required return as referred to in Section 27e AWR, so that the burden of proof should be reversed and increased. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

D. Sp. z oo had deducted interest expenses on intra-group loans and expenses related to intra-group services in its taxable income for FY 2015. The loans and services had been provided by a related party in Delaware, USA. Following a inspection, the tax authority issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been denied resulting in additional taxable income. In regards to the interest expenses the authority held that the circumstances of the transactions indicated that they were made primarily in order to achieve a tax advantage contrary to the object and purpose of the Tax Act (reduction of the tax base by creating a tax cost in the form of interest on loans to finance the purchase of own assets), and the modus operandi of the participating entities was artificial, since under normal trading conditions economic operators, guided primarily by economic objectives and business risk assessment, do not provide financing (by loans or bonds) for the acquisition of their own assets, especially shares in subsidiaries, if these assets generate revenue for them. In regards to support services (management fee) these had been classified by the group as low value-added services. It appeared from the documentation, that services concerned a very large number of areas and events that occurred in the operations of the foreign company and the entire group of related entities. The US company aggregated these expenses and then, according to a key, allocated the costs to – among others – Sp. z o.o. The Polish subsidiary had no influence on the amount of costs allocated or on the verification of such costs. Hence, according to the authorities, requirements for tax deduction of these costs were not met. An appeal was filed by D. Sp. z oo with the Administrative Court requesting that the tax assessment be annulled in its entirety and that the case be remitted for re-examination or that the proceedings in the case be discontinued. The Administrative Court dismissed the complaint of D. Sp. z oo and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Administrative Court where the decision of the Administrative Court and the tax assessment were set aside. Click here for English Translation

The Revenue raised an additional assessment on gain received from the transfer of technical know-how by Keysight Technologies to Agilent Technologies International for the amount of RM821,615,000.00 being income under section 4(f) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA 1967) together with the penalty under section 113(2) ITA 1967. The Revenue contended that subsection 91(3) of the ITA 1967 provided that the Revenue may issue an assessment after the expiration of the time period of 5 years on grounds of fraud or willful default or negligence. The findings of negligence on the part of Keysight Technologies include failure to support the claim that the gain from the transfer of technical knowhow (i.e. the marketing and manufacturing intangibles) by Keysight Technologies to Agilent Technologies International was an outright sale and failure to furnish the document and information as requested by the Revenue in the audit letter on the valuation of the marketing and manufacturing intangibles. The Revenue found that there was no proof of outright sale of the technical know-how as the Intellectual Property (IP) Agreement and Manufacturing Services (MS) Agreement showed no evidence that the legal rights had been transferred to ATIS since the agreements merely stated of the transfer of beneficial rights. Further, facts have shown that the technical know-how was still used by Keysight Technologies in a similar manner prior to and post the IP Agreement and MS Agreement. Instead, the gain of RM821,615,000.00 million was proven to represent the future income that would have been received by Keysight Technologies for the years 2008-2015 should Keysight Technologies continue to carry out its function as a full-fledged manufacturing company of which the function had subsequently changed to being a contract manufacturing company due to the group’s global restructuring exercise. As such, the gain was taxed as other income under section 4(f) ITA 1967. Keysight Technologies argued that the Revenue was time-barred under section 91(1) ITA 1967 from issuing the Notice of Additional Assessment for YA 2008. Keysight Technologies also argued that the sale of marketing and manufacturing intangibles by Keysight Technologies to Agilent Technologies International was capital in nature and therefore should not subject to tax under section 4(f) ITA 1967. The “badges of trade test” would be applicable in determining whether the income was revenue or capital in nature. Judgment The Court of Appeal overturned the SCIT and the High Court dicisions and allowed Keysight Technologies’ appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the application of the “badges of trade” test as argued by Keysight Technologies in determining whether the income was capital or revenue in nature and the test was not confined to disposal of land. The “Badges of Trade test” considers several factors; Subject matter of the transaction, Period of ownership, Frequency of transactions, Alteration of property to render it more saleable, Methods employed in disposing of property, Circumstances responsible for sale. The Court of Appeal held that Keysight Technologies was not in the business of buy and sell of IP and the IP was not its stock in trade. No special effort had been made by Keysight Technologies to attract purchasers. The transfer of technical know-how was due to global restructuring of the group of the company. The Court of Appeal further held that there had been an actual sale by way of agreement. The title to technical know-how was not registrable due to protection of confidential information. The outright sale test thus was not a proper test and the valuation report as requested by the Revenue was irrelevant. There was no failure on the part of Keysight Technologies to adduce valuation report as it was not requested during audit. Thus, there was no negligence and hence the additional assessment was time-barred. Keysight Technologies’ appeal was allowed with cost of RM20,000 to be paid by the Revenue to Keysight Technologies. Click here for translation

The case concerns the validity of the tax office’s decision of 18 October 2022 regarding DHL Global Forwarding (Norway) AS (DGF Norway). The decision increases the company’s taxable income for the years 2014 to 2019 by a total of NOK 242,870,750. The core of the dispute is whether DGF Norway’s income has been reduced due to a community of interest with companies in the same group, so that there is a basis for a discretionary assessment pursuant to section 13-1 of the Tax Act. DGF Norway made losses for 22 years from 1998 to 2019. The tax authorities claims that the business has been maintained for strategic reasons related to the group’s need for representation in Norway, and that the company has not been sufficiently compensated for the continuation of the loss-making activities seen in isolation. In the tax authorities’ view, a ‘service charge’ would have been agreed between independent parties, cf. the OECD TPG (2017), Chapter I, D.3. ‘Losses’, paragraphs 1.129 and 1.130. DGF Norway submitted a claim that the decision is invalid and should be cancelled. The company was of the opinion that no discretionary power has been demonstrated pursuant to section 13-1 first paragraph of the Taxation Act. In the alternative, it was argued that the discretionary power has not been exercised in line with the provision’s third paragraph, and that the decision to review the case was incorrect and insufficiently justified, cf. section 12-1 of the Tax Administration Act. In addition, the right to review for the years 2014 to 2016 is considered to have expired. Decision of the District Court The court found in favour of DGF Norway, ruling that the tax authorities had not demonstrated a sufficient causal link between the company’s losses and its community of interest with other group companies, nor had it adequately identified or analyzed the supposed transaction that would justify a service charge. The court criticized the abstract and imprecise nature of the tax authorities’ assumptions and underlined that no comparable transaction or clear counterparty had been identified. It also pointed out that the company turned a profit from 2020 onwards following management and operational changes, not a shift in transfer pricing. The court concluded that the prerequisites for a discretionary income adjustment under section 13-1 of the Tax Act were not met. Excerpts in English “In this case, there is no formalised agreement or terms on which to base an analysis of the transaction. No specific counterparty has been identified, but it is claimed that it is the network as a whole that must compensate DGF Norway. In addition, the factors that the state believes illustrate the benefit that the company creates for the Group and which should provide a basis for additional remuneration, are to a small extent concretised and documented. It has been argued that the presence in Norway creates direct ‘business’ in foreign group companies, as well as indirectly by advertising that GFF is present in most countries in the world. The extent to which this is true is unclear. In particular, the government has highlighted the shipping of seafood, including the round-the-world flights in connection with the export of live crab from Northern Norway in 2017 to 2018, which the government claims benefited other parts of the Group through more favourable prices for transport to or from Asia. The exact effects have not been clarified. Access to evidence here was a topic in the latter part of the case preparation, but was not emphasised. The parties’ handling of this issue does not provide a basis for reversing the burden of proof, as argued by the state. The uncertainty surrounding the alleged deviations from the arm’s length principle is well illustrated by the fact that the government has referred to the group’s principles for pricing and allocation as almost impenetrable, and that the decision states that the tax office lacks a basis for evaluating whether purchases and sales of intra-group services have been determined at arm’s length. The latter was stated in the decision after referring to the draft decision, where the group’s benefit from the company’s presence in Norway is mentioned as one of several factors that may have caused the reduction in income. Nor does the government have any idea of the reasons for the later profits from 2020, other than that it may be due to factors such as reorganisation of pricing, allocation of costs, changes in the tripartite relationship Starbroker/DGF Norway/external airlines or extraordinary gross margin due to the corona pandemic. The result is that the alleged transaction that forms the basis for a service charge is not specified and analysed as required by the transfer pricing rules. Nor does it make it possible to identify comparable uncontrolled transactions or to compare with such transactions. In the court’s opinion, it is therefore not reasonable and justifiable to apply the service charge approach in point 1.130 of the OECD Guidelines, as the state has done. The mainstay of the State’s argumentation in favour of discretionary power is the persistent deficits. The Court does not agree that a special utility value for the Group is the only plausible explanation for why DGF Norway’s operations have been maintained, at least not during the six-year control period, the first years of which were characterised by restructuring after a major restructuring, an oil crisis that resulted in poor market conditions and crab shipping as a failed business project. An equally plausible explanation is that the company and the Group have been convinced that it is possible to make a profit, but that unexpected costs, market conditions, poor management or combinations of such factors have stood in the way of succeeding with what have basically been business strategies and decisions that do not deviate from the arm’s length principle. The company made large profits from 2020, the year after the control period and after significant operational changes had been implemented. […] In the decision, neither the restructuring from 2014 nor the challenges faced by the company during

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 of €1,614,709, for the year 2015 of €363,205 and for the year 2016 of €125,175,082. In each case, the dispute focuses on whether the fees charged by various group companies for supplies and services can be regarded as business-related. Also in dispute is whether transfer profit should have been recognised in connection with a cessation of business activities. One of the group companies provided factoring services to “Tobacco B.V.”. The factoring fee charged annually for this includes a risk fee to cover the default risk and an annual fee for other services. The court concluded that the risk was actually significantly lower than the risk assumed in determining the risk fee, that the other services were routine in nature and that the factoring fee as a whole should be qualified as impractical. “Tobacco B.V.” has not rebutted the presumption that the disadvantage caused to it by paying the factoring fees was due to the affiliation between it and the service provider. In 2016, a reorganisation took place within the tobacco group in which several agreements concluded between group companies were terminated. The court concluded that there had been a coherent set of legal acts, whereby a Dutch group company transferred its business activities in the field of exporting tobacco products, including the functions carried out therein, the risks assumed therein and the entire profit potential associated therewith, to a group company in the UK. For the adjustment related to the transfer profit, the court relies on the projected cash flows from the business and information known at the time the decision to transfer was taken. The conclusions regarding factoring and the termination of business activities in the Netherlands lead to a deficiency in the tax return for each of the years 2014 to 2016. For these years, “Tobacco B.V.” filed returns to negative taxable amounts. For the years 2014 and 2016, a substantial amount of tax due arises after correction, even if the corrections established by application of reversal and aggravation are disregarded. For the year 2015, the tax due remains zero even after correction. Had the return been followed, this would have resulted in “Tobacco B.V.” being able to achieve, through loss relief, that substantially less tax would be due than the actual tax due. At the time the returns were filed, “Tobacco B.V.” knew that this would result in a substantial amount of tax due not being levied in each of these years and the court did not find a pleading position in this regard. The burden of proof is therefore reversed and aggravated. For the year 2013, this follows from the court’s decision of 17 October 2022, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2022:8937. To finance their activities, the group companies issued listed bonds under the tobacco group’s so-called EMTN Programme, which were guaranteed by the UK parent company. A subsidiary of “Tobacco B.V.” joined in a tax group paid an annual guarantee fee to the UK parent company for this purpose. The court ruled that: – the guarantee fees are not expenses originating from the subsidiary’s acceptance of liability for debts of an affiliated company; – the EMTN Programme is not a credit arrangement within the meaning of the Umbrella Credit Judgment(ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BW6520); – “Tobacco B.V.” has made it clear that a not-for-profit fee can be determined at which an independent third party would have been willing to accept the same liability on otherwise the same terms and conditions; – “Tobacco B.V.” failed to show that in the years in which the guarantee fees were provided, credit assessments did not have to take implied guarantee into account; – “Tobacco B.V.” failed to show that its subsidiary was not of such strategic importance to the group that its derivative rating did not match the group rating, so that the guarantee fees paid are not at arm’s length due to the effect of implied guarantee in their entirety; – “Tobacco B.V.” did not put forward any contentions that could rebut the objectified presumption of awareness that follows from the size of the adjustments (the entire guarantee fee), that the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the payment of the guarantee fees is due to its affiliation with its parent company. A group company charges the claimant, inter alia, a fee corresponding to a percentage of “Tobacco B.V.”‘s profits (profit split) for activities on behalf of the tobacco group that result in cost savings for “Tobacco B.V.”. The court ruled that “Tobacco B.V.” failed to prove that the group company made a unique contribution to the tobacco group that could justify the agreed profit split. The group company also charges “Tobacco B.V.” a fee equivalent to a 12% mark-up on costs for services relating to the manufacture of cigarettes. The court ruled that, in the context of the reversal and aggravation of the burden of proof, it was not sufficient for “Tobacco B.V.” to refer to the functional analysis, as it was based on the incorrect premise that the group company could be compared to a manufacturer. Finally, since April 2012, “Tobacco B.V.” has been paying the group company a 10% fee on the costs excluding raw materials for the production of cigarettes as toll manufacturer, where previously the basis of this fee also included the costs of raw materials. The court noted that the flow of goods remained the same and that “Tobacco B.V.” remained operationally responsible for the production process. The court ruled that it was up to “Tobacco B.V.” to establish and prove facts from which it follows that it was businesslike to change the basis of remuneration, which it did not do sufficiently. Regarding an adjustment made by the tax authorities in relation to reorganisation costs, the court finds that the adjustment was made in error.

Due to the economic situation of automotive suppliers in Germany in 2006, “Cutting Tech GMBH” established a subsidiary (CB) in Bosnien-Herzegovina which going forward functioned as a contract manufacturer. CB did not develop the products itself, but manufactured them according to specifications provided by “Cutting Tech GMBH”. The majority of “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s sales articles were subject to multi-stage production, which could include various combinations of production processes. In particular, “Cutting Tech GMBH” was no longer competitive in the labour-intensive manufacturing processes (cut-off grinding, turning, milling) due to the high wage level in Germany. Good contribution margins from the high-tech processes (adiabatic cutting, double face grinding) increasingly had to subsidise the losses of the labour-intensive processes. Individual production stages, however, could not be outsourced to external producers for reasons of certification and secrecy. In addition, if the production had been outsourced, there would have been a great danger that a third company would have siphoned off “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s know-how and then taken over the business with “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s customer. This could have led to large losses in turnover for “Cutting Tech GMBH”. Furthermore, some of the labour-intensive work also had to cover one or more finishing stages of the high-tech processes, so that this business was also at risk if it was outsourced. For these reasons, the decision was made to outsource the labour-intensive production processes to Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to become profitable again and to remain competitive in the future. There, there were German-speaking staff with the necessary expertise, low customs duties and a low exchange rate risk. CB functioned as a contract manufacturer with the processes of production, quality assurance and a small administrative unit. Cost advantages existed not only in personnel costs, but also in electricity costs. CB prevented the plaintiff’s good earnings from the high-tech processes in Germany from having to continue to be used to subsidise the low-tech processes. “Cutting Tech GMBH” supplied CB with the material needed for production. The deliveries were processed as sales of materials. “Cutting Tech GMBH” received as purchase prices its cost prices without offsetting profit mark-ups or handling fees/commissions. The material was purchased and supplied to CB by “Cutting Tech GMBH”, which was able to obtain more favourable purchase prices than CB due to the quantities it purchased. The work commissioned by “Cutting Tech GMBH” was carried out by CB with the purchased material and its personnel. CB then sold the products to “Cutting Tech GMBH”. In part, they were delivered directly by CB to the end customers, in part the products were further processed by “Cutting Tech GMBH” or by third-party companies. “Cutting Tech GMBH” determined the transfer prices for the products it purchased using a “contribution margin calculation”. Until 2012, “Cutting Tech GMBH” purchased all products manufactured by CB in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 2013 onwards, CB generated its own sales with the external company P. This was a former customer of “Cutting Tech GMBH”. Since “Cutting Tech GMBH” could not offer competitive prices to the customer P in the case of production in Germany, CB took over the latter’s orders and supplied P with the products it manufactured in accordance with the contracts concluded. CB did not have its own distribution in the years in dispute. The tax audit of FY 2011 – 2013 The auditor assumed that the transfer of functions and risks to CB in 2007/2008 basically fulfilled the facts of a transfer of functions. However, since only a routine function had been transferred, “Cutting Tech GMBH” had rightly carried out the transfer of functions without paying any special remuneration. Due to CB’s limited exposure to risks, the auditor considered that the cost-plus method should be used for transfer pricing. In adjusting the transfer prices, the auditor assumed a mark-up rate of 12%. The material invoiced by “Cutting Tech GMBH” and the scrap proceeds was not included in the cost basis used in the assessment. For 2013, the auditor took into account that the customer P had agreed contracts exclusively with CB and reduced the costs by the costs of the products sold to P. Furthermore, the auditor took the legal view that the entire audit period should be considered uniformly. Therefore, it was appropriate to deduct an amount of €64,897 in 2011, which had been calculated in favour of “Cutting Tech GMBH” in 2010 and not taken into account in the tax assessment notices, in order to correct the error. The auditor did not consider it justified to determine the transfer prices for “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s purchases of goods by means of a so-called contribution margin calculation. Based on the functional and risk analysis, the auditor concluded that CB was a contract manufacturer. On the grounds that this profit of CB was remuneration for a routine function, the auditor refrained from recognising a vGA because of the transfer of client P from the applicant to CB. However, he stated that according to arm’s length royalty rates, values between 1% and 3% could be recognised as royalty “according to general practical experience.” “Cutting Tech GMBH” filed an appeal against the assessment in 2015 and in November 2019 the Tax Court parcially allowed the appeal of “Cutting Tech GMBH” and adjusted the assessment issued by the tax authorities. An appeal and cross appeal against the decision of the Tax Court was then filed with the Federal Tax Court (BFH). Judgment of the BFH The Federal Tax Court overturned the decision of the Tax Court and referred the case back to the Tax Court for another hearing and decision. “The appeals of the plaintiff and the FA are well-founded. They lead to the previous decision being set aside and the matter being referred back to the Fiscal Court for a different hearing and decision (§ 126 Para. 3 Sentence 1 No. 2 FGO). The arm’s length comparison carried out by the lower court to determine the transfer prices for the acquisition of processed products from C by the Plaintiff is not free of legal

The German operating companies (W, X, Y and Z) manufactured products using a licence provided by B and sold these products to customers in Germany. The Group decided to move these activities to Switzerland which according to the German tax authorities constituted a taxable transfer of functions. Judgment of the Finanzgericht According to the court neither assets nor other business opportunities were transferred from WXYZ GmbH to the Swiss company. In addition, there was no transfer of a function that was previously exercised by the german operating companies and is now exercised by the Swiss company and thus no causal link between the transfer of assets or other benefits and the transfer of the ability to exercise a function. An appeal against the judgment is pending before the BFH under case no. I R 54/23. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

In 2008 and 2009 the Medtronic group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Ventor Technologies Ltd, for a sum of $325 million. Subsequent to the acquisition various inter-company agreements were entered into between Ventor Technologies Ltd and Medtronics, but no transfer of intangible assets was recognised by the Group for tax purposes. The tax authorities found that all the intangibles previously owned by Ventor had been transferred to Medtronic and issued an assessment of additional taxable profits. An appeal was filed by Medtronic Ventor Technologies Ltd. Judgment of the District Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Click here for English translation

Following an audit, the Spanish tax authorities issued a notice of assessment where the profit of Electrolux España had been adjusted resulting in additional taxable income. The related party transactions resulting in the adjustment were Manufacturing costs under a manufacturing contract Profit margin under a distribution contract Deductibility for restructuring costs Pricing of a warehouse rental agreement. A complaint was filed by Electrolux España with the TEAC which upheld the part of the assessment referring to related-party transactions. An appeal was then filed by the company with the National Court. Judgment of the Court The Court ruled parcially in favor of the tax authorities and parcially in favour of Electrolux España. Excerpts “The Inspectorate therefore concludes that “where a group, as in this case, qualifies its contract manufacturer as a low-risk manufacturer and, in turn, this low-risk manufacturer sizes its plant with appropriate investments to serve only its related principal, it cannot be assumed that the losses arising from the restructuring carried out by the group are linked solely to the manufacturer. An independent manufacturer would rarely depend exclusively on a single customer and, if it did, it would have foreseen the contingency of its disappearance without notice and thus its own disappearance as a manufacturer’. A conclusion with which we essentially agree, and which is not undermined by contrary evidence. And in any case, the final conclusion of the aforementioned expert report is much closer to the position of the Inspectorate than what is claimed in the complaint, since it warns that “…. from a forensic perspective, in accordance with both academic and business practice, in the event that the manufacturer were to receive some compensation, this would be equal to the loss of profit or profit lost as a result of the interrupted activity, reduced, in turn, by the alternative profits that the manufacturer could have obtained from the resources released after the period of disengagement, but in no case could it be equal to the costs of closing the factories”. That said, the claimant is not wrong when it describes this adjustment as inconsistent because the Inspectorate has not demonstrated the hypothetical reconstruction of the relationship between the parties in accordance with the arm’s length principle. This is indeed the case; the settlement makes this adjustment, which involves reducing the declared costs, because they do not correspond to those that would be borne in an arm’s length contractual relationship between free operators, but it does not say whether the Spanish company would eventually have to bear any part of them, as can be inferred from the settlement and the TEAC’s decision, and responds to the expert evidence already mentioned. However, assuming the above, it is not enough to theoretically state this inconsistency in order to consider the adjustment to be not in accordance with the law. This assertion should have been accompanied by an argumentative and evidential basis to support the specific position of the party, i.e., expressing (and accrediting) the amount or percentage by which the Spanish company should pay the expenses, in order to overturn the decision of the liquidation, and this has not taken place. To conclude this particular debate, we consider very unfortunate the expression in the application according to which “If, despite this inefficiency and therefore the economic reason in Spain for the decision to close, this Court insists on rejecting the deductibility of the restructuring costs, in a way it is taking a position against the existence of multinational groups”. In no way does this Court take a position either against or in favour of multinational groups: that would be quite wrong. If we were to do so, we would cease to be a Court and would become advocates for one side, as is the one who has put forward this incalificable hypothesis. Dismissed.” “The TEAC considers the use of the median to be appropriate because there are defects in comparability, -of which there is no doubt after cleaning-, and because it is not affected by extreme results, which could modify the average or the weighted average. Reasoning that we appreciated at the time in our judgment of 6/3/2019 (appeal 353/2015) when we said “in short, it seems to us that, in effect, once it has been determined that the appellant’s ROS in the year under discussion is outside the lowest interquartile, it is indeed appropriate to carry out the corresponding regularisation. But the fact that this is the case does not, without more, allow the median to be applied in the terms provided for in Rule 3.62, since the application of that rule is not justified by the fact of being outside the arm’s length range, but by the existence of ‘defects in comparability’…. In short, the small number of comparables with which the result was finally obtained could constitute an obstacle to achieving an acceptable result, but the fact is that the application has highlighted this circumstance, but has not ruled on the inappropriateness with arguments and not only by rejecting it. In our aforementioned judgment we already warned on the number and timing of comparables that “…in short, in accordance with the Directives the ideal is to look at what it calls “contemporaneous uncontrolled transactions”, given that it reflects the behaviour of independent parties in an economic environment identical to that in which the taxpayer’s controlled transaction took place”. However, diachronic, multi-year examination was also allowed in certain cases and for certain reasons, “the examination of data relating to several years is often useful for comparability analysis, although it is not a systematic requirement”. The number of years to be taken into account should be determined and justified on a case-by-case basis, “…as it would not be appropriate to set standards for the number of years to be covered by an analysis of more than one year”. In the particular case of the 2011 financial year, the Complainant considers that no transfer pricing adjustment is appropriate because, in accordance with paragraph 3. 60 of the OECD Guidelines, in

The case concerned the valuation of intangible assets transferred from a Danish company to an affiliated foreign company. The Tax Tribunal basically agreed with the valuation of the expert appraisers according to the DCF model, but corrected the assumptions with regard to revenue growth in the budget period and the value of the tax advantage. Finally, the Tax Tribunal found that the value of product Y should be included in the valuation, as all rights to product Y were covered by the intra-group transfer. Excerpts “It was the judges’ view that the turnover growth for the budget period should be set in accordance with Company H’s own budgets prepared prior to the transfer. This was in accordance with TPG 2017 paragraphs 6.163 and 6.164 and SKM2020.30.LSR.” “With reference to OECD TPG section 6.178 on adjustment for tax consequences for the buyer and seller and SKM2020.30.LSR, the National Tax Tribunal ruled that the full value of the buyer’s tax asset should be added to the value of the intangible assets when valuing according to the DCF model.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

“Fertilizer B.V.” is part of a Norwegian group that produces, sells and distributes fertiliser (products). “Fertilizer B.V.” is the parent company of a several subsidiaries, including the intermediate holding company [C] BV and the production company [D] BV. The case before the Dutch Supreme Court involves two points of dispute: (i) is a factually highly effective hedge sufficient for mandatory connected valuation of USD receivables and payables? (ii) is the transfer prices according to the supply and distribution agreements between [D] and a Swiss group company (AG) at arm’s length? (i) Factual hedge of receivables and payables “Fertilizer B.V.” had receivables, forward foreign exchange contracts and liabilities in USD at the end of 2012 and 2013. It values those receivables and payables at acquisition price or lower value in use. It recognised currency gains as soon as they were realised and currency losses as soon as a receivable was valued lower or a debt higher. The court has measured dollar debts and forward contracts coherently, but not dollar debts against dollar receivables from a Brazilian subsidiary arising from corporate financing. The Court of Appeal does not consider a highly effective currency hedge (actual correlation) in itself sufficient for coherent valuation; in its view, this also requires a business policy connection between opposite currency positions, such as an intent of hedging or a business relationship between receivable and debt. The Secretary of State believes that the reality principle means that in the case of an actual 100% correlation, debts and receivables in the same currency should be measured coherently. With all the disputed receivables and payables being denominated in USD, the currency hedge is very effective, so they should be measured coherently. A-G Wattel believes that the reality of a highly effective currency hedge is that no foreign exchange risk is incurred as long as and to the extent that the hedge exists and that, therefore, the reality principle to that extent compels coherent valuation, irrespective of whether the entrepreneur intended hedging and irrespective of the existence or non-existence of prudential link between receivable and debt in the same currency. This, in his view, is in line with the case law on coherent valuation he has reproduced. He considers the cassation appeal of the State Secretary in both cases well-founded. (ii) Transfer pricing [D] produces fertiliser products and sells them to affiliated sales organisations. Transfer prices are based on the Transfer Pricing Master File (TP Master File) that says fully fledged producers like [D] are rewarded according to the comparable uncontrolled price (CUP). In 2008, it was decided to invest €400m by [D] in a plant, which was commissioned in early September 2011, enabling [D] to produce 39% more urea and fertiliser products (the surplus) than before. On 14 September 2011, following the commissioning of the new plant, [D] and AG entered into a Supply Agreement and a Distribution Agreement. AG is “related” to the interested party and to [D] within the meaning of Section 8 Vpb. Those agreements provide that AG buys the surplus for cost plus 5%, for five years, with tacit renewal. On that basis, [D] invoices 39% of its production at cost plus 5% to AG every month and remits the rest of its profit on the surplus to AG. According to the Inspector, this results in a monthly improper profit shift from [D] in the Netherlands to AG in Switzerland. The court did not find it plausible that a fully fledged profitable producer like [D] would cede its existing and proven excess profit capacity – which was only improved by the new plant – on a large part of its production to a third party in the market. The party making that claim will have to provide a business explanation for the fact that the agreements leave only 5% margin to the group’s proven much more profitable ‘best performing’ entrepreneur which continued to perform all the functions it was performing before, except (on paper) 39% production risk control, and for the fact that [D]’s substantial residual profit was henceforth transferred by it on a monthly basis to an affiliated acquirer of 39% production risk, with no significance to [D]’s original 61% production and no significance to the core functions required for [D]’s 39% surplus production. According to A-G Wattel, the Court of Appeal thus did not divide the burden of proof unreasonably or contrary to due process. Those who make remarkable contentions contrary to their own previous and 61% still held positions and contrary to their own TP Master File will have to provide an explanation. ‘The Court’s judgment implies, in the absence of sufficient explanation by the interested party, substantially (i) that a company that is unmistakably the most complex entity cannot be changed into a routine margin producer by mere contracting for an arbitrary percentage (39%) of its capacity while at the same time remaining fully fledged entrepreneur for the identical 61% remaining production and for the 39% surplus also effectively keeping everything as it was, and (ii) that neither can a Swiss group company which is not introduced to [D]’s production (processes), logistics, distribution and administration, and which is thus unmistakably the least complex entity, be turned into the true entrepreneur that [D] is by a mere contract for the same arbitrary percentage (39%) and also remains for that 39%, the less so as that contract is incompatible with the group’s TP Master File. Since, according to the Court, an unaffiliated entrepreneur would never agree to such a contract and, therefore, such contracts, according to it, are not concluded between unaffiliated parties, arm’s-length terms are difficult to conceive: no arm’s-length terms can be conceived for a non-existent transaction, so the situation without the said agreements must be assumed. A-G Wattel considers these judgments correct insofar as they are legal, factual and not incomprehensible. He therefore does not find incomprehensible the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that, for tax purposes, the situation without the two agreements should be assumed, which are not thereby disregarded, but

Z is the head of a globally operating group. At group level it was decided to discontinue production at subsidiary “X-BR GMBH” at location A and in future to carry out production as far as possible at location B by group company Y. The production facilities were sold by “X-BR GMBH” to sister companies. The closure costs incurred in the context of the cessation of production were borne by Y. No further payments were made as compensation for the discontinuation of production in A. The tax authorities found that “X-BR GMBH” had transferred functions and thus value to group company Y and issued an assessment of taxable profits. Judgment of the Court of Appeal The Court decided in favour of “X-BR GMBH” and set aside the assessment. According to the court there is no transfer of functions if neither economic assets nor other benefits or business opportunities are transferred nor is there a causal link between the transfer of benefits in the broadest sense and the transfer of the ability to perform a function.” Excerpt “…As a rule, the business opportunity is therefore an intangible asset, such as a customer or client base, a supply right or a specific export market, which can be transferred in return for payment. The advantage that accrues or could accrue to the opportunity can be a one-time advantage (e.g. entry into a contract), but it can also be an ongoing advantage that is reflected in several financial years. However, the advantage must always be so specific that it can be independently assessed by the parties involved. A certain marketability of the opportunity will be required as an essential criterion. If there is no marketability, it is regularly an “opportunity” that cannot be independently exploited. However, a business opportunity does not necessarily have to be a legally secured legal position (BFH judgment of 12 June 1997, I R 14/96). However, the business opportunity must be at least sufficiently concrete that it is amenable to valuation, especially since otherwise it would not be possible to determine an appropriate consideration for it (cf. Ditz DStR 2005, 1916?f.; Wassermeyer/Andresen/Ditz Betriebsstätten-Handbuch/Ditz Rz. 4.55; also Wassermeyer GmbHR 1993, 332). Whether this means that a business opportunity already qualifies as an intangible asset has largely been left open by the BFH (BFH judgment of 13 November 1996, I R 149/94, DStR 1997, 325 [BFH 27.03.1996 – I R 89/95]; BFH judgment of 6 December 1995, I R 40/95, BFHE 180, 38?f.). b) In the present case, there is no concrete business opportunity within the meaning of § 8 (3) KStG. The defendant’s assumption of a vGA is based on the consideration that the discontinuation of a profitable production by an external third party would not have occurred without compensation and that consequently a prevented increase in assets would have resulted from this. However, the defendant was not able to show what the concrete transfer of a chance of profit in the form of an asset position by X was supposed to have consisted of. Rather, in the opinion of the Senate, the transfer of an asset by X was lacking. The production was essentially based on the allocation of production quantities for group-affiliated sales companies by the group’s top management. There were no contractual commitments by the parent company to X that would have secured it a valuable legal position in the form of a supply right or a merely specific order allocation within the group. Own contracts under the law of obligations in the form of supply contracts with third parties existed only to a small extent at the time of the closure. Thus, in the years before the year in dispute, X’s sales outside the group in this area amounted to only between 1.46% and 3.43% of total sales. Accordingly, the profits resulted predominantly from the production and supply of the group’s own distribution companies on the basis of orders which were allocated to X by the parent company without any legal claim to the retention of the order volume. Within the framework of such a constellation, it would have been possible for Y without further ado to reduce the group-internal order allocation to X without compensation due to the reduced order situation in the group. However, if the production volume of X was already based on the order allocation by the parent company, which was “at the discretion of the group’s top management”, X had no independent business opportunity which it could leave to the parent company. In particular, it must be taken into account that X had no legally established position vis-à-vis the parent company with regard to a certain volume of orders. Valuable market positions in the form of contractual relationships with third parties and concluded supply contracts were essentially due to the parent company and not to X. In this respect, the existence of a business opportunity is ruled out. In this respect, the existence of a business opportunity for X, which it left to the parent company free of charge, is ruled out. Even insofar as the defendant believes that X is to be regarded as an independent company and that the group companies are to be treated as third parties in the context of the arm’s length principle, it was primarily Y that had access to the customer relationships with its subsidiaries. This is particularly supported by the fact that the Y allocated the order volume to the X and that the X had not concluded its own orders through contractual agreements with group companies. The Y was therefore itself in a position to control the customer relationships. The transfer of a business opportunity is therefore ruled out. Likewise, there is no granting of a business opportunity by transferring the customer relationships to external customers or a customer base for customers outside the group. Business relations with third parties outside the group and thus a customer base in the sense of external customers outside the group did not exist for X – as

In 2009 a British company – Bupa Insurance Limited – absorbed the Danish company International Health Insurance, whose shares it had acquired in 2005 and which had had a French branch since 1993. Following an audit for FY 2009 and 2010, the tax authorities considered that the French branch had passed on to Bupa Insurance Limited, free of charge, the customers associated with its insurance business in France, and considered this transaction to be an indirect transfer of profits within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. The Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the assessment and an appeal was then filed with the Conseil d’État by the tax authorities. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision from the CAA and dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. Excerpts “3. It is clear from the statements in the judgment under appeal that the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal held that the French branch of the Danish company International Health Insurance bore the operating risk of the insurance business carried out in France prior to 1 January 2009, but noted that prior to that date, the insurance contracts offered by this branch were governed by Danish law and did not benefit from any particular adaptation to the French situation, and that all the services offered to the insured parties, in particular the assistance service, were provided in Denmark, that the contracts concluded with the insurance brokers responsible for canvassing on French territory were partly concluded by the Danish company, that nothing in the file established that the employees of the French branch had the function of developing their own clientele for the benefit of the branch, and that the registration of French clients according to a specific quotation, although it allowed for an accounting analysis specific to clients who had concluded contracts with brokers operating on French territory, did not demonstrate that the activity of the branch would have consisted of developing such a client base. The Court deduced from these findings that the Minister did not establish that this branch had real commercial autonomy before 1 January 2009 and, consequently, the existence of a free transfer of customers leading to the presumption of an indirect transfer of profits to the British company Bupa Insurance Limited. 4. By ruling, in the light of the factors mentioned in point 3, which it assessed in a sovereign manner, that, since the French branch of the Danish company did not have genuine commercial autonomy, the fact that it had borne the operating risk inherent in the insurance business carried on in France prior to 1 January 2009 was not sufficient to establish the existence of its own customer base, In order to deduce that no free transfer of clientele, likely to characterise an indirect transfer of profits within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, had been established, the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal, which ruled in a sufficiently reasoned and uncontradicted judgment, did not commit an error of law or incorrectly characterise the facts before it. 5. It follows from the foregoing that the Minister has no grounds for seeking the annulment of the judgment which he is challenging. “ Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

The shares in Memco Software Ltd (now CA Software Israel Ltd) was acquired by CA Inc. in the late 90’s for 400 millions. Later in 2010 all the intangibles developed by the company (software and know-how etc.) was transferred to a CA group company at a price of 111 millions. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment where the value of the intangibles was instead determined to be 667 million and the additional gain was added to the taxable income. Furthermore, since payment of the determined arm’s length value had not been received by CA Software Israel Ltd, interest of 2,2585% was calculated on the amount owed and added to the taxable income in the years following the transfer. An appeal was filed by CA Software Israel Ltd. Judgment of the Court The court upheld the tax assessment and the value determined by the tax authorities. Click her for English translation

“Agri B.V.” is a Dutch subsidiary in an international group processing agricultural products. Following a restructuring in 2009 “Agri B.V.” had declared a profit of € 35 million, including € 2 million in exit profits. In an assessment issued by the tax authorities this amount had been adjusted to more than € 350 million. Judgment of the Court of Appeal The Court of appeal decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. An expert was appointed to determine the value of what had been transferred, and based on the valuation report produced by the expert the court set the taxable profit for 2009/2010 to €117 million. Excerpt “The Functional Analysis of [company 9] submitted, the Asset Sale and Purchase Agreements, the Manufacturing Services Agreements and the Consulting services and assistance in conducting business activities agreements show that there was a transfer of more than just separate assets and liabilities. The factual and legal position of [company 2] and [company 1] has changed significantly as a result of the reorganization. In this respect, the Court considered the following. 27. Whereas prior to the reorganization [company 1] operated independently under its own name on the purchasing and sales markets, independently hedged price risks and ran the full risk of good and bad luck in all its activities, after the reorganization it only provides (production) services to [company 3] for a fixed fee for a certain period of time. The claimant’s contention that already with the establishment of the [company 6] in 2000 there was far-reaching coordination as a result of which [company 1] no longer operated completely independently but only as a processing facility is only supported by written statements from employees in 2019. These statements are difficult to reconcile with the 2009 Functional Analysis, in which the [company 6] is not even mentioned. Therefore, the Court does not attach the value that the claimant wishes to see attached to these statements. That [company 3] and [company 4] were involved in the (strategic) planning of [company 1] prior to the reorganization is not surprising in view of the global activities of the group. However, no more can be deduced from the Functional Analysis than that [company 3] and [company 4] were operating in cooperation with [company 1]. That the form in which this cooperation is cast detracts from the independence of [company 1] described elsewhere in the Functional Analysis has not become plausible on the basis of the documents. 28. A similar analysis can be made of [company 2’s] activities before and after the reorganisation. Whereas prior to the reorganisation [company 2] operated independently under its own name on the purchasing and sales markets, independently hedged price risks (not only for its own benefit, but for the benefit of the activities of all group companies that it coordinated worldwide), and ran the full risk of good and bad opportunities in all its activities, after the reorganisation it only provides (production) services to [company 3] for a fixed fee for a limited period of time. 29. The claimant has stated without contradiction that the profitability of [company 4] depends to a large extent on daily global and regional price fluctuations over which [company 4] has no influence, and that the market developments are therefore analysed on a daily basis. From the description of the market expertise of [company 3] after the reorganization in the Functional Analysis (see recital 8), the Court deduces that the market expertise present in the group of [company 4], gained from hedging, taking positions on markets and contract negotiations, forms the basis for the activities of [company 3] after the reorganization. This description explicitly states that this knowledge plays a key role in improving the profitability of the Dutch oilseed business. In that connection, reference is made to the fact that [company 3] will set the price and volume guidelines for purchases and sales, conclude the contracts and take care of the hedging. It is established that all these activities were carried out by [company 1] and [company 2] prior to the reorganisation. It has not become plausible that, prior to the reorganization, [company 3] was already engaged in such similar activities that those of [company 1] and [company 2] can only be regarded as additional. During the reorganization, not only stocks, current purchase and sales contracts, currency contracts and futures, etc. were transferred to [company 3], but also dozens of employees, including traders from [company 1] and [company 2], were transferred to [company 3]. The Court therefore deems it plausible that the aforementioned market expertise was not actually invested in [company 3] itself until the transfer of these employees. 30. The prices agreed as part of the reorganisation only concern the transfer of assets and liabilities. However, in view of the foregoing, this transfer cannot be viewed separately from the concentration of market expertise at [company 3] that was previously held by [company 1] and [company 2]. The fact that the market expertise at the latter company was also supported by employees who were not employed by it does not mean that this knowledge should not be attributed to the company of [company 2]. In addition to market expertise, the power of decision regarding purchases, sales and hedging was also transferred from [company 1] and [company 2] to [company 3]. Since having market expertise, seen against the background of the aforementioned power of decision, plays a key role in the activities of [company 3] after the reorganization aimed at increasing profitability, the Court deems it plausible that a value must be attributed to it separately that has not already been reflected in the agreed prices for the assets and liabilities. The Court also sees support for this conclusion in the circumstance that the turnover and cash flow of [company 1] and [company 2] – as has not been contradicted by the claimant – decreased considerably after the reorganization, while those of [company 3] increased considerably.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

SA Tropicana Europe Hermes is a French permanent establishment of SA Tropicana Europe, located in Belgium. The French PE carried out the business of bottling fruit juice-based drinks. In 2009, a new distribution contract was concluded with the Swiss company FLTCE, which was accompanied by a restructuring of its business. Before 1 July 2009, Tropicana was engaged in the manufacture of fresh fruit juices in cardboard packs and purchased fresh fruit juices which it pasteurised. As of 1 July 2009, its activity was reduced to that of a contract manufacturer on behalf of FLTCE, which became the owner of the technology and intellectual property rights as well as the stocks. The re-organisation led to a significant reduction in the company’s turnover and profits. Tropicana Europe was subject to two audits, at the end of which the tax authorities notified it of tax reassessments in respect of corporate income tax, withholding tax and business value added contribution (CVAE) for the years 2010 to 2013, together with penalties. It also notified the company of tax adjustments, together with penalties, in respect of the additional contribution to corporation tax for the years 2012 and 2013. According to the tax authorities Tropicana Europe’s new contract was not at arm’s length and constituted an abnormal act of management. Tropicana filed an appeal with the Administrative Court, where the assessment issued by the tax authorities was later set aside. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Court of Appeal. At issue was whether FLTCE was located in a privileged tax regime and whether there was a link of dependence between Tropicana and FLTCE and thus the basis of the tax assessment. Judgment of the Court of Appeal The court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision of the administrative court. Excerpts “As regards the existence of a privileged tax regime : 6. Before the first judges, Tropicana Europe disputed that FLTCE was established in a country with a privileged tax regime within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 238 A of the General Tax Code. The first judges considered that by simply relying on the overall corporate tax rate of 13% in the canton of Bern, in the Swiss Confederation, where FLTCE’s head office is located, and the significant difference between this rate and the corporate tax rate of 33.33% in France, the tax authorities did not establish that FLTCE was established in a country with a privileged tax regime, the tax authorities did not establish that the amount of income tax to which FLTCE is subject is less than half the amount of income tax for which it would have been liable under the conditions of ordinary law in France, if it had been domiciled or established there, and, consequently, that FLTCE would be subject to a preferential tax regime pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of Article 238 A of the French General Tax Code. As this ground of the judgment is not contested on appeal by the Minister, the latter must be considered as renouncing to rely on the establishment of FLTCE in a country whose tax regime is privileged pursuant to the provisions of Article 238 A of the General Tax Code. Consequently, the Minister bears the burden of proof of the existence of a link of dependence between Tropicana Europe and FLTCE.” “As regards the existence of a link of dependence : 7. In order to discharge Tropicana Europe from the taxes it was contesting, the first judges noted that, in order to establish a relationship of dependence between this company and FLTCE, the tax authorities based themselves on the fact that these two companies belonged to the same multinational group, PepsiCo, and deduced that, by relying solely on this factor, the authorities, who bear the burden of proof, did not establish any relationship of dependence between the two companies within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. 8. In order to prove the existence of a relationship of dependence between Tropicana Europe and FLTCE, the Minister noted that SA Tropicana Europe Hermes is a permanent establishment of SA Tropicana Europe, located in Belgium, which is 99.99% owned by Seven’Up Nederland BV, which in turn is wholly owned by Pepsico Inc. FLTCE, located in Switzerland in the canton of Bern, is wholly owned by Frito Lay Compagny Gmbh, also located in Switzerland in the same canton. This company has been controlled since 14 December 2011 by PepsiCo Limited located in Gibraltar. While the Minister deduces from all these facts that SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE are sister companies under the control of the PepsiCo group, he does not provide evidence of legal dependence between SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE, which are not linked by a capital link between them. Consequently, it is up to the Minister to provide proof of the existence of a de facto dependency link between these two companies. However, the Minister did not provide any other element or indication that would make it possible to detect a de facto dependence between these two companies other than the fact that they belong to the same group. The fact that the two companies belong to the same group does not, in the present case, constitute sufficient proof or evidence of de facto dependence between SA Tropicana Europe and FLTCE in the absence of any other element put forward by the Minister. Consequently, the Minister is not entitled to maintain that, contrary to the assessment made by the first judges, the conditions for the application of Article 57 of the General Tax Code were met in order to base the taxes for which the Administrative Court of Amiens granted discharge.” “As regards the request for substitution of legal basis : … 12. However, this reorganisation was not limited to a simple “change in the invoicing circuit” as the Minister maintains, but led to a significant change in operating conditions since, before 1 July 2009, Tropicana Europe was engaged

SNC Oakley Europe, a subsidiary of SAS Oakley Holding, which belonged to the American group Oakley Inc. until its takeover in 2007 by the Italian group Luxottica, carried on the business of distributing clothing, footwear, eyewear and accessories of the Oakley brand on European territory. Following the takeover SNC Oakley Europe in 2008 transferred its distribution activity on the French market to another French company, Luxottica France, and its distribution activity on the European market to companies incorporated in Ireland, Luxottica Trading and Finance and Oakley Icon, and deducted restructuring costs in an amount of EUR 15,544,267. The tax authorities qualified these costs as an advantage granted without consideration to its sister companies, constituting, on the one hand, an abnormal management act and, on the other hand, an indirect transfer of profits within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code on the grounds that its costs had not been re-invoiced to the Italian company, the head of the group, which had taken the initiative to reorganise the distribution activity. SAS Oakley Holding filed an appeal with the administrative Court which decided in favor of the tax authorities. Not satisfied with the result, an appeal was then filed with the CAA of Lyon. Judgment of the CAA The Court of appeal set aside the decision of the court of first instance and ruled in favor of SAS Oakley Holding. Excerpt “…On the basis of such considerations, and while it is up to the administration to assess whether the transactions in question correspond to acts of normal commercial management with regard solely to the company’s own interests, the administration, In such considerations, and whereas it is up to it to assess whether the transactions at issue correspond to acts of normal commercial management with regard to the company’s own interests alone, the administration, which did not have to rule on the appropriateness of SNC Oakley Europe’s choice to sell its business assets in order to retain only the activity of promoting distribution in the network of sports shops on the French market, establishes neither the existence of an abnormal act of management nor proof of the existence of a practice that falls within the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. 7. Furthermore, it appears from the investigation that, by deed dated March 19, 2008, SNC Oakley Europe sold to the Irish company Luxottica Trading and Finance Ltd the goodwill related to its distribution activity within the “optical” network on the European market, with the exception of the French market, for the sum of EUR 17,773,551.29. By deed dated April 29, 2008, it sold to the French company Luxottica France the goodwill related to its distribution activity within the “optics” network on the French market for an amount of EUR 1,222,525.59. Finally, by deed dated 30 June 2008, it sold to the Irish company Oakley Icon Ltd the goodwill related to its distribution activity within the “sports” network on the European market for the amount of 5,857,175.13 euros. The tax authorities do not dispute that these transfer prices were in line with the market price. However, the transfer of the business assets related to the activities that SNC Oakley Europe sold necessarily had as a counterpart, as it results from the transfer contracts, the assumption by this company of the costs related to the refusal of retailers, distributors and sales agents to transfer their contracts to the transferee companies as well as the costs related to the termination of the employees’ contracts, pursuant to the provisions of Article L. 122-12 of the French Labour Code, which are reproduced in the present report. 122-12 of the French Labour Code, taken over as of 1 May 2008 in Article L. 1224-1 of this code, which only requires the transfer of current employment contracts in the event of the transfer by an employer to another employer of an autonomous economic entity, retaining its identity, and whose activity is continued and taken over by the new employer. Thus, the administration cannot be considered, by the considerations related in point 6 above on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as demonstrating that the charges in dispute should not have been borne by SNC Oakley Europe. By justifying the increase by the fact that the latter did not claim any consideration or compensation “from the party that initiated the takeover and reorganisation of the business”, i.e. the Italian company Luxottica Group, it does not demonstrate either that any advantage was granted to the sister companies, the transferees of the business. 8. It follows from the foregoing that SAS Luxottica France, as successor to SAS Oakley Holding, is entitled to argue that the Grenoble Administrative Court, in the judgment under appeal, wrongly rejected its request for discharge of the additional corporate income tax assessed against it for the financial year ending in 2008 because of the reconsideration of the assumption of responsibility by SNC Oakley Europe for the costs associated with the sale of its business assets in the amount of EUR 15,544,267.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

Keysight Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd (KTM) was incorporated in 1998 and active as a full-fledged manufacturer of various microwave devices and test instruments in which capacity it had also developed valuable intangibles. In 2008, KTM was converted into a contract manufacturer under an agreement with Agilent Technologies International s.a.r.l. and at the same time KLM purportedly transferred its intangibles to Agilent Technologies. KTM received an amount of RM 821 million which it reported as non-taxable gains form sale of intangibles in its tax return. Following an audit the tax authorities issued a notice of assessment for FY 2008 where the sum of RM 821 million had been considered revenue in nature and thus taxable under Section 4(f) of the ITA. This resulted in a claim of RM 311 million together with a 45% penalty. According to the tax authorities the transfer of technical knowhow was not actually a sale as KTM was still using the technical knowhow in its manufacturing activities. The proceeds were related to the conversion of KLM from a full-fledged manufacturer to a contract manufacturer, which had resulted in a reduction in taxable profits. “The gain on the transfer of technical knowhow was for the payment on the loss of income since it was related to the change of the Appellant’s function from a full-fledged manufacturer to a contract manufacturer which resulted in a reduction of profit margin of the Appellant after the change of the function.” KTM filed an appeal against the assessment in which it stated that proceeds from the sale of know-how were not revenue in nature and therefore not taxable under the ITA. KLM also appealed against the penalty imposed under Section 113(2) of the ITA. The appeal was dismissed by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and an appeal was then filed by KTM with the High Court. Judgment of the High Court The High Court Judge dismissed KTM’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. According to the High Court KTM had “failed to support the claim that the gain from the transfer of technical knowhow (i.e. the marketing and manufacturing intangibles) by KTM to Agilent Technologies International totalling of RM821,615,000.00 is an outright sale.”. There were no documents showing that the IP rights had been registered in the name of Agilent Technologies International s.a.r.l. Hence the proceeds was considered revenue in nature and taxable under Section 4(f) of the Income Tax Act 1967(“ITA”). Click here for translation

In April 2010 Roche pharmaceutical group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Medingo Ltd, for USD 160 million. About six months after the acquisition, Medingo was entered into 3 inter-group service agreements: a R&D services agreement, pursuant to which Medingo was to provide R&D services in exchange for cost + 5%. All developments under the agreement would be owned by Roche. a services agreement according to which Medingo was to provided marketing, administration, consultation and support services in exchange for cost + 5%. a manufacturing agreement, under which Medingo was to provide manufacturing and packaging services in exchange for cost + 5. A license agreement was also entered, according to which Roche could now manufacture, use, sell, exploit, continue development and sublicense to related parties the Medingo IP in exchange for 2% of the relevant net revenues. Finally, in 2013, Medingo’s operation in Israel was terminated and its IP sold to Roche for approximately USD 45 million. The tax authorities viewed the transactions as steps in a single arrangement, which – from the outset – had the purpose of transferring all the activities of Medingo to Roche. On that basis an assessment was issued according to which the intangibles had been transferred to Roche in 2010. Based on the acquisition price for the shares, the value was determined to approximately USD 160 millions. An appeal was filed by Medingo claiming that there had been no transfer in 2010. Judgment of the District Court The court decided in favor of Medingo and set aside the 2010 tax assessment – but without passing an opinion in relation to the value of the sale of the intellectual property in 2013. Excerpts “96. The guidelines indicate that in a transaction between related parties, two different issues must be examined using the arm’s length principle: transaction characterization and transaction pricing. The characterization of the transaction must first be examined and it must be examined whether it would also have been made between unrelated parties. If the examination reveals that even unrelated parties would have entered into a transaction in the same situation, then it must be further examined whether the price paid for the assets complies with market conditions. It should be noted that in accordance with the guidelines, the characterization of the transaction should not be interfered with in violation of the agreements, except in exceptional circumstances, in which the agreements are fundamentally unfounded, or in no way allow a price to be determined according to the arm’s length principle. “Tax A tax administration should not disregard part or all of the restructuring or substitute other transactions for it unless the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph 1.142 are met”. out circumstances in which the transaction between the parties as accurately delineated can be disregarded for transfer pricing purposes. Because non-recognition can be contentious and a source of double taxation, every effort should be made to determine the actual nature of the transaction and apply arm’s length pricing to the accurately delineated transaction, and to ensure that non-recognition is not used simply because determining an arm’s length price is difficult. e same transaction can be seen between independent parties in comparable circumstances… non-recognition would not apply… the transaction as accurately delineated may be disregarded, and if appropriate, replaced by an alternative transaction, where the arrangements made in relation to the transaction, viewed in their totality, differ from those which would have been adopted by independent enterprises behaving in a commercially rational manner in comparable circumstances, thereby preventing determination of a price that would be acceptable to both of the parties taking into account their respective perspective and the options realistically available to each of them at the time of entering into the transaction “. 97. Further to this, sections 1.146 – 1.148 of the Guideline, 2022, provide two examples of cases in which the characterization of the transaction must be ignored. The second example deals with a case closer to our case, where a one-time payment is paid for R&D services and their products provided – for 20 years. 98. After examining the characterization of the transaction in our case, I found no defect in it. This is a completely different case from those mentioned in the guidelines, and it has been proven to me that transactions with a similar characterization can be conducted and are also conducted between unrelated parties. Thus, throughout the proceedings, the appellant presented various examples of similar license agreements and R&D agreements signed between unrelated parties: In Phase A, the appellant presented various transactions for comparison (P / 2 (to which the respondent did not even refer), p. 332 of the minutes (and within the appeal Of EY Germany and of Gonen in which additional transactions were presented for comparison, including transactions of similar companies in the relevant market.” “104. I also believe that it makes sense to enter into such agreements, especially in the situation of the appellant at that time. Appellant faced considerable obstacles, and her chances of success were not guaranteed, to say the least….” “105. The inter-group agreements secured the appellant’s future in the near term, and gave her more chances to survive. As the appellant’s experts clarified, small companies find it difficult to survive alone in the medical device market (see for example Section 1 of the Michlin Opinion (hence, a licensing and commercialization agreement is common practice in the field and common with contractors with experience and resources); See also paragraph 41 regarding Broadcom).” “110. In conclusion, as long as the appellant and Roche acted in accordance with the inter-group agreements, which are acceptable in industry and in the circumstances of the case there is logic in concluding them, I did not find any invalidity in the characterization of the agreements (see paragraphs 85 and 87 in the Broadcom case).” “….As stated, I believe that even if there was an intention to transfer the activity, there was no final decision until the date of the announcement. Second, and this is the

At issue was whether the acquisition value of an inventory acquired from a related company should be adjusted on the basis of Swedish arm’s length provisions or alternatively tax avoidance provisions According to the arm’s length rule in Chapter 18, Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, the acquisition value is to be adjusted to a reasonable extent if the taxpayer or someone closely related to the taxpayer has taken steps to enable the taxpayer to obtain a higher acquisition value than appears reasonable and it can be assumed that this has been done in order to obtain an unjustified tax advantage for one of the taxpayer or someone closely related to the taxpayer. Company (A) acquired a trademark from another company (B) in the same group for a price corresponding to its market value and used the acquisition value as the basis for depreciation deductions totalling approximately SEK 827 million. At B, the tax value of the trademark amounted to SEK 6 000 and B thus made a taxable capital gain. In connection with the transfer of the trademark, the shares in B were sold to a company in another group. Gains from the sale of shares was tax-free. In the group to which B belonged, the taxable capital gain on the trademark was set off against existing losses. The tax authorities adjusted the acquisition value of the trademark to SEK 6 000 and refused company A a depreciations in excess of that amount. The reason given was that the intra-group transactions had resulted in the trademark being valued higher by A than by B, without any taxation of the difference within the group, and that this had resulted in A receiving an unjustified tax advantage. The Tax Agency imposed a tax surcharge. Both the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal rejected A’s appeals. In the Court of Appeal, the Tax Agency had, in the alternative, requested that the Tax Avoidance Act be applied to the proceedings. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decisions on income tax and the tax surcharge and referred the cases back to Court of Appeal for consideration of the tax authorities alternative claim to apply the Tax Avoidance provisions to the proceedings. The Court found that only two measures could be examined in detail when assessing whether arm’s length provisions applied to A’s acquisition of the trademark: B’s sale of the trademark to A and the parent company’s external sale of the shares in B. According to the Court the first measure resulted in the entire capital gain being taxed in B and that the fact that the purchase price exceeded the taxable value did not mean that the acquisition value did not appear reasonable. The second measure was unrelated to the acquisition of the trademark by A. There were therefore no grounds for applying the arm’s length rule. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

D. Sp. z oo had deducted interest expenses on intra-group loans and expenses related to intra-group services in its taxable income for FY 2015. The loans and services had been provided by a related party in Delaware, USA. Following a inspection, the tax authority issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been denied resulting in additional taxable income. In regards to the interest expenses the authority held that the circumstances of the transactions indicated that they were made primarily in order to achieve a tax advantage contrary to the object and purpose of the Tax Act (reduction of the tax base by creating a tax cost in the form of interest on loans to finance the purchase of own assets), and the modus operandi of the participating entities was artificial, since under normal trading conditions economic operators, guided primarily by economic objectives and business risk assessment, do not provide financing (by loans or bonds) for the acquisition of their own assets, especially shares in subsidiaries, if these assets generate revenue for them. In regards to support services (management fee) these had been classified by the group as low value-added services. It appeared from the documentation, that services concerned a very large number of areas and events that occurred in the operations of the foreign company and the entire group of related entities. The US company aggregated these expenses and then, according to a key, allocated the costs to – among others – Sp. z o.o. The Polish subsidiary had no influence on the amount of costs allocated or on the verification of such costs. Hence, according to the authorities, requirements for tax deduction of these costs were not met. An appeal was filed by D. Sp. z oo with the Administrative Court requesting that the tax assessment be annulled in its entirety and that the case be remitted for re-examination or that the proceedings in the case be discontinued. Judgment of the Administrative Court The Court dismissed the complaint of D. Sp. z oo and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Excerpt in regards of interest on intra-group loans “The authorities substantively, with reference to specific evidence and figures, demonstrated that an independent entity would not have agreed to such interest charges without obtaining significant economic benefits, and that the terms of the economic transactions adopted by the related parties in the case at hand differ from the economic relations that would have been entered into by independent and market-driven entities, rather than the links existing between them. One must agree with the authority that a loan granted to finance its own assets is free from the effects of the borrower’s insolvency, the lender does not bear the risk of loss of capital in relation to the subject matter of the loan agreement, since, in principle, it becomes the beneficiary of the agreement. This in turn demonstrates the non-market nature of the transactions concluded. The lack of market character of the transactions demonstrated by the authorities cannot be justified by the argumentation about leveraged buyout transactions presented in the complaint (page 9). This is because the tax authorities are obliged to apply the provisions of tax law, which in Article 15(1) of the A.l.p. outline the limits within which a given expense constitutes a tax deductible cost. In turn, Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. specifies premises, the occurrence of which does not allow a given expense to be included in tax deductible costs. This is the situation in the present case. Therefore, questioning the inclusion of the above-mentioned interest as a tax deductible cost, the authorities referred to Article 11(1), (2), (4) and (9) of the A.p.d.o.p. and § 12(1) and (2) of the Ordinance of the Minister of Finance of 10 September 2009 and the findings of the OECD contained in para. 1.65 and 1.66 of the “Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations” (the Guidelines were adopted by the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs on […] and approved for publication by the OECD Council on […]). According to these guidelines: 1.65. – However, there are two specific situations where, exceptionally, it may be appropriate and justified for a tax administration to consider ignoring the construction adopted by the taxpayer when entering into a transaction between associated enterprises. The first arises when the economic substance of the transaction differs from its form. In this case, the tax administration may reject the parties’ qualification of the transaction and redefine it in a manner consistent with its substance. An example could be an investment in a related company in the form of interest-bearing debt, and according to the principle of the free market and taking into account the economic situation of the borrowing company, such a form of investment would not be expected. In this case, it might be appropriate to define the investment according to its economic substance – the loan could be treated as a subscription to capital. Another situation arises where the substance and form of the transaction are consistent with each other, but the arrangements made in connection with the transaction, taken as a whole, differ from those that would have been adopted by commercially rational independent companies, and the actual structure of the transaction interferes with the tax administration’s ability to determine the appropriate transfer price; 1.66. – In both of the situations described above, the nature of the transaction may derive from the relationship between the parties rather than be determined by normal commercial terms, or it may be so structured by the taxpayer to avoid or minimise tax. In such cases, the terms of the transaction would be unacceptable if the parties were transacting on a free market basis. Article 9 of the OECD Model Convention, allows the terms and conditions to be adjusted in such a way that the transaction is structured in accordance with the economic and commercial realities of the parties operating under the free market principle. Bearing in mind the aforementioned guidelines, in the

In 2009-2011 Fortis Petroleum Norway AS (FPN) bought seismic data related to oil exploration in the North Sea from a related party, Petroleum GeoServices AS (PGS), for NKR 95.000.000. FBN paid the amount by way of a convertible intra-group loan from PGS in the same amount. FPN also purchased administrative services from another related party, Consema, and later paid a substantial termination fee when the service contract was terminated. The acquisition costs, interest on the loan, costs for services and termination fees had all been deducted in the taxable income of the company for the years in question. Central to this case is the exploration refund scheme on the Norwegian shelf. This essentially means that exploration companies can demand cash payment of the tax value of exploration costs, cf. the Petroleum Tax Act § 3 letter c) fifth paragraph. If the taxpayer does not have income to cover an exploration cost, the company receives payment / refund of the tax value from the state. On 21 November 2018, the Petroleum Tax Office issued two decisions against FPN. One decision (the “Seismic decision”) which applied to the income years 2010 to 2011, where FPN was denied a deduction for the purchase of seismic services from PGS and interest on the associated seller credit, as well as ordinary and increased additional tax (hereinafter the «seismic decision»), and another decision (the “Consema decision”) which applied to the income years 2011 and 2012 where, FPN’s claim for deduction for the purchase of administrative services from Consema for the income years 2011 and 2012 was reduced at its discretion, and where FPN was also denied a deduction for the costs of the services and a deduction for termination fees. Finally in regards of the “Seismic decision” an increased additional tax of a total of 60 per cent, was added to the additional taxation on the basis of the incorrectly deducted seismic purchases as FPN had provided incorrect and incomplete information to the Oil Tax Office. In the “Seismic decision” the tax office argued that FPN used a exploration reimbursement scheme to run a “tax carousel” In the “Consema decision” the tax office found that the price paid for the intra-group services and the termination fee had not been determined at arm’s length. An appeal was filed by Fortis Petroleum Norway AS with the district court where, in December 2020, the case was decided in favour of the tax authorities. An appeal was then filed with the Court of Appel Judgment of the Court of Appeal The court upheld the decisions of the district court and decided in favour of the tax authorities. The Court concluded that the condition for deduction in the Tax Act § 6-1 on incurred costs on the part of Fortis Petroleum Norway AS was not met, and that there was a basis for imposing ordinary and increased additional tax. The Court of Appeal further found that the administrative services and the termination fee were controlled transactions and had not been priced at arm’s length. Excerpts – Regarding the acquisition of seismic exploration Based on the case’s extensive evidence, and especially the contemporary evidence, the Court of Appeal has found that there was a common subjective understanding between FPN and PGS, both at the planning stage, during the conclusion of the agreement, in carrying out the seismic purchases and in the subsequent process. should take place by conversion to a subscription price that was not market-based. Consequently, seismic would not be settled with real values. This was made possible through the common interest of the parties. The parties also never significantly distanced themselves from this agreement. The Court of Appeal has heard testimonies from the management of PGS and FPN, but can not see that these entail any other view on the question of what was agreed. The loan was never repaid, and in the end it was converted to the pre-agreed exchange rate of NOK 167. In the Court of Appeal’s view, there is no other rational explanation for this course than that it was carefully adapted to the financing through 78 per cent of the exploration refund. The share value at the time of conversion was down to zero. The Court of Appeal agrees with the state that all conversion prices between 167 and 0 kroner would have given a share price that reflected the value in FPN better and which consequently had given PGS a better settlement. On this basis, the Court of Appeal believes that the conversion rate did not cover the 22 percent, and that there was a common perception that this was in line with the purpose of the establishment of FPN, namely not to pay “a penny” of fresh capital. The Court of Appeal has also emphasized that the same thing that happened in 2009 was repeated in 2010 and 2011. For 2009, the Oil Tax Office came to the conclusion that it was a pro forma event and a shift in financial risk. In 2010 and 2011, the same actors used the same structure and procedure to finance all costs from the state. It is thus the Court of Appeal’s view that there was a common understanding between the parties to the agreement that the real relationship within was different from that which was signaled to the tax authorities regarding sacrifice and which provided the basis for the deduction. Furthermore, in the Court of Appeal’s view, the loan transactions were not fiscally neutral. The seismic purchases constituted the only source of liquidity and were covered in their entirety by the state. In light of ESA’s decision from 2018 as an element of interpretation, such a loss of fiscal neutrality would indicate that when the company has thus not borne any risk itself, sacrifice has not taken place either. Even if the debt had been real, assuming a sale without a common interest of the parties, in the Court of Appeal’s view in a tax context it could not be decisive, as long as 22

A restructuring that followed the acquisition of Timberland by VF Enterprises in 2011 resulted in an intra-group transfer of ownership to valuable intangibles to a Swiss corporation, TBL Investment Holdings. The IRS was of the opinion that gains from the transfer was taxable. Judgment of the US Tax Court The tax court upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. Excerpt: “we have concluded that petitioner’s constructive distribution to VF Enterprises of the TBL GmbH stock that petitioner constructively received in exchange for its intangible property was a “disposition” within the meaning of section 367(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II). We also conclude, for the reasons explained in this part IV, that no provision of the regulations allows petitioner to avoid the recognition of gain under that statutory provision.” “Because we do not “agree[] to reduce the adjustment to income for the trademarks based on a 20-year useful life limitation, pursuant to Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.367(d)-1T,” we determine, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, that “[p]etitioner’s increase in income for the transfer of the trademarks is $1,274,100,000.” Adding that figure to the agreed value of the foreign workforce and customer relationships that petitioner transferred to TBL GmbH and reducing the sum by the agreed trademark basis, we conclude that petitioner’s income for the taxable year in issue should be increased by $1,452,561,000 ($1,274,100,000 +$23,400,000 + $174,400,000 − $19,339,000), as determined in the notice of deficiency. Because petitioner did not assign error to the other two adjustments reflected in the notice of deficiency, it follows that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we will grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny petitioner’s corresponding motion.” Click here for translation

In 2012, Flir Commercial Systems AB sold intangible assets from a branch in Belgium and subsequently claimed a tax relief of more than SEK 2 billion in fictitious Belgian tax due to the sale. The Swedish Tax Agency decided not to allow relief for the Belgian “tax”, and issued a tax assessment where the relief of approximately SEK 2 billion was denied and a surcharge of approximately SEK 800 million was added. An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court, In March 2020 the Administrative Court concluded that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in not allowing relief for the fictitious Belgian tax. In the opinion of the Administrative Court, the Double tax agreement prevents Belgium from taxing increases in the value of the assets from the time where the assets were owned in Sweden. Consequently, any fictitious tax cannot be credited in the Swedish taxation of the transfer. The Court also considers that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in imposing a tax surcharge and that there is no reason to reduce the surcharge. The company’s appeal is therefore rejected. An appeal was then filed with the Administrative Court of Appeal Decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal The Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court and the assessment issued and the penalty added by the tax authorities. The Administrative Court of Appeal found that when assessing the amount of credit to be given for notional tax on a transfer of business, the tax treaty with the other country must also be taken into account. In the case at hand, assets were transferred to the company’s Belgian branch shortly before the assets were disposed of through the transfer of business. The tax treaty limited Belgium’s taxing rights to the increase in value accrued in Belgium after the allocation and a credit could be given up to an amount equal to that tax. In the case at hand, the company had claimed a notional credit for tax on the increase in value that had taken place in Sweden before the assets were transferred to Belgium, while the transferee company in Belgium was not taxed on the corresponding increase in value when the assets were subsequently disposed of, as the Belgian tax authority considered that the tax treaty prevented such taxation. The Court of Appeal held that there were grounds for back-taxation and the imposition of a tax surcharge on the basis of incorrect information. The information provided by the company was not considered sufficient to trigger the Tax Agency’s special investigation obligation and the tax fine was not considered unreasonable even though it amounted to a very large sum. Click here for English Translation Click here for translation

R. Sp. z o.o. had requested a binding ruling/interpretation regarding tax deduction for the price paid to a related entity under restructuring. The request was denied by the tax authorities, as the question – according to the authorities – could only be answered under an Advance Pricing Agreement. R. Sp. z.o.o brought the issue before the Administrative Court, where a decision in favour of R. Sp. z.o.o. was issued. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court The Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities. The tax authorities could not refuse to issue a binding ruling/interpretation on whether or not a price paid to a related party under restructuring was tax deductible. According to the Court such a question could not only be dispelled by the issuance of an Advance Pricing Agreement. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

SAS Microchip Technology Rousset (former SAS Atmel Rousset) is a French subsidiary of the American Atmel group, which designs, manufactures, develops and sells a wide range of semiconductor integrated circuits. It was subject to an audit covering the FY 2010 and 2011 and as a result of this audit, the tax authorities imposed additional corporate income tax and an additional assessments for VAT. The administration also subjected SAS Atmel Rousset to withholding tax due to income deemed to be distributed to one of the Atmel group companies. The authorities invoked the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code as the new legal basis for the additional corporate tax contributions and the social contribution on corporate tax, resulting from the reintegration of the capital loss arising from the sale of SAS Fabco shares and the assumption of responsibility for SAS Fabco’s social plan, instead of the provisions of Article 38(1) and Article 39(1) of the same code. The tax administration, which relies on the guidelines recommended in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Public Administrations, argued that the transfer of the production activity, materialised by the sale of the Rousset plant, is part of a global strategy. The parent company of the group will benefit from the gains made through the outsourcing of the production activity, and moreover initiated and conducted the negotiations, as demonstrated by the letter of intent to purchase dated 12 May 2009 from LFoundry GmbH, addressed to the group’s parent company. Similarly, the administration notes that the “Stock Purchase Agreement” and “Wafer Purchase Agreement” relating respectively to the transfer of shares in SAS Fabco, and to the terms of purchase of semiconductors sold by this same company, were signed by Mr A…, Atmel Corporation’s Director of Operations. It follows from all of these elements that the tax authorities must be considered as providing evidence of a practice falling within the scope of Article 57 of the General Tax Code, which establishes a presumption of indirect profit transfer. SAS Microchip Technology Rousset applied to the Marseille administrative court for a discharge of duties and penalties for the taxes to which it was thus subject for the years 2010 and 2011, and in a judgment of 21 June 2019, the administrative court decided in favor of SAS Microchip Technology Rousset and set aside the assessment. The Authorities filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Judgment of the Court of Appeal The court dismissed the appeal of the authorities and upheld the decision of the administrative court in favor of SAS Microchip Technology Rousset. Excerpts “…although the administration argues that this operation was entirely led by the group’s parent company’s operations manager, this circumstance, particularly because of the international scope of the project, is not such as to demonstrate that the interests of SAS Microchip Technology Rousset were not taken into account and that the transaction in question was concluded to the exclusive benefit of the American company. It follows from the above that the court was right to consider that the sum in dispute could not be considered as an indirect transfer of profits to the American company Atmel Corporation within the meaning of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. As a result, the tax authorities were not justified in increasing the profit subject to corporate income tax for the financial year ending in 2010 by EUR 72,062,567. “…Furthermore, it is also clear from the information provided by the respondent company that the cost of the additional costs generated by the Manufacturing Services Agreement was much lower than the costs that SAS Microchip Technology Rousset would have had to bear in the event of the restructuring of the Rousset manufacturing unit or its closure. It is clear from the documents in the file that the Flichy firm estimated that the redundancy costs alone would have amounted to EUR 176 800 000, while the community of the Pays d’Aix estimated at EUR 60 million the amount of business tax that would have had to be paid in the event of cessation of the activity. Finally, the fact that the director of operations of the parent company Atmel Corporation took the decisions relating to the transfer of the manufacturing activity of SAS Microchip Technology Rousset is not sufficient to establish that, by accepting the terms of the Manufacturing Services Agreement and by bearing the resulting additional costs, the respondent company did not act in the interest of the company. Consequently, the latter provided proof that the costs in dispute, which it had borne, had been justified by obtaining favourable considerations for its own operations and did not constitute an indirect transfer of profits. The administration was therefore not justified, as the administrative court ruled, in reintegrating the corresponding sum into the taxable profits of SAS Microchip Technology Rousset for the financial year ending in 2011.” Unless it establishes the existence of an abnormal act of management, the tax administration does not have to interfere in the management of companies. Under the combined provisions of Articles 38 and 209 of the General Tax Code, the profit subject to corporation tax is that which derives from operations of any kind carried out by the company, with the exception of those which, because of their purpose or their methods, are alien to normal commercial management. The assumption by an enterprise of costs for which it has no direct consideration or which are not directly incumbent on it is only normal commercial management if it appears that, in granting such advantages, the enterprise has acted in its own interest. It follows from the reasons set out in points 10 and 12, recalling the interest of SAS Microchip Technology Rousset in bearing the additional costs linked to the invoicing conditions provided for in the “Manufacturing Services Agreement” and “Wafer Purchase Agreement” relating to the purchase of wafers from LFoundry, that the administration does not establish an abnormal management act. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

A AG, which was founded in 2000 by researchers from the University of Applied Sciences D, has as its object the development and distribution of …, in particular in the areas of ….. It had its registered office in Zurich until the transfer of its registered office to Zug in 2021. By contract dated 16 June 2011, it was taken over by Group E, Country Q, or by an acquisition company founded by it for this purpose, for a share purchase price of EUR …. On the same day, it concluded two contracts with E-Schweiz AG, which was in the process of being founded (entered in the Commercial Register on 7 September 2011), in which it undertook to provide general and administrative services on the one hand and research and development on the other. As of 30 September 2011, A AG sold all ”Intellectual Property Rights” (IPR) and ”Non-Viral Contracts” to E-Company, a company in U with tax domicile on the island of V, for a price of EUR … for the IPR and EUR … for the ”Non-Viral Contracts”. A AG had neither identifiable operating activities nor personnel substance in the financial year from 01.10.2011-30.09.2012 following the shareholding transaction. The transfer of the tangible and intangible business assets and the personnel of A AG to other companies of the E group corresponded to an integration plan that had already been set out in a draft power point presentation of the E group prior to the acquisition of the shares. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment for additional taxable net profit for the tax period 01.01.-30.09.2011 for state and communal taxes and direct federal tax, as well as taxable equity of CHF … for state and communal taxes. The assessed taxable net profit included a hidden profit distribution from the sale of the IPR and customer relationships to the E-Company. The calculations of profits was made as a discretionary estimate. An appeal was filed by A AG with the tax court which was dismissed with respect to the calculations of profits due to the sale of intangible assets at a lower price, but were upheld with respect to the transfer of functions. An appeal was then filed with the administrative court by both A AG and the tax authorities. A AG requested that the assessment of the Tax Office be dismissed with costs and compensation. The Tax Office requested the dismissal of the complaints of the obligated party and the annulment of the decision of the Tax Appeal Court and confirmation of the objection decisions with costs to be borne by the obligated party. Judgment of the Administrative Court The court ruled in favour of the tax authorities and remanded the case to the court of first instance for recalculation. Excerpts “The subject matter of the proceedings are reorganisation measures carried out after the change of shareholders, which were connected with the sale of assets of the obligated party to other group companies and the abandonment of traditional operating activities. The dispute revolves around the question of whether the obligated party provided services to related companies under conditions that do not comply with the principles of tax law regarding the appropriateness of performance and consideration between related parties and whether it therefore provided non-cash benefits or hidden profit distributions that are subject to profit tax.” “According to the correct findings of the Tax Appeals Court, to which reference can be made, the large discrepancy between the values according to the transfer price study of company I and the share purchase price and the result of the PPA was suitable to cast doubt on the correctness of the transfer price study. Even if the objections to the comparability with the PPA were true, the relevance of the PPA (wrongly disputed by the obligated party) could not be verified without the data used in its preparation. The share purchase price was agreed among independent third parties and therefore corresponded to the enterprise value at the time of the acquisition of the shareholding. According to the findings of the lower court, the transfer price study was only subsequently prepared in 2012 and is incomplete in various respects, which was not refuted by the obligated party. The Tax Appeals Court therefore concluded that the requirement had not been fulfilled and that the facts of the case had remained unclear. In particular, there had been uncertainty about the actual value of the intangible rights sold after the investigation had been completed. The Cantonal Tax Office’s assertion that the agreed purchase price for the intangible rights was too low had not been refuted and, based on the comparison with the PPA and the share purchase price, this assertion appeared very likely. The Cantonal Tax Office had therefore provided the main evidence incumbent upon it. Because the cantonal tax office had not been able to carry out its own valuation due to the lack of data, it had rightly proceeded to an estimate. According to the decision of the lower court, the discretionary assessments regarding the profit from the sale of the intangible assets were rightly made.” “Moreover, the burden of proving the obvious incorrectness of the discretionary assessment is placed on the taxpayer, which is not to be equated with a “reversal of the burden of proof” (on the whole Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 44; diesel, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N. 37; Zweifel et al., Schweizerisches Steuerverfahrensrecht, § 20 Rz. 22).” “An estimate is “obviously incorrect” if it cannot be objectively justified, in particular if it is recognisably motivated by penalties or fiscal considerations, if it is based on improper bases, methods or aids for estimation or if it cannot otherwise be reasonably reconciled with the circumstances of the individual case as known from the experience of life. Obviously incorrect is therefore an estimate that is based on an abusive use of the estimation discretion, i.e. is arbitrary (Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 59; dieselben, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N.

The business activity of A S.A. was wholesale of pharmaceutical products to external pharmacies, hospitals, wholesalers (including: to affiliated wholesalers). The tax authority had noted that the company’s name had been changed in FY 2013, and a loss in the amount of PLN […] had been reported in the company’s tax return. An audit revealed that the Company had transferred significant assets (real estate) to a related entity on non-arm’s length terms. The same real estate was then going forward made available to the company on a fee basis under lease and tenancy agreements. The tax authority issued an assessment where a “restructuring fee” in the amount of PLN […] was added to the taxable income, reflecting the amount which would have been achieved if the transaction had been agreed between independent parties. According to the company the tax authority was not entitled at all to examine the compliance of the terms of these transactions with the terms that would have been agreed between hypothetical independent entities, as the transactions in question were in fact concluded precisely between independent entities. (SKA companies were not CIT taxpayers in 2012, so they did not meet the definition of a “domestic entity” referred to in the aforementioned provision, and therefore a transaction between “related entities” cannot be said to have taken place). Moreover, the institution of “re-characterisation” of a controlled transaction into a proper transaction (according to the authority),could only be applied to transactions taking place after 1 January 2019, pursuant to Article 11e, Section 4 of the A.l.t.p. introduced (from that date). Judgment of the Court The Court decided predominantly in favor of A S.A. and remanded the case back to the tax authorities. Excerpts “The applicant in the course of the case referred to the judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 18 December 2017, III SA/Wa 3661/16 (approved by the NSA in its judgment of 26 November 2020, II FSK 1919/18). The individual interpretation analysed there by the Court assessed a transaction (from 2012) concluded between a limited liability company and a general partnership. According to the WSA in Warsaw, the provisions of Article 11(4) in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the A.l.t.d.o.p. in the wording in force until 31 December 2014 may only be applied to transactions concluded between related parties – ‘domestic entities’ within the meaning of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p., and the tax authorities may only assess the income of related parties. The wording of Art. 11 of the A.l.t.p. indicates that it is intended to allow the tax authorities to estimate the income of related parties, if these parties, in transactions concluded between themselves, establish or impose terms and conditions that differ from those that would be established between independent parties, leading to an understatement of income. However, there are no grounds for this provision to be applied to transactions concluded by unrelated entities (a limited liability company and a general partnership) solely for the reason that tax on revenue from participation in a partnership is paid by its partners who are also members of the applicant’s management board. Indeed, it was only the provisions introduced by the Act of 29 August 2014 amending the Corporate Income Tax Act, the Personal Income Tax Act and certain other acts, which entered into force on 1 January 2015, that defined an “affiliated entity” as a natural person, a legal person or an organisational unit without legal personality that meets the conditions set out in the Act. If a contrary position were to be adopted Contrary to the authority’s assertions, these rulings do not concern a different factual situation. Although the audited interpretation concerned the necessity to prepare documentation pursuant to Art. 9a of the A.l.t.c., the applicant also directly inquired about classifying the applicant as an entity related to the general partnership. The courts of both instances were firmly in favour of the absence of such a link (dependence) between a capital company and a partnership, in terms of entering into mutual transactions, within the meaning of Article 11 of the A.l.t.p. in the wording in force until 31 December 2014. Thus, as shown above, the application of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. in the present case was un-authorised, which makes it timely to consider the application in the analysed factual state of the general principles arising from Article 14 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. and Chapter 3 of this Act (tax deductible costs), which the authorities, for obvious reasons, have not undertaken so far.” “When reconsidering the case, the authority, taking into account the comments presented above, will issue an appropriate decision, containing in the justification of the decision all the elements referred to in Article 210 § 1 of the Polish Civil Code, including those arising from the cited resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

A fully fledged Norwegian distributor in the H group was restructured and converted into a Limited risk distributor. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the income of the Norwegian distributor was adjusted to the median in a benchmark study prepared by the tax authorities, based on the “Transactional Net Margin Method” (TNMM method). Decision of the Tax Board In a majority decision, the Tax Board determined that the case should be send back to the tax administration for further processing. Excerpt “…The majority agrees with the tax office that deficits over time may give reason to investigate whether the intra-group prices are set on market terms. However, the case is not sufficiently informed for the tribunal to take a final position on this. In order to determine whether the income has been reduced as a result of incorrect pricing of intra-group transactions and debits, it is necessary to analyze the agreed prices and contract terms. A comparability analysis will be needed, cf. OECD TPG Chapter III, including especially OECD TPG Section 3.4. to be able to determine whether the intra-group prices have been at arm’s length. When analysing the controlled transactions and identifying possible comparable uncontrolled transactions, reference must be made to the comparability factors as instructed in OECD TPG section 1.36. A functional analysis must be performed to identify which party to the contractual relationship is to form the basis for the choice of pricing method in accordance with OECD TPG clause 3.4, step 3, as well as a market analysis to identify how this may affect the price in the controlled transactions. See OECD TPG Section 3.7, step 2. In the majority’s view, the tax office is closest to making the necessary analyzes and assessments of the above matters. The majority therefore believes that the decision should be revoked and sent back to the tax office for possible new processing, cf. the Tax Administration Act § 13-7 (3).” Click here for translation

B Restructuring LDA was a distributor within the E group. During FY 2014-2016 a number of manufacturing entities within the group terminated distribution agreements with B Restructuring LDA and subsequently entered into new Distribution Agreements, under similar terms, with another company of the group C. These events were directed by the Group’s parent company, E. The tax authorities was of the opinion, that if these transaction had been carried out in a free market, B would have received compensation for the loss of intangible assets – the customer portfolio and the business and market knowledge (know-how) inherent to the functions performed by B. In other words, these assets had been transferred from B to C. The tax authorities performed a valuation of the intangibles and issued an assessment of additional taxable income resulting from the transaction. E Group disagreed with the assessment as, according to the group, there had been no transaktion between the B and C. Furthermore the group held that there was no transaction or disposal of intangibles, as B could not sell what did not belong to it, namely the client portfolio, which had been, almost in its entirety, raised by the Group, prior to its use by B. Result reached in the arbitration tribunal The Tribunal set aside the assessment of additional income in respect of transfer of intangibles. Excerpts “…The Tax Authorities, anchored in the positions of the OECD, states in the RIT that: “From this perspective, the acceptance by B… of a distribution contract, on which the entirety of its activity depends, containing clauses that (i) harm its individual interest (Clause 11, which provides that the parties waive the right to claim damages in connection with the execution or termination of the contract) […] is a decision that differs from the rationality of pursuing self-interest that would exist in an independent company ” Indeed, the position that independent entities, when transacting with each other, would require consideration for the transfer of assets is understandable. However, it is also true that § 6.13 of the OECD Guidelines underlines that within a Group there are special relationships, with rules specific to the Group, which should not be automatically called into question for failure to respect the arm’s length principle, particularly in transactions involving intangibles. In this context, the RIT is totally silent, and should not be, on the value of the Group’s contribution to B… customers, as based on the evidence, in particular in the logic of application of the excess earnings method (and respective elements contributing to the assets under appraisal). In a transaction between independent parties, the selling party, having previously obtained such a right or intangible asset, certainly through the payment of a consideration, what it would gain is the value arising from its specific contribution, and not the total value of the asset, since a substantial part of it was not developed by it . In the present case, the profit of B… would have to be deducted the value contributed by the group for the portfolio of clients reallocated to C… . If a compensation for the reallocation of B…’s intangibles was accepted, it would also have to be analysed how it would be shared among the Group’s entities that contributed to the generation of the reallocated intangibles. In light of all the foregoing, it can be concluded that the tax acts of assessment of the CIT and the compensatory interest inherent thereto are vitiated by an error in the assumptions and can therefore be annulled on the grounds of substantive defects, by virtue of the AT’s failure to observe the legal criteria of the method for determining the comparable market price (PCM) or other alternative method. Specifically: a. The allegedly comparable price was obtained by the AT from the data of a controlled transaction, and not from a transaction between independent parties – which is not admissible under Article 63 of the IRC Code, Ministerial Order 1446-C/2001 and the OECD Guidelines that enshrine the guidelines to be followed for this purpose; b. The evaluation method used was the discounted cash-flow method, which has as general postulate that the value of an asset (or company) is based on the cash flows that it will release, updated (present value) to the moment when the transaction of that asset (or company) takes place. However, inconsistently, despite invoking that method, the AT did not rely on a projection of cash flows for a multi-year period, basing itself on the profits (and not, as stated, cash flows) of a given year – 2014 (and not, as stated, on a multi-year basis); c. Relevant comparability factors were not taken into account, such as, in the present case, the fact that the “profit” of B… should be deducted the value contributed by the Group for the portfolio of clients reallocated to C…”. Also with regard to the choice of method, in the words of the TCA Sul, in its Judgment of 25 January 2018, rendered in Case No. 06660/13 (available in http://www.dgsi.pt): “Transfer prices, as we have already stated, must be determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle (Pursuant to article 2 of Ordinance no. 1446-C/2001, the arm’s length principle is applicable (i) to controlled transactions between an IRS or IRC taxpayer and a non-resident entity; (ii) to transactions carried out between a non-resident entity and its permanent establishment, including those carried out between a permanent establishment in Portuguese territory and other permanent establishments of the same entity located outside this territory; (iii) controlled transactions carried out between entities resident in Portuguese territory subject to IRS or IRC. And by virtue of Article 58(10) of the CIRC and Article 23 of the above-mentioned Ministerial Order, the arm’s length principle is also applicable to the situations provided for therein. Maybe for this reason, the legislator consecrated an open clause regarding the methods to be adopted to determine the transfer prices (see the wording of paragraph b) of article 4 of Ministerial Order no. 1446-C/2001, of 21st March).

Redington India Limited (RIL) established a wholly-owned subsidiary Redington Gulf (RG) in the Jebel Ali Free Zone of the UAE in 2004. The subsidiary was responsible for the Redington group’s business in the Middle East and Africa. Four years later in July 2008, RIL set up a wholly-owned subsidiary company in Mauritius, RM. In turn, this company set up its wholly-owned subsidiary in the Cayman Islands (RC) – a step-down subsidiary of RIL. On 13 November 2008, RIL transferred its entire shareholding in RG to RC without consideration, and within a week after the transfer, a 27% shareholding in RC was sold by RG to a private equity fund Investcorp, headquartered in Cayman Islands for a price of Rs.325.78 Crores. RIL claimed that the transfer of its shares in RG to RC was a gift and therefore, exempt from capital gains taxation in India. It was also claimed that transfer pricing provisions were not applicable as income was exempt from tax. The Indian tax authorities disagreed and found that the transfer of shares was a taxable transaction, as the three defining requirements of a gift were not met – that the transfer should be (i) voluntary, (ii) without consideration and that (iii) the property so transferred should be accepted by the donee. The tax authorities also relied on the documents for the transfer of shares, the CFO statement, and the law dealing with the transfer of property. The arm’s length price was determined by the tax authorities using the comparable uncontrolled price method – referring to the pricing of the shares transferred to Investcorp. In the tax assessment, the authorities had also denied deductions for trademark fees paid by RIL to a Singapore subsidiary for the use of the “Redington” name. The tax authorities had also imputed a fee for RIL providing guarantees in favour of its subsidiaries. RIL disagreed with the assessment and brought the case before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) who ruled in favour of the tax authorities. The case was then brought before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) who ruled in favour of RIL. ITAT’s ruling was then brought before the High Court by the tax authorities. The decision of the High Court The High Court ruled that transfer of shares in RG by RIL to its step-down subsidiary (RC) as part of corporate restructuring could not be qualified as a gift. Extraneous considerations had compelled RIL to make the transfer of shares, thereby rendering the transfer involuntary. The entire transaction was structured to accommodate a third party-investor, who had put certain conditions even prior to effecting the transfer. According to the court, the transfer of shares was a circular transaction put in place to avoid payment of taxes. “Thus, if the chain of events is considered, it is evidently clear that the incorporation of the company in Mauritius and Cayman Islands just before the transfer of shares is undoubtedly a means to avoid taxation in India and the said two companies have been used as conduits to avoid income tax” observed the Court. The High Court also disallowed deductions for trademark fees paid by RIL to a Singapore subsidiary. The court stated it was illogical for a subsidiary company to claim Trademark fee from its parent company (RIL), especially when there was no documentation to show that the subsidiary was the owner of the trademark. It was also noted that RIL had been using the trademark in question since 1993 – long before the subsidiary in Singapore was established in 2005. Regarding the guarantees, the Court concluded these were financial services provided by RIL to it’s subsidiaries for which a remuneration (fee/commission) was required.

S GmbH was an Austrian trading company of a group. In the course of business restructuring, the real estate division of the Austrian-based company was initially separated from the “trading operations/brands” division on the demerger date of 31 March 2007. The trademark rights remained with the previous trading company, which was the parent company of the group, now M GmbH. On 25 September 2007, M GmbH transferred all trademark rights to a permanent establishment in Malta, which was set up in the same year, to which it also moved its place of management on 15 January 2008. Licence agreements were concluded between S GmbH and M GmbH, which entitle S GmbH to use the trademarks of M GmbH for advertising and marketing measures in connection with its business operations in return for a (turnover-dependent) licence fee. The tax authorities (re)assessed the corporate income tax for the years 2008 and 2009. The audit had shown that the licence fees were to be attributed in their entirety to S GmbH as the beneficial owner of the trade marks, which meant that the licence payments to M GmbH were also not to be recognised for tax purposes. S GmbH had created the trademark rights, which had been valued at a total value of €383.5 million in the course of its spin-off; the decisions regarding the use, creation, advertising and licensing of the trademark rights continued to lie with the decision-makers of the operational company advertising the revisions at the Austrian group location. The Maltese management was present at meetings with advertising agencies in Austria, but its activities did not actually go beyond support and administration. The aim of the chosen structure had been a tax-saving effect, whereby the actual taxation of the licence income in Malta had been 5%. A complaint filed by S GmbH was dismissed by the Bundesfinanzgericht. S GmbH then filed an appeal with the Verwaltungsgerichtshof. Judgment of the Court The Court dismissed the appeal of S GmbH and upheld the decision of the tax authorities Excerpts: “In the appeal case, the BFG found that the trademark rights had been created before the separation of the companies. No new trademarks had been registered during the audit period. The advertising line was determined by a two-year briefing of the group and was based on the requirements of the licensees. The brand managers of M GmbH participated in the process, but the decisions were made by the organs of the appellant, which spent over €56 million in 2008 and almost €68 million in 2009 on advertising and marketing.. In contrast, M GmbH had hardly incurred any advertising expenses, and its salary expenses were also disproportionate to the tasks of a company that was supposed to manage corporate assets of almost €400 million in trademark rights and to act as the (also economic) owner of these assets. The minimal salary expenditure, which amounted to a total of € 91,791.0 in 2008 and € 77,008.10 in 2009 and was distributed among eight persons (most of whom were part-time employees), could only be explained by the fact that all relevant trademark administration, maintenance and management tasks were, as in the past, handled either by group companies (by way of group-internal marketing activities) or by specialists commissioned by the group (trademark lawyer, advertising agency) and that M GmbH only acted in a supporting capacity. If, against this background, the BFG assumes, despite the formal retention of the legal ownership of the trademark rights, that the economic ownership of the trademark rights, which had already been created at that time, was also transferred to the appellant at the time of the spin-off, this cannot be seen as an unlawful act which the Administrative Court should take up. If, in the case at hand, the appellant nevertheless concluded licence agreements with M GmbH, the reason for this cannot have been the acquisition of the right of use to which it was entitled from the outset as the beneficial owner. The BFG was therefore correct in denying that the amounts paid by the appellant under the heading of “licence payments” were business expenses. …” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

Perrigo has lost is request for overturning a €1.64 billion tax assessment in a judicial review by the Irish High Court. The contention of the Irish Revenue is that a transaction (involving the disposal of intellectual property rights) which has been treated as part of the trade of Perrigo in its corporation tax returns should properly have been treated as a capital transaction. When treated as a capital transaction an effective tax rate of 33% is applied rather than the usual 12.5% rate. The Irish Revenue’s qualification of the transfer in question as an capital transaction results in additional taxes in the amount of €1,636,047,645. The transaction involved the sale to Biogen, in 2013, of Perrigo’s remaining 50% interest in the intellectual property relating to a pharmaceutical product sold under the brand name Tysabri which is used to treat multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease. “Perrigo explains that from 1st January, 2000, EPIL [Elan Pharma International Ltd] began to fund the continued development of Tysabri. It sought to find a collaboration partner with the necessary technical capability knowledge and experience in the area of multiple sclerosis research and development. Biogen was chosen as the counterparty as it satisfied both of those requirements. EPIL first disposed of 50% of its interest in the IP relating to Tysabri to Biogen in 2000 and received an upfront payment of US$15 million as reimbursement of research and development expenditure incurred to that date together with milestone payments if certain triggering events in the development process occurred. At the time of this partial disposal, Tysabri had not undergone the full clinical trials process and required “hundreds of millions of dollars of additional research and development investment with absolutely no guarantee of success”. Perrigo maintains that all income associated with the 2000 disposal was at the time treated and returned for corporation tax purposes as part of trading income and no issue was raised by the inspector or by the Revenue. Between 2004 and 2006, Tysabri was launched on the United States market, withdrawn from the market and subsequently relaunched. EPIL continued to actively manage the IP asset (representing the remaining 50% interest in the patents and the other IP relating to Tysabri) remaining in its portfolio. This was principally done through the detailed governance arrangements in the Collaboration Agreement with Biogen. It involved (inter alia) trying to establish the efficacy of the drug for the treatment of other diseases (such as Crohn’s disease) and attempting to secure licences for its release in jurisdictions outside the United States.” “Throughout this period of collaboration, EPIL did not manufacture Tysabri. Instead it was manufactured by Biogen. In April, 2013, the remaining 50% interest in the Tysabri IP was sold to Biogen with the consideration paid in the form of an upfront payment together with future contingent payments. The upfront payment received from Biogen in 2013 was included in the trading income in the EPIL tax return filed with Revenue in September, 2014 for the 2013 period. Perrigo complains that it was not until 30th October, 2018, not long before the expiry of the applicable four-year statutory limitation period, that the Revenue issued the audit findings letter in which the contention was made, for the first time, that the disposal of IP did not constitute part of EPIL’s trade.” Perrigo contends that the Revenue is incorrect in characterising the sale of the intellectual property (“the Tysabri IP”) as a capital transaction and has appealed the notice of amended assessment to the Tax Appeal Commission (“the TAC”). In the event that the present application for judicial review fails, it will be for the TAC to determine whether the disposal of the Tysabri IP was or was not a trading transaction. In the proceedings before the court, Perrigo claims that the appeal should never have to proceed before the TAC. Perrigo claims that, irrespective of the nature of the transaction, there was no legal entitlement on the part of the inspector to issue the assessment. Perrigo has instituted these judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of the notice of amended assessment on the grounds that the assessment is (a) in breach of Perrigo’s legitimate expectations; (b) so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power; and (c) that it amounts to an unjust attack on its constitutionally protected property rights. The conclusion of the Irish High Court “Perrigo has failed to establish that there is anything in the course of dealing between the parties which would make it unfair in the present case for the Revenue to exercise its statutory powers under the 1997 Act to issue an amended assessment.” “Perrigo has failed to establish a basis for either the legitimate expectation or the abuse of power/unfairness claims, it seems to me that its argument based on the Constitution must also fail.” “Perrigo has failed to establish any basis to interfere with the assessment issued in respect of the disposal of the Tysabri IP and, accordingly, its claim must be dismissed. Whether the disposal of the Tysabri IP constituted a trading or a capital transaction will now have to be resolved before the Tax Appeals Commissioner, and according to the High Court there are clearly arguments available as to why the disposal of the Tysabri IP should be regarded as a capital transaction.

Software A/S was a fully fledged Danish distributor of software an related services up until 2010 where the company was converted into a commissionaire dealing on behalf of a newly established sales and marketing hub in Switzerland. Following an audit, the Danish tax authorities issued a assessment where additional taxable income from the transfer of intangibles to Switzerland in 2010 had been determined by application of the DCF valuation model. As no transfer pricing documentation had been prepared on the transfer, the assessment was issued on a discretionary basis. Software A/S filed a complaint to the Danish Tax Court. The Tax Court found that the tax authorities did not have the authority to make a discretionary assessment. It was emphasized that the company in its transfer pricing documentation had described the relevant circumstances for the restructuring. Furthermore, the company had analyzed functions and risks and prepared comparability analyzes for transactions before and after the restructuring. However, the Tax Court found that the authorities had proved that during the restructuring, valuable intangible assets had been transferred, which were to be priced in accordance with Danish arm’s length provisions. For this purpose, the Tax Court applied the valuation model prepared by the tax authorities, but where the expected useful life of the assets was limited to only 10 years – and not indefinite as determined by the authorities – resulting in a lower value. Click here for other translation

Following a restructuring of the Italien Piaggio group, SAS Piaggio France by a contract dated January 2 2007, was changed from an exclusive distributor of vehicles of the “Piaggio” brand in France to a commercial agent for its Italian parent company. The tax authorities held that this change resulted in a transfer without payment for the customers and applied the provisions of article 57 of the general tax code (the arm’s length principle). A tax assessment was issued whereby the taxable income of SAS Piaggio France was added a profit of 7.969.529 euros on the grounds that the change in the contractual relations between the parties had resultet in a transfer of customers for which an independent party would have been paid. In a judgment of October 2019, Conseil dÉtat, helt in favor of the tax authorities and added an additional profit of 7.969.529 to the taxable income of Piaggio France for the transfer of customers to the Italian parent company. Since the French agent had received no payment for the transfer, an assessment of withholding tax (dividend – hidden distribution of profit) was issued in accordance with the French-Italien Double tax treaty. An appeal filed by Piaggio on this additional issue. Piaggio claimed, that only risk but no intangibles had been transferred. Hence there was no basis for withholding taxes on hidden distribution of profits. Decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The Court held in favor of the tax authorities and dismissed the appeal. “…It results from the very terms of the contract produced by the administration on appeal, that SAS PIAGGIO FRANCE has become, as of January 2007, the commercial agent of its parent company, the latter’s agent and, as such, without its own clientele and without the right to hold the business. The applicant company claims to have continued the same activity in another form, by continuing to develop and commercially animate the French dealer network in exactly the same way as it did before the change in status, while acknowledging that the legal changes of change in status led to a transfer of risks, these factors do not prove that the brand’s dealer clientele in France, which it now lacks, would not have been transferred to its parent company, which succeeded it in the distribution of the brand’s products in France and took over all the risks associated with this operation and the brand’s development. Moreover, it follows from the very terms of the agency agreement that, contrary to what it maintains, the applicant company, which must obtain the agreement of its parent company in order to enter into a new distribution contract, does not directly choose and manage the scope of the approved dealers. Moreover, if it claims not to have transmitted its know-how, it does not establish it. Finally, even supposing that the applicant company’s operating income had not deteriorated, that the number of its employees would have been maintained, and that no other distributor would have been compensated, these circumstances are not such as to establish the absence of transfer of its own clientele to its parent company. It follows from this, and while the change in status in 2007 did not result in any compensation for SAS PIAGGIO FRANCE, the management was entitled to consider that by transferring its clientele and know-how to it, the latter had granted an advantage to the Italian company Piaggio et C Spa. In view of the foregoing and since SAS Piaggio France is indirectly owned by the Italian company Piaggio et C Spa, it is presumed, contrary to what it claims, to have made a profit transfer, within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code. It was thus for it to prove, which it did not do, that that transfer involved, for it, sufficient consideration and did not depart from normal commercial management. It is therefore rightly, in application of the aforementioned provisions and stipulations, that the administration has charged the withholding tax, the additional corporate income tax contribution and the corresponding social contribution on corporate income tax.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

“Beltart Manufacturing” is a Bulgarian toll-manufacturer of of clothing accessories – trouser belts etc. – and is a member of the German Beltart Group. The remuneration for the manufactoring services provided to the group for 2013 and 2014 had been lower than for previous years. According to the company this was due to changes to the contractual and economic conditions and discounts. Following an audit the tax authorities came to the conclusion that the remuneration for 2013 and 2014 should be increased to the same level as for the previous years.  According to the tax authorities, the additional income had been determined by application of the CUP method. An appeal was filed by Beltart Manufacturing with the Administrative court, where the assessment was set aside. According to the court the tax authority had  not analyzed the economic situation for the period 2011 and 2012, and then for 2013 and 2014 in order to determine that the company’s profits. Since the tax authority has compared the remuneration of the services for a period different from the period under review, it could not be held that the same are identical for both the periods. The fact that there is no comparable market data makes it impossible to verify whether the terms of the transaction correspond to the terms of a comparable transaction between unrelated parties. In the absence of comparable date, there is no way to justify a deviation in the terms of the transaction. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Administrative Court. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Court and remanded the case for further considerations. Excerpts “…On the merits, the applicant submits the following opinion: The allegations of the Director of the ‘ODOP Directorate’ – Varna that there are substantial breaches of the rules of court procedure in the annulment of the judgment are well-founded. The objection of the applicant that the evidence submitted was credited unilaterally by the court and was not discussed in totality with all the other evidence available in the case is also considered as justified. It is reasonably submitted that the provision of Article 116(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with. The market price was correctly determined by the revenue authorities in this case, whereas the conclusions to the contrary of the Administrative Court-Varna are incorrect and unlawful. In the part rejecting the appeal, the judgment under appeal was correctly rendered in compliance with the rules of court procedure and in correct application of the substantive law. For that reason, the cassation appeal lodged by Beltart Ltd is unfounded and the judgment in that part must be upheld” “The absence of a market analogue to determine the ‘market price’ cannot be the sole ground for annulment of the revision act. The Board of Appeal, as a court of substance, has to assess whether the company’s financial result has been correctly increased. That assessment also relates to the determination of the ‘market price’ of the service and the existence of a deviation therefrom. Ordinance No. H-9 of 14 August 2006 on the procedure and methods for the application of methods for determining market prices provides for several methods for determining the “market price” within the meaning of § 1, item 8 of the State Tax Code. Since in the present case, according to the first instance Chamber, the “market price” was incorrectly determined by the method of comparable uncontrolled prices and the method of increased value by the revenue authorities, the market value of the service should have been determined in the judicial phase of the proceedings in order to make an assessment as to the absence or not of tax evasion. The expert evidence heard is incomplete in that it shows that the market price of the service in the course of the audit proceedings was not actually determined by the comparable uncontrolled prices method and the incremental value method as alleged by the revenue authorities. However, the expert also did not determine the market price according to any of the methods of Regulation No H-9/2006. In the course of the court proceedings, no “market price” of the invoiced services within the meaning of §1, item 8 of the RA of the Tax Code was established. It was the court’s duty to determine the market price and to assess whether, in view of that price, an evasion of taxation under Article 15 and Article 16 of the Income Tax Act had been established which justified the increase in the company’s financial accounting result. This has not been done and in paragraph 1 of the decision it is formally held that in the absence of a basis for comparison the RA is unlawful” “Although part of the reasoning of the judgment is correct, the judgment must be set aside in its entirety on the basis of the substantive breaches of the rules of court. The restatement of the company’s financial result relates to the determination of the taxable amount for 2013 and 2014, which must be carried out on the retrial of the case, taking into account all the prerequisites for the increase in the SFR set out in the audit certificate. In order to correctly establish the tax base on which to determine the corporate tax liabilities of the audited entity for 2013 and 2014, the court should clarify the issues of the “market price” of the service provided, determine whether there is an evasion of taxation within the meaning of Articles 15 and 16 of the Income Tax Act; assess whether for any of the years the company is making a loss and, accordingly, determine the amount of advance payments for the period and any interest thereon under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act. Lastly, having determined the tax base, it should, after hearing an expert opinion, determine the interest payable on the unpaid public debts under Article 175(1) of the Tax Code.”

Coffee Machine Ltd. was founded in Ireland and responsible for the trademark and patent administration as well as the management of the research and development activities of the A group, the world’s largest manufacturer of coffee machines. A Swiss subsidiary of the A group reported payments of dividend to the the Irish company and the group claimed that the payments were exempt from withholding tax under the DTA and issued a claim for a refund. Tax authorities found that the Irish company was not the beneficial owner of the dividend and on that basis denied the companies claim for refund. The lower Swiss court upheld the decision of the tax authorities. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court and supplemented its findings with the argument, that the arrangement was also abusive because of the connection between the share transfer in 2006 and the distribution of pre-acquisition reserves in 2007 and the total lack of substance in the Irish company. “…the circumstantial evidence suggests with a probability bordering on certainty that the complainant and the other companies involved wanted to secure a tax saving for themselves with the transfer of the shareholding in the subsidiary and the subsequent distribution of a dividend to the complainant, which they would not have been entitled to under the previous group structure. The economic objective asserted by the complainant – locating the research and development function, including the shareholding in the subsidiary, under the Irish grandparent company responsible for overseeing the licensing agreements – does not explain why the complainant went heavily into debt in order to ultimately use this borrowed capital to buy the subsidiary’s liquid funds, which were subject to latent withholding tax. It would have been much simpler for all parties involved and would have led to the same economic result if the subsidiary had instead distributed these funds to the sister company immediately before the transfer of the shareholding and the sister company had thus recorded an inflow of liquidity in the form of a dividend instead of a purchase price payment. Against this background, the chosen procedure appears to be outlandish and the legal arrangement artificial. Since the arrangement chosen by the complainant mainly served to obtain advantages from the DTA CH-IE and the AEOI-A CH-EU and the three characteristics of tax avoidance are met, the complainant must be accused of abuse of law both from the perspective of international law and from the perspective of internal law. “ “A person who, like the complainant, fulfils the criteria of abuse of the agreement and tax avoidance as defined by the practice cannot invoke the advantage pursuant to Art. 15 para. 1 aAIA-A CH-EU. As a result, the lower court did not violate either federal or international law by completely refusing to refund the withholding tax to the complainant on the basis of Art. 15 para. 1 aAIA-A CH-EU.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

A Dutch company, Zinc Smelter B.V., transferred part of it’s business to a Swiss group company in 2010. In dispute was whether the payment for the transferred activities had been set at arm’s length, and whether the cost-plus remuneration applied to the Dutch company after the business restructuring constituted an arm’s length remuneration for the remaining activities in the company. The case had previously been presented before the lower court where a decision had been issued in October 2017. After hearings in the Court of Appeal, Zinc Smelter B.V. and the Dutch tax authorities reached a settlement which was laid down in the decision. According to the agreement the profit split method was the correct method for determining the arm’s length remuneration of the Dutch company after the restructuring. Click here for translation

In 2008, the A Group had reorganized its internal financing function so that the Group’s parent company, A Oyj, had established A Finance NV in Belgium. Thereafter, A Oyj had transferred to intra-group long-term loan receivables of approximately EUR 223,500,000 to A Finance NV. In return, A Oyj had received shares in A Finance NV. The intra-group loan receivables transferred in kind had been unsecured and the interest income on the loan receivables had been transferred to A Finance NV on the same day. A Finance NV had entered the receivables in its balance sheet as assets. In addition, A Oyj and A Finance NV had agreed that target limits would be set for the return on investment achieved by A Finance NV through its operations. A Finance NV has reimbursed A Oyj for income that has exceeded the target limit or, alternatively, invoiced A Oyj for income that falls below the target limit. Based on the functional analysis prepared in the tax audit submitted to A Oyj, the Group Tax Center had considered that A Oyj had in fact performed all significant functions related to intra-group financing, assumed significant risks and used significant funds and that A Finance NV had not actually acted as a group finance company. The Group Tax Center had also considered that A Finance NV had received market-based compensation based on operating costs. In the tax adjustments for the tax years 2011 and 2012 submitted by the Group Tax Center to the detriment of the taxpayer, A Oyj had added as a transfer pricing adjustment: n the difference between the income deemed to be taxable and the income declared by the company and, in addition, imposed tax increases on the company. In the explanatory memorandum to its transfer pricing adjustment decisions, the Group Tax Center had stated that the transactions had not been re-characterized because the characterization or structuring of the transaction or arrangement between the parties had not been adjusted but taxed on the basis of actual transactions between the parties. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the Group Tax Center had ignored the legal actions taken by A Oyj and A Finance NV and in particular the fact that A Finance NV had become a creditor of the Group companies. It had identified the post-investment transactions between A Oyj and A Finance NV and considered that A Oyj had in fact performed all significant intra-group financing activities and that A Finance NV had not in fact acted as a group finance company. Thus, when submitting the tax adjustments to the detriment of the taxpayer, the Group Tax Center had re-characterized the legal transactions between A Oyj and A Finance NV on the basis of section 31 of the Act on Tax Procedure. As the said provision did not entitle the Group Tax Center to re-characterize the legal transactions made by the taxpayer and since it had not been alleged that A Oyj and A Finance NV had reorganized the Group’s financial activities for tax avoidance purposes, the Group Tax Center could not correct A Oyj taxes to the detriment of the taxpayer and does not impose tax increases on the company. Tax years 2011 and 2012. that A Oyj and A Finance NV had undertaken to reorganize the Group’s financial operations for the purpose of tax avoidance, the Group Tax Center could not, on the grounds presented, correct A Oyj’s taxation in 2011 and 2012 to the detriment of the taxpayer or impose tax increases on the company. Tax years 2011 and 2012. that A Oyj and A Finance NV had undertaken to reorganize the Group’s financial operations for the purpose of tax avoidance, the Group Tax Center could not, on the grounds presented, correct A Oyj’s taxation in 2011 and 2012 to the detriment of the taxpayer or impose tax increases on the company. Tax years 2011 and 2012. Click here for translation

D AB was accused of undervaluing its income due to internal restructuring with its U.S.-based parent company, DWC, for the tax years 2013, 2014, and 2015. The Swedish Tax Agency argued that DAB had transferred its sales activities, intangible assets, and rights to product technology to DWC without receiving appropriate arm’s length compensation, thereby reducing its taxable income in Sweden. Judgment The Court agreed with the Swedish Tax Agency, finding that D AB had indeed transferred significant assets and responsibilities, including sales, marketing, and product development functions, to DWC. DAB did not retain control over these assets after restructuring, and the actual relationship between DAB and DWC was inconsistent with the terms of their distribution agreements. Regarding compensation, the Court determined that DAB did not receive an arm’s length price for these transferred assets. The Swedish Tax Agency’s valuation, based on DWC’s acquisition cost adjusted for goodwill and other operational assets, was accepted by the Court as a fair approximation of the arm’s length value. Additionally, the Court found that DAB provided development services to DWC in 2014 and 2015, which should have been compensated at an arm’s length rate, as these services directly benefited DWC’s business. The Court upheld the decision to impose additional taxes and penalties, as DAB had submitted incorrect information on its tax returns. Excerpts in English “Based on how the business had been organized after the restructuring, it was questionable, according to the Administrative Court of Appeal, whether the company had had any opportunities to maintain these parts of the distribution agreements. According to information from the company during the audit, the agreements have not reflected how it has worked in practice. The Administrative Court of Appeal considers that the terms of the agreement differ from the parties’ actual conduct. The Administrative Court of Appeal agrees with the Swedish Tax Agency’s assessment that it is important to analyze the parties’ actual actions when determining what the actual transaction is. After the restructuring, DWC has had formal control over the company’s operations in general. According to the Administrative Court of Appeal, it is also clear that the company’s intention in connection with the restructuring was that it would cease its sales activities and that contact with customers and partners would take place at DWC. During a transitional period, certain agreements remained with the company. Without Mr. S… and the other employees of the company, DWC would not have had the competence to carry out the development activities. However, in a formal sense, it is clear that DWC has had control over the product development activities and the important decisions regarding the exploitation of the intangible assets and has had the real ability to prevent others from using the asset. It has also emerged that Mr. S.. considered that DWC made crucial strategic decisions which he considered to be manifestly bad. He also argued that, although he had a key role in the company, he had no control over the decisions. He also argued that DWC was responsible for marketing, market strategy and market risks. According to the Court of Appeal, it is also clear that the sales activities have been completely transferred to DWC.” “According to the Administrative Court of Appeal, the purchase price paid by DWC on the transfer date is a reasonable starting point for the calculation of an arm’s length price of the transferred business. The Administrative Court of Appeal considers that the valuation that led DWC to make a write-down cannot be considered to constitute an independent and commercial valuation. Moreover, the write-down in question was made more than a year after the acquisition of the company. However, in order for the purchase price to be considered a reasonable starting point for the calculation of an arm’s length price of the transferred business, it should be required that in principle all value in the company has been transferred to DWC and that no actual value has remained in the company. Otherwise, any value remaining in the company should be set off against the purchase price paid by DWC on the date of transfer. Although the company has argued that there was “know-how” in the company, it has not provided any further arguments in this respect. According to the Administrative Court of Appeal, it has not been established that there was a higher remaining value in the company to be set off against the amount in question than that calculated by the Swedish Tax Agency. The Administrative Court of Appeal considers that the arm’s length price for transferred sales activities including intangible assets and transferred rights to product technology amounts to the amount that the Swedish Tax Agency, after certain adjustments, has arrived at in its review decision” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

The main activity in a Danish branch of a German group was development, licensing and services related to engines that were being produced by external licensees. Under a restructuring of the group, it was decided that royalty income for a particular engine type previously received by the Danish branch should be transferred to the German company. The Danish branch received a compensation corresponding to the net earnings for a two-year notice period. The tax administration increased the taxable income of the branch claiming that the branch had made valuable contributions to the development of the type of engine in question and thereby obtained co-ownership. The Tax Tribunal found that valuable intangible assets had been transferred, The decision was based on prior contractual arrangements and conduct of the parties.  Click here for other translation

Broadcom Semiconductors Ltd is an Israeli company established in 2001 under the name Dune Semiconductors Ltd. The Company is engaged in development, production, and sale of components to routers, switches etc. The shares in Dune Semiconductors were acquired by the Broadcom Corporation (a US group) in 2009 and following the acquisition intellectual property was transferred to the new Parent for a sum of USD 17 million. The company also entered into tree agreements to provide marketing and support services to a related Broadcom affiliate under a cost+10%, to provide development services to a related Broadcom affiliate for cost+8%, and a license agreement to use Broadcom Israel’s intellectual property for royalties of approximately 14% of the affiliate’s turnover. The tax authorities argued that functions, assets, and risks had been transferred leaving only an empty shell in Israel and a tax assessment was issued based on the purchase price for the shares resulting in additional taxes of USD 29 millions. According to the company such a transfer of functions, assets, and risks would only be applicable if Broadcom Israel had been emptied of its activities which  was not the case. Following the restructuring Broadcom Israel continued as a licensor and as a service provider. The financial situation of the company also improved. The position of the company was further supported by the fact that several years following the restructuring, Broadcom Israel sold its intellectual property and was taxed for the capital gain. The District Court held in favor of the company. A business restructuring from a fully fledged principal  to a service provider on a cost-plus basis does not necessarily result in a transfer of value. Judgment of the Court In the judgment the court argues that this case is different from the prior Gteko-case where the Israeli company became an empty shell and financial results were dramatically reduced following the acquisition and restructuring of the company. Unlike the Gteko-case, Broadcom had increased its activities in Israel following the acquisition. The court also emphasized that the tax authorities did not take into consideration options realistically available to the company at the time of the restructuring. For a business restructuring to constitute a sale of functions, assets, and risks property for tax purposes, it must be demonstrated not only that the change occurred, but also that the change did not meet the arm’s length principle. The court confirmed that the OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines are applicable as a reference for tax purposes in Israel. Click here for an English translation

Due to the economic situation of automotive suppliers in Germany in 2006, “Cutting Tech GMBH” established a subsidiary (CB) in Bosnien-Herzegovina which going forward functioned as a contract manufacturer. CB did not develop the products itself, but manufactured them according to specifications provided by “Cutting Tech GMBH”. The majority of “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s sales articles were subject to multi-stage production, which could include various combinations of production processes. In particular, “Cutting Tech GMBH” was no longer competitive in the labour-intensive manufacturing processes (cut-off grinding, turning, milling) due to the high wage level in Germany. Good contribution margins from the high-tech processes (adiabatic cutting, double face grinding) increasingly had to subsidise the losses of the labour-intensive processes. Individual production stages, however, could not be outsourced to external producers for reasons of certification and secrecy. In addition, if the production had been outsourced, there would have been a great danger that a third company would have siphoned off “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s know-how and then taken over the business with “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s customer. This could have led to large losses in turnover for “Cutting Tech GMBH”. Furthermore, some of the labour-intensive work also had to cover one or more finishing stages of the high-tech processes, so that this business was also at risk if it was outsourced. For these reasons, the decision was made to outsource the labour-intensive production processes to Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to become profitable again and to remain competitive in the future. There, there were German-speaking staff with the necessary expertise, low customs duties and a low exchange rate risk. CB functioned as a contract manufacturer with the processes of production, quality assurance and a small administrative unit. Cost advantages existed not only in personnel costs, but also in electricity costs. CB prevented the plaintiff’s good earnings from the high-tech processes in Germany from having to continue to be used to subsidise the low-tech processes. “Cutting Tech GMBH” supplied CB with the material needed for production. The deliveries were processed as sales of materials. “Cutting Tech GMBH” received as purchase prices its cost prices without offsetting profit mark-ups or handling fees/commissions. The material was purchased and supplied to CB by “Cutting Tech GMBH”, which was able to obtain more favourable purchase prices than CB due to the quantities it purchased. The work commissioned by “Cutting Tech GMBH” was carried out by CB with the purchased material and its personnel. CB then sold the products to “Cutting Tech GMBH”. In part, they were delivered directly by CB to the end customers, in part the products were further processed by “Cutting Tech GMBH” or by third-party companies. “Cutting Tech GMBH” determined the transfer prices for the products it purchased using a “contribution margin calculation”. Until 2012, “Cutting Tech GMBH” purchased all products manufactured by CB in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 2013 onwards, CB generated its own sales with the external company P. This was a former customer of “Cutting Tech GMBH”. Since “Cutting Tech GMBH” could not offer competitive prices to the customer P in the case of production in Germany, CB took over the latter’s orders and supplied P with the products it manufactured in accordance with the contracts concluded. CB did not have its own distribution in the years in dispute. The tax audit of FY 2011 – 2013 The auditor assumed that the transfer of functions and risks to the CB in 2007/2008 basically fulfilled the facts of a transfer of functions. However, since only a routine function had been transferred, “Cutting Tech GMBH” had rightly carried out the transfer of functions without paying any special remuneration. Due to CB’s limited exposure to risks, the auditor considered that the cost-plus method should be used for transfer pricing. In adjusting the transfer prices, the auditor assumed a mark-up rate of 12%. The material invoiced by “Cutting Tech GMBH” and the scrap proceeds was not included in the cost basis used in the assessment. For 2013, the auditor took into account that the customer P had agreed contracts exclusively with CB and reduced the costs by the costs of the products sold to P. Furthermore, the auditor took the legal view that the entire audit period should be considered uniformly. Therefore, it was appropriate to deduct an amount of €64,897 in 2011, which had been calculated in favour of “Cutting Tech GMBH” in 2010 and not taken into account in the tax assessment notices, in order to correct the error. The auditor did not consider it justified to determine the transfer prices for “Cutting Tech GMBH”‘s purchases of goods by means of a so-called contribution margin calculation. Based on the functional and risk analysis, the auditor concluded that CB was a contract manufacturer. On the grounds that this profit of CB was remuneration for a routine function, the auditor refrained from recognising a vGA because of the transfer of client P from the applicant to CB. However, he stated that according to arm’s length royalty rates, values between 1% and 3% could be recognised as royalty “according to general practical experience.” “Cutting Tech GMBH” filed an appeal against the assessment in 2015. Judgment of the Fiscal Court The Fiscal Court adjusted the assessment issued by the tax authorities and thus parcially allowed the appeal of “Cutting Tech GMBH”. Excerpts “In the case at issue, the decisive cause for the plaintiff losing the customer P is not to be seen in the transfer of business to CB. The applicant lost the customer because it could not offer him competitive prices. The takeover of the business with P by CB is thus not the cause of the loss of the customer. The plaintiff’s factual submission is undisputed in this respect and is confirmed by the small profit that CB made from the business according to the calculations of the foreign auditor.” “The FA was correct to add € … to the taxable income in the year 2013 due to the supply of materials to CB for the processing of its business with

Following a restructuring of the Italien Piaggio group, SAS Piaggio France by a contract dated January 2 2007, was changed from an exclusive distributor of vehicles of the “Piaggio” brand in France to a commercial agent for its Italian parent company. The tax authorities held that this change had resulted in a transfer without payment for the customers and applied the provisions of article 57 of the general tax code (the arm’s length principle). A tax assessment was issued whereby the taxable income of SAS Piaggio France was added a profit of 7.969.529 euros on the grounds that the change in the contractual relations between the parties had resultet in a transfer of customers for which an independent party would have been paid. The Judgment of the Court The court helt in favor of the tax authorities and added an additional profit of 7.969.529 to the taxable income of the SaS Piaggio France for the transfer of customers to the Italian parent company. SAS Piaggio France had until 2007 an exclusive distribution activity in Franch of vehicles of the brand “Piaggio”, which were bought, imported and then resold in its own name to French dealers. For this activity, SAS Piaggio France had developed its own strategy for the French market. It has established and managed a vast network of dealers for which it determined the volumes and models to buy as well as its own commercial policy in terms of pricing and after-sales service. It also and assumed the risks of managing its stock of piaggio products of which it was the owner as well as the commercial risks resulting from possible unpaid or unsold goods. Under these conditions, SAS Piaggio France must be regarded as having created its own customer base – regardless of the strong reputation of the “Piaggio” brand in France – by the network of dealers and the corresponding business. In holding that the transformation of SAS Piaggio France from an exclusive distributor into a simple commercial agent for Piaggio and C SpA did not entail any transfer of customers that should be compensated, the judgment from the court administrative appeal was inexact in the legal characterization of the facts. Click here for translation

In 2013, Philips Uruguay S.A. agreed to sell of its business division related to the marketing of audio and video products to another entity within the group, Woox Innovations Sucursal Uruguay. The related parties had agreed on a price of USD 2,546,409. Philips Uruguay, had not include the transaction in its transfer pricing documentation as – according to the company – the transfer pricing regime in Uruguay was only applicable to transactions involving different jurisdictions (transactions with foreign entities) – unless the domestic transactions were between local entities taxed under different local tax regimes. The tax administration disagreed that purely domestic transactions were not subject for to transfer pricing rules in Uruguay. They also disagreed with the arm’s length nature of the agreed price of USD 2.546.409 and instead estimated an arm’s length value of USD 5,063,294. Consequently, an assessment was issued resulting in an additional tax of USD 630.000. Philips Uruguay disagreed with the assessment and brought the case to court. Judgment of the Court The court agreed that transfer pricing rules in Uruguay are also applicable to purely domestic transactions. However, the tax assessment was annulled by the court, as the price agreed between the parties was considered to have been at arm’s length. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

Intangibles had been transferred from a Danish subsidiary to a US parent under a written agreement. According to the agreement the Danish subsidiary – which had developed and used it’s own intangibles – would now have to pay royalties for the use of trademarks, know-how and patents owned by the US parent. The tax authorities had issued an assesment on the grounds that the majority of the Danish company’s intangibles had been transferred to the US parent. In the assesment the value of the intangibles had been calculated based on the price paid when the US group acquired the shares in the Danish company. H Group argued that the transferred intangibles no longer carried any value and that the Danish company now used intangibles owned by the US group. The Tax Tribunal found that tax authorities had been entitled to make an assessment as the transaction had not been described in the Transfer pricing documentation. However, the Tribunal considered that the valuation based on the price paid when the US group acquired the shares in the Danish company was too uncertain and instead applied a relief-from-royalty method.  Click here for translation

In January 2013 the Swiss company Normet International Ltd acquired all the shares in the Norwegian company Dynamic Rock Support AS (now Normet Norway AS) for a price of NOK 78 million. In February 2013 all intangibles in Dynamic Rock Support AS was transfered to Normet International Ltd for a total sum of NOK 3.666.140. The Norwegian tax authorities issued an assessment where the arm’s length value of the intangibles was set at NOK 58.2 million. The Court of Appeal upheld the tax assessment issued by the tax authorities and rejected the appeal. Click here for translation

The question in the case was whether Cytec Norway KS (now Allnex Norway A/S) had paid an arm’s length price for an intra-group transfer of intangible assets in 2010. Cytec Norway KS had set the price for the accquired intangibles at NOK 210 million and calculated tax depreciations on that basis. The Norwegian tax authorities found that no intangibles had actually been transferred. The tax Appeals Committee determined that intangibles had been transferred but only at a total value of NOK 45 million. The Court of appeal upheld the dicision of the Tax Appeals Committee, where the price for tax purposes was estimated at NOK 44.9 million. Click here for translation

R. Sp. z o.o. had requested a binding ruling/interpretation regarding tax deduction for the price paid to a related entity under restructuring. The request was denied by the tax authorities, as the question – according to the authorities – could only be answered under an Advance Pricing Agreement. R. Sp. z.o.o brought the issue before the Administrative Court Judgment of the Administrative Court The Court decided in favour of R. Sp. z.o.o. According to the Court, the tax authorities could not refuse to issue a binding ruling/interpretation on whether or not a price paid to a related party under restructuring was tax deductible. Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

ZERAIM IBERICA SA, a Spanish subsidiary in the Swiss Syngenta Group (that produces seeds and agrochemicals), had first been issued a tax assessment relating to fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and later another assessment for FY 2008 and 2009 related to the arm’s length price of seeds acquired from Zeraim Gedera (Israel) and thus the profitability of the distribution activities in Spain. The company held that new evidence – an advance pricing agreement (APA) between France and Switzerland – demonstrated that the comparability analysis carried out by the Spanish tax authorities suffered from significant deficiencies and resulted in at totally irrational result, intending to allocate a net operating result or net margin of 32.79% in fiscal year 2008 and 30.81% in 2009 to ZERAIM IBERICA SA when the profitability of distribution companies in the sector had average net margins of 1.59%. The tax authorities on there side argued that the best method for pricing the transactions was the Resale Price Method and further argued that the companies in the benchmark study provided by the taxpayer were not comparable. The authorities also pointed to the fact that ZERAIM IBERICA SA prior to entering the distribution agreement had a gross margin of around 40%, and now after entering the agreement would have a net margin of only 1.5%. The Court held in favor of the tax authorities due to (1) lack of explanation to the shift in profitability of ZERAIM IBERICA SA before and after entering the distribution agreement and (2) lack in comparability between the companies selected for the benchmark study and the Spanish distributor and (3) the transactional net margin method presented by the taxpayer in accordance with Spanish regulations is subordinated to the direct methods (resale price minus etc.). Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

At issue were the tax consequences from (alleged) “key account expenses” paid by “Key Account – X GmbH” to a related party, X FL. X GmbH provided marketing services for an unrelated German manufacturer of machine tools Y. The marketing contract between X GmbH and Y was the basis for the intensive cooperation between Y and X GmbH in the years in dispute. In connection with the intensification of the business relationship with Y, X GmbH took measures regarding a cross-border restructuring. The owners of the group had X FL Lichtenstein established as of March 1998. The business purpose of X FL was “conception and consultancy in the areas of advertising, marketing and public relations”. By invoice dated 1 September 1998, X GmbH informed X FL of the following: “For the provision of (A) as a key account we charge you a one-off goodwill in the amount of ATS 8,000,000.” On 3 September 1998 A, as managing director of X GmbH, and M, as member of the board of directors of X FL, signed the “Cooperation Agreement (Y)”. In this contract, X GmbH as “principal” transferred the advertising contract received from Y to X FL as “contractor” with regard to certain activities listed in detail, which were subsequently summarised under the term “key accounting”. In return, it was agreed that X GmbH would reimburse X FL for the ordinary expenses incurred in connection with the fulfilment of the order and pay 25% of the total order volume (payments by Y to X GmbH). In the period from 1998 to 30 September 2011, X GmbH recorded “key account expenses” in the amount of approximately EUR 82 million as profit-reducing. The tax authorities, examined these transactions between X GmbH and X FL and came to the conclusion that the payments made by X GmbH to X FL under the name of “key account expenses” were not matched by an equivalent service. The prerequisite of a concrete and detailed description of services, which was necessary for the recognition of such payments, was lacking. The “key account” sale transaction of September 1998 was not to be recognised for lack of arm’s length and could not form the basis for the tax recognition of the later current payments. The chosen legal structure constituted abuse within the meaning of section 22 of the BAO. The reductions in assets at X GmbH were hidden profit distributions. An assessment regarding corporate income tax 2005 to 2008 was issued. X GmbH appealed against the decision. The appeal was allowed by the Federal Tax Court where a ruling in favour of X Gmbh was issued. This ruling was then appealed by the tax authorities to the Administrative court of appeal. Judgment of the Court The Court allowed the appeal and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts: ” Business expenses are those expenses or expenditures that are caused by the business (§ 4 para. 4 EStG 1988). The taxable profit of a corporation may not be reduced by transactions that are not caused by the business activity of the corporation but by the corporate relationship. For the question of whether a measure is caused by the company, it is decisive whether it would also have been taken by persons who are strangers to each other (cf. VwGH 11.2.2016, 2012/13/0061, mwN). An arm’s length comparison requires that the services rendered and remunerated are recorded and presented in detail in a concrete and detailed manner. The description of the services must be concrete to such an extent that it is possible to estimate the exact market value of the service and subsequently determine whether a third party would have been willing to provide the consideration that was provided by the related party. A particularly precise description of the service is required in particular if the subject matter of the contract consists of the provision of services that are difficult to grasp (e.g. “efforts”, consultations, mediation of contacts, transfer of know-how) (cf. VwGH 28.1.2003, 99/14/0100, VwSlg. 7786F; 15.9.2016, 2013/15/0274, mwN). In the appeal case, the Federal Supreme Finance Court therefore had to examine which services X FL had provided in detail and make (concrete and detailed) findings in this regard (cf. VwGH 26.2.2004, 99/15/0053). Such concrete and detailed findings are not to be found in the contested decision. The Federal Finance Court only referred in general to “key account” services. The contested decision does not specify which services were involved in detail. Insofar as the contested decision refers to the decision of the Federal Supreme Finance Court in the freezing proceedings (decision of 18 November 2015 in the continued proceedings pursuant to VwGH 30.6. 2015, 2012/15/0165), there is indeed a description of the content of the contract between X FL and X GmbH (acquisition of customers, agreement of the terms of the contract, cultivation and maintenance of existing customer contacts through regular visits by the respective management, preparation of advertising concepts, briefing with the customers and their representatives as well as monitoring of the advertising campaigns; selection and appointment of any subcontractors, agreement of the terms of the contract, preparation of the advertising concept, preparation of the marketing mix, conception of the marketing plan, selection of advertising media and their use). However, it is not clear which of these services were actually provided in the individual years in dispute. There is also no description of services that could have been used to determine the market value of the services. Insofar as it was also stated in that decision that in the private expert opinion of an expert for marketing, both the key account activities of X FL in relation to Y and the activities of X GmbH were described and evaluated in detail, it was stated in the contested ruling on this private expert opinion that it contained many generalities and had little reference to the specific case; the expert opinion also did not refer to the actual historical processes and the documented contractual situation or negated them. … The reference to

According to Colgate Palmolive, following a restructuring, the local group company in Spain was changed from being a “fully fledged distributor” responsible for all areas of the distribution process to being a “limited risk distributor” (it only performs certain functions). A newly established Swiss company, Colgate Palmolive Europe, instead became the principal entrepreneur in Europe. The changed TP setup had a significant impact on the earnings in the Spanish group company. Net margins was reduced from around 16% before the restructuring, to 3.5% after the restructuring. Following a thorough examination of the functions, assets and risks before and after application of the new setup, the Tax administration held that Colgate Palmolive Europe could not be qualified as the “principal entrepreneur” in Europe. The swiss company was in substance a service provider for which the remuneration should be determined based on the cost plus method. Judgment of the Court The High Court held in favour of the tax administration and dismissed the appeal of Colgate Palmolive. Excerpt “.…the conclusion, in our opinion, can only be that the Administration is right, since in reality – remember that certain functions were already being carried out by the French Headquarter – there is no significant change in the situation existing prior to the restructuring in the years in question. This being so, it is not surprising that the Agreement reasons that “the existence of transactions between related entities, the Spanish and Swiss entities, determines the application of the regime provided for in Article 16 of the Consolidated Text of the Corporate Income Tax Law (TRLIS) and in its implementing regulations, mainly Chapter V of Title I of the Corporate Income Tax Regulations (RIS), taking into account the change of regulation introduced by Law 36/2006 applicable, in the case of Colgate Palmolive, as from the financial year 2007”. Adding that “in relation to the existence of transactions between related companies, it is also necessary to take into account Article 9 of the Spanish-Swiss Double Taxation Agreement, inspired by the OECD Model Agreement, which provides that the profits of associated companies may be adjusted when the conditions present in their commercial or financial relations differ from those that would be agreed between independent entities. This article recognises the so-called arm’s length principle, the interpretation of which must take into account the OECD Doctrine, contained in the Commentary to Article 9 itself and its 1995 Transfer Pricing Guidelines, which have been significantly updated in 2010”. As reasoned in the Agreement, the Board shares the reasoning, “according to the exhaustive description contained in the verification file, the characterisation of CP Europe as a “principal trader” is inappropriate, it being more correct to consider that such an entity is in reality a service provider. It is therefore considered that the method chosen by the group to value the transactions is inappropriate and that the appropriate valuation method is the cost plus method. This method, in addition to being a traditional method (and therefore preferable under our internal regulations and the Guidelines), is, in accordance with the OECD Guidelines (paragraph 2.32 and 2.39 in the 2010 version), particularly appropriate for valuing the provision of services”. The fact is that ‘the valuation method applied by Colgate Palmolive is not appropriate, as it results in the residual profit of the group’s operations in Spain being concentrated in the CP Europe entity, which makes no sense if the economic activity of each entity (CP USA, CP Spain and CP Europe) in the overall business in our country is taken into account. The Guidelines themselves highlight in their chapter 7 dedicated to intra-group services (paragraph 7.31, before and after 2010) the cost plus method, together with the comparable free price, as the method to be used to value this type of services between related entities. The work of the Joint Transfer Pricing Forum of the European Union, which also assumes that this is the method most frequently used to value this type of transaction”. The Inspectorate adds, quite reasonably, that “until 2005, the group itself valued transactions between the French Headquarter, with the role of service provider, and the other entities of the group – including CP Spain – using the cost plus method”. The consequence of all the above is that, as stated on p. 73 of the report -reasoning endorsed by the Agreement- “in order to value the transactions between CP Europe and CP Spain, the transactional net margin method, taking CP Spain as the analysed party (Tesdet party), is inappropriate. Instead, it is considered that the most appropriate method for valuing the transactions is the cost plus method, which is based on attributing to the provider of those services – CP Europe – a gross margin on the costs it incurs which are attributable to the Spanish market [it should be recalled that following the analysis carried out it has been concluded that CP Europe cannot be considered as a principal trader, but rather as an entity which performs the functions of a service provider]’. This means that, in the years in question, it is not correct to attribute to CP EUROPE the residual profit derived from the group’s operations in Spain, but rather that this residual profit, deducting the remuneration of the owner of the intangible asset -CP USA- and of the service provider -CEP EUROPE-, should fall on CP SPAIN. The calculations are set out in pp. 74 to 81 of the report, as well as in pp. 59 to 62 of the Agreement. The Board, particularly in the absence of any arguments to the contrary, considers them to be correct. For all the foregoing reasons, the plea is dismissed.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

A Dutch company was engaged in smelting of zinc. The business was then restructured, for which the company received a small compensation. Dutch tax authorities disagreed with both the amount of compensation payment and the arm’s-length remuneration of the post restructuring manufacturing activities. Until 2003 the Dutch Company was a fully fledged business. The company owned the assets and controlled the risks relating to the activities. In the years after 2003, the company was involved in several business restructurings: Activities other than the actual production activities were gradually transferred to other group companies, among others the global marketing and services team (GMS), took over purchasing, sales and deployment of personnel. After becoming part of another group in 2007, the company entered a consultancy agreement with another group company under witch strategic and business development, marketing, sales, finance, legal support, IT, staffing and environmental services was now provided on a cost plus 7.5% basis. Under ‘Project X’, a Belgian company was established in April 2009, which concluded both a business transfer agreement and a cooperation agreement with related smelting companies (including the taxpayer). Under the business transfer agreement, the Belgian company purchased the working capital, including raw materials, products and debtors from the smelting companies. Under the cooperation agreement, which had a term of two years, the Belgian company provided the smelting companies with raw materials. The smelting companies would then process the materials and transfer the final products back to the Belgian company. The Belgian company’s remuneration was based on a cost plus 7.5% mark-up and a 3.5% return on equity. Under ‘Project Y’, the group moved its headquarters to a Swiss company. In the new structure, the Swiss company managed the production planning, purchasing, logistics and sales. The former agreement was terminated, for which the Dutch company received a compensation payment of about €28 million. A manufacturing services agreement was concluded between the Swiss company and the Dutch company under which the smelting companies were compensated based on cost plus 10%. In 2010 the Dutch company reported a taxable amount of €32 million. The Dutch tax authorities increased this amount to €187 million, arguing that at arm’s length the compensation payment should have been €185 million instead of €28 million. The tax authorities argued that: The taxpayer unfairly assumed an expected loss of income for the period of only one year, the remaining term of the cooperation agreement; The compensation payment calculated by the taxpayer was lower than past actual annual profits. The tax authorities provided that the calculation should also consider the foregoing of profits and costs relating to activities such as purchasing and selling. The taxpayer incorrectly assumed that the activities of the GMS were not conducted for the account and risk of the taxpayer; The taxpayer made a calculation error of €50 million and the cash flows in a real sense had been discounted against a nominal discount factor; and The tax authorities referred to the uniqueness of activities conducted by the taxpayer based on the costliness of the factory with huge investments and complexity of the process. The tax authorities also argued that the key functions of the taxpayer had not actually changed after moving the headquarters to Switzerland, and that this should be considered in calculating the compensation payment following the transfer. The company argued that: Under Project X activities relating to purchasing, sales and logistics had already been gradually transferred to other group entities before 2010. In determining the compensation payment, it was therefore not necessary to consider the profit potential of these activities that were no longer being performed by the taxpayer. During the negotiation of the compensation payment, consideration was given to its bargaining position and possibilities to request compensation for a period of time longer than the remaining one year of the cooperation agreement. According to the taxpayer, however, it appeared that compensation, due to poor prospects, was not on the agenda. Although large investments were made in the smelting plant, the taxpayer suggested that these investments mainly related to an adjustment of the production process in line with the environmental standards at the time. The smelting plant of the taxpayer was otherwise not distinctive compared with other smelting plants so as to justify a higher compensation payment. As a result of the business restructuring, the functional profile of the taxpayer changed. The taxpayer regarded itself as a toll manufacturer to be remunerated based on a cost-based approach. However, the tax authorities suggested that a profit split method should be applied considering the strongly interrelated activities of the taxpayer and the Swiss headquarters and the ownership of unique intangibles by both sides. In the Court’s view, the Dutch company was a toll manufacturer in 2010, and therefore the net cost plus method was an acceptable method to determine an arm’s-length remuneration of the current and future activities. The Court  also found that the company had complied with the Dutch documentation requirements and had adequately substantiated the use of the net cost plus method. The Court therefor ruled that the tax authorities did not meet the burden of proof and the income adjustment was thus annulled. (The decision has been appealed by the tax authorities) Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

A Dutch parent company was providing support services to its foreign subsidiary on a cost-plus basis and received a compensation fee following a business restructuring where headquarter and strategic functions was transferred from the Dutch parent company to Switzerland. The Dutch tax authorities took the view that the compensation paid was insufficient, and that the Dutch parent company was still performing strategic functions for the group. The Court ruled that the taxpayer had fulfilled its legal obligations by preparing thorough transfer pricing documentation and that the burden of proof was on the Dutch tax authorities. The Court ruled that the tax authorities did not provide sufficient arguments to support the adjustment. The original assessment of € 188.342.906 was reduced to a calculated taxable profit of € 42,641,089 and a taxable amount of € 32,067,270. Click here for translation

A AB appealed a Swedish Tax Agency decision regarding the income assessment for 2012, specifically around transfer pricing for the transfer of a business segment (P business) from its Swedish subsidiary, C AB, to its U.S. parent, A INC. A AB argued that only specific intellectual property assets, such as technology, a customer list, and a trademark, were transferred, rather than an entire ongoing business. It claimed the transfer price set by the Tax Agency was too high, asserting that a significant portion of the value should be attributed to Mr. X’s know-how, who continued to develop products post-transfer on behalf of A INC. The Swedish Tax Agency contended that the entire P business, including functions, risks, and key personnel like Mr. X, had been transferred, resulting in C AB being left without any assets or business activities. Judgment The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that Mr. X’s expertise was integral to the business and constituted part of the transfer, classifying the transaction as a transfer of an “ongoing concern,” or a full business unit, rather than isolated assets. Following OECD guidelines on transfer pricing, the Court supported the Tax Agency’s position that the transaction should reflect the value of an entire ongoing business, including goodwill. The Court ruled that the company’s arguments did not substantiate a lower valuation and upheld the Tax Agency’s income adjustment. Consequently, A AB’s appeal was dismissed. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

In November 2006 Microsoft Corp. purchased 100% of the shares of Gteko Ltd. (IT Support technology), for USD 90 million. The purchase was made with the intention of integrating Gteko’s technology into Microsoft’s own products. Following this purchase of Gteko Ltd., the employees were transferred to the local Microsoft subsidiary and a few months later another agreement was entered transferring Gteko’s intellectual property/intangibles to Microsoft. This transfer was priced at USD 26 million based on the purchase price allocation (PPA). The tax authorities of Israel found that the price of 26 mio USD used in the transaction was not at arm’s length. It was further argued, that the transaction was not only a transfer of some intangibles but rather a transfer of all assets owned by Gteko as a going concern to Microsoft Corp. The arm’s length price for the transfer was set at USD 80 million. The District Court agreed with the assessment and held that “value does not disappear or evaporate” and that Gteko had not succeeded in arguing why the total values in Gteko should not be equal to the $90 million share price paid.

Dell Spain is part of a multinational group (Dell) that manufactures and sells computers. Dell Ireland, operates as distribution hub for most of Europe. Dell Ireland has appointed related entities to operate as its commissionaires in several countries; Dell Spain and Dell France are part of this commissionaire network. The group operates through a direct sales model and sales to private customers in Spain are conducted by Dell France, through a call centre and a web page. Dell Spain use to operate as a full-fledged distributor, but after entering into a commissionaire agreement Dell Spain now served large customers on behalf of Dell Ireland. A tax assessment was issued by the tax authorities. According to the assessment the activities in Spain constituted a Permanent Establishment of Dell Ireland to which profits had to allocated for FY 2001-2003. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court concludes that the activities of Dell Spain constitutes a Permanent Establishment of Dell Ireland under both the “dependent agent” and “fixed place of business” clauses of the treaty. The expression “acting on behalf of an enterprise” included in article 5.5 of the Spain-Ireland tax treaty does not necessarily require a direct representation between the principal and the commissionaire, but rather refers to the ability of the commissionaire to bind the principal with the third party even when there is no legal agreement between the latter two. Furthermore, the Supreme Court considers that Dell Spain cannot be deemed as an independent agent since it operated exclusively for Dell Ireland under control and instructions from the same. Regarding the “fixed place of business”, the Supreme Court states that having a place at the principal’s disposal also includes the use of such premises through another entity which carries out the principal’s activity under its supervision. This Court also explained that considering a company as a PE is not only based on its capacity to conclude contracts that bind the company but also on the functional and factual correlation between the agent and the company in the sense that the agent has sufficient authority to bind the company in its day to day business, following the instructions of the company and under its control. In regards to question of Employee stock option expences,  the Court partially upheld the claim of Dell and stated “”expenses that are correlated with income” are deductible expenses. Consequently, any expense correlated with income is an accounting expense, and if any accounting expense is a deductible expense in companies, with no exceptions other than those provided for by law” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

AB bioMérieux had entered into a trademark and know-how licensing agreement, followed by a reduction of its activities and a transfer of strategic personnel to its French parent company. The tax authorities concluded that the entire arrangement constituted a transfer of value (intangible assets) and issued a notice of additional taxable income resulting from the transfer. AB bioMérieux filed an appeal which ended up in the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgment The court upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. It found that AB bioMérieux became the formal legal owner of the intangible assets, while the value (intangible assets related to the ongoing business) was transferred to the French parent company. Excerpt in English “Initially, based on the wording of the licence agreement and the legal opinions issued by the professors………………………………………………, the Administrative Court of Appeal cannot find sufficient reasons to consider that the agreement in itself is something other than a licence agreement under civil law. Thus, the licence agreement as such alone does not constitute grounds for departing from the parties’ characterisation of the agreement itself as a licence agreement. However, when assessing which transaction has been undertaken between the parties, all of the parties’ dealings must be taken into account (cf. paragraph 1.52 et seq. of the OECD Guidelines). Similarly, there may be reasons to disregard the parties‘ designation of the transaction in the case where a transaction is indeed the same in form and content, but where the parties’ other dealings in relation to the transaction, viewed as a whole, differ from those that would have applied between independent traders acting in a commercial and rational manner (paragraph 1.65 of the Guidelines). In addition to the written licence agreement, the actual circumstances and the parties‘ intention as well as the economic significance of the parties’ combined conduct must therefore also be taken into account. The Administrative Court of Appeal considers, as does the Administrative Court, that it cannot be considered consistent with the arm’s length principle to isolate the licence from the parties’ other dealings during the period from the share acquisition in June 2008 to the licence in July 2010. The Administrative Court of Appeal further agrees with the Administrative Court’s assessment that the actual circumstances are best described as a restructuring. Prior to the share acquisition in 2008, the company was a fully fledged company, which meant that the company itself developed, manufactured, marketed and sold its products. In addition to the exclusive licence that the company granted to …………. under the licence agreement, the company gradually ceased its activities relating to research and development, manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution of ……………….. during 2008-2010, while …………. was given the opportunity to conduct the same activities. Following the expiry of the licence agreement, the company retains only the ownership of the know-how and trade marks relating to………….. The licence agreement clearly regulates the assignment of the intellectual property rights between the parties for a fixed period. Furthermore, it is clear that, even taking into account that no unit or branch of activity has been transferred from the company to the parent company, the restructuring in its entirety means that the company has relinquished the functions linked to the …………… and …………….. products in favour of the parent company. It is also apparent from the documents in the cases that two persons who have been the bearers of the know-how that the licence agreement is intended to regulate have terminated their employment in the company in order to work for a certain period of time in the parent company for the purpose of incorporating know-how relating to …………….. The Administrative Court of Appeal further finds that the financial risk associated with functions and activities linked to has essentially been transferred to the parent company. According to what has emerged, it is …………… that ties up capital, carries out investments for research and development and bears all operational risks, e.g. linked to production, damages, etc. This assessment is also well in line with points 9.188-9.189 of the guidelines. The gradual winding down of the company’s operations and the start-up of the same operations together with the licence agreement has thus entailed a transfer of value in that assets, functions and risks linked to ——— have been transferred to ……………….. (cf. ongoing concern, paragraph 9.93 of the OECD Guidelines). The entire reorganisation and the resulting transfer of value should therefore be regarded as one transaction. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the transaction that should form the basis for the continued assessment is thus the transfer of research and development, manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution of Etest, as well as the licensing of know-how and trademarks linked to …………… for a period of ten years.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

A Danish production company terminated a 10-year license and distribution agreement with a group distribution company one year prior to expiry of the agreement. The distribution agreement was transferred to another group company and the new distribution company agreed as a successor in interest to pay a “termination fee” to the former distribution company. However, the termination fee was paid by the Danish production company and the amount was depreciated in the tax-return. The Danish company claimed that it was a transfer pricing case and argued that the tax administration could only adjust agreed prices and conditions of the agreement if the requirements for making a transfer pricing correction were met. The Supreme Court stated that the general principles of tax law in the State Tax Act §§ 4-6 also applies to the related companies. Hence, the question was whether the termination fee was held for “acquiring, securing and maintaining the applicant’s income”, cf. the state tax act § 6. The Supreme Court found that payment of the termination fee did not have a sufficient connection to the Danish company’s income acquisition for the payment to be tax deductible. The applicant was therefore not entitled to tax depreciation of the payment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Danish tax administration. Click here for translation

An intermediate Japanese holding company in the IBM group acquired from its US parent all of the shares of a Japanese operating company. The Japanese holdings company then sold a portions of shares in the operating company back to the issuing company for the purpose of repatriation of earned profits. These sales resulted in losses in an amount of JPY 400 billion which for tax purposes were offset against the operating company’s taxable income in FY 2002 – 2005. The Japanese tax authorities did not allow deduction of the losses resulted from the sales referring to article 132 of the Corporation Tax Act of Japan (general anti avoidance regulation). The tax authorities found that the reduction of corporation tax due to the tax losses should be disregarded because there were no legitimate reason or business purpose for the transactions. According to the authorities the transactions would not have taken place between independent parties and the primary purpose of the transactions had been tax avoidance. Decision of the Tokyo High Court The Court decided in favour of IBM and annulled the tax assessment. The Court held that the establishment of the intermediate holding company and the following share transfers should not be viewed as one integrated transaction but rather as separate transactions, and that each of these transactions could not be considered lacking economic reality. In 2016 the Supreme Court rejected the tax authorities’ petition for a final appeal. (The Corporation Tax Act of Japan was amended in 2010 and similar tax losses resulting from share repurchases between a Japanese parent and its wholly-owned subsidiary can no longer be claimed.) Click here for English Translation of the Tokyo High Court decision

S AB appealed a decision by the Swedish Tax Agency regarding its income assessments for 2007 and 2008, which involved disputes over transfer pricing. The primary issue was the valuation of trademarks sold by S AB, specifically whether the sale price of SEK 103 million adhered to the arm’s length principle. The Swedish Tax Agency argued that a hypothetical independent buyer would be willing to pay more, estimating an arm’s length price of SEK 134 million by factoring in the tax effects of the transaction. Judgment The Administrative Court of Appeal agreed with the valuation of the Tax Agency, thereby adjusting S AB’s taxable income for the years in question. S AB had contended that tax benefits should not influence the valuation, citing ambiguities in the 2006 OECD guidelines and challenging the suitability of using the Gordon growth model. However, the court determined that tax implications for both buyer and seller are relevant to the valuation of intangible assets and should be included. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

When the contract manufacturing operations of a subsidiary were terminated in 2008, the costs of winding up these operations were charged to the results of the Swedish parent company, Busses AB. The tax authorities disallowed the deductions claiming that the termination fee was not an arms length payment. An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court which found in favour of Busses AB and set aside the assessment. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Administrative Court of Appeal. Judgment The Administative Court of appeal overturned the decision of the Administrative Court and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts in English. “According to the Administrative Court of Appeal, as a general rule, an agreement such as the manufacturing agreement cannot be considered to have been concluded at arm’s length unless there was a low risk that costs unrelated to the ongoing production would affect the calculation in the future. If such risks exist, it can normally be assumed that an independent contracting party would not have been prepared to agree to such terms.” “VBF has been compensated at a level corresponding to the median value of profits of independent contract manufacturers. As a general rule, an independent contract manufacturer bears the risk of, for example, closure. VBF is a low-risk company. Despite this, there has been no reduction in compensation. In this connection, Busses has claimed that VBF was in a particularly vulnerable position and that the compensation was adjusted accordingly.” “The Administrative Court of Appeal considers it established that an independent contracting party in …………Busses’ place would not have concluded the manufacturing agreement on the terms in question. It is also clear that all………Busses’ costs under the manufacturing contract were significantly higher than they would have been if the contract had been concluded on arm’s length terms.” “According to case law, it may be necessary in some cases to break through the principle of the fiscal year’s finality when assessing a transfer pricing system (RÅ 1991 ref. 107). It is the transactions of the companies concerned with each other that must be assessed and it must be possible to derive a connection between incorrect pricing and the compensation received. ………Busses has stated that the intention of winding up operations in Finland and moving to Poland was to increase profitability in Sweden. According to the Administrative Court of Appeal, this does not constitute such a compensation objection that entails that there was no mispricing between ………Busses and VBF.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation

In 2003, AQQ was incorporated as part of restructuring exercise in B Group and acquired several subsidiary companies in Singapore after obtaining the funds to do so by issuing convertible notes to a bank. Under the notes, AQQ was required to make periodic interest payments to the bank. During the relevant years of assessment, the acquired subsidiaries paid out dividends to AQQ, which constituted income chargeable to tax. These dividends carried tax credits arising from tax deemed deducted at source which could be set off against tax payable on AQQ’s chargeable income. At the same time, AQQ duly paid the interest due under the notes to the bank. These interest payments constituted interest expenses which were deductible from the dividend income. In its tax return AQQ claimed the deduction of the interest expenses from the dividend income as well as the benefit of the tax credits. The combined effect of claiming both was the precipitation of substantial tax refunds to AQQ. The tax athorities, found that AQQ had engaged in a tax avoidance arrangement. Following a decision of the High Court, where the court held that a financing arrangement that was entered into in conjunction with a corporate restructuring scheme amounted to tax avoidance, but also that the tax authorities had not acted reasonably and fairly in exercising its powers, two cross appeals were filed against the decision. Judgment of the High Court The High Court partially allowed the appeal of the tax authorities. Click here for translation SGCA 15″]

A restructuring contract dated 16 June 2003 was entered between NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED and CODISCO INVESTMENTS LLC and promissory notes were issued by OPERADORA UNEFÓN, S.A. de C.V. Following an audit, an assessment was issued by the tax authorities, where the transaction was recharacterised and priced on an aggregatet basis taking into account the totality of the arrangement. Judgment of the Court The court upheld the assessment. According to the court, when the tax authorities carries out an audit of transactions between related parties, it must do so based on the structure and contractual agreements as determined by the associated enterprises. However, the general rule provides for two exceptions where the tax authorities may disregard the form and recharacterise the transactions for tax purposes. The first exception occurs when the economic substance of the transaction differs from its form. The second exception occurs when, although the form and substance of the transaction coincide, the arrangements relating to the transaction, taken as a whole, differ from those that would have been entered into by independent companies acting in a commercially rational manner and their actual structuring prevents the tax administration from determining the appropriate transfer price. Where controlled transactions fall under these two exceptions, tax authorities may determine the taxable income and deductions based on the economic substance of the underlying transaction actually carried out between the parties. This standard is based on the 1995 Transfer Pricing Guidelines, CHAPTER I, paragraph 1.37. Furthermore, according to paragraphs 1.42 to 1.44 the arm’s length principle must take into consideration that separate transactions can be so closely linked that they cannot be valued on a separate basis. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

In the Nestlé Finance case, a cash pool/treasury activity was transferred to a related Swiss entity. The function had been purely administrative, carried out exclusively for the benefit of parties related to the French company. The French company did not receive any compensation for the transfer of the cash pooling activity. First the Administrative Court concluded that the transfer of an internal administrative function to a foreign entity – even if the function only involved other affiliated companies ‘captive clientele’ – required the payment of arm’s-length compensation. This decision was then appealed and later revoked by a decision of the Administrative Court of Appeals. Click here for translation . . . Click here for translation

“Paper Trading B.V.” was active in the business of buying and selling paper. The paper was purchased (mostly) in Finland, and sold in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany. The purchasing and selling activities were carried out by the director of Paper Trading B.V. “Mr. O” who was also the owner of all shares in the company. In 1994, Mr. O set up a company in Switzerland “Paper Trader A.G”. The appointed director of “Paper Trader A.G” was a certified tax advisor, accountant, and trustee, who also acted as director of various other companies registered at the same address. The Swiss director took care of administration, correspondence, invoicing and corporate tax compliance. A couple of years later, part of the purchasing and selling of the paper was now carried out through “Paper Trader A.G”. However, Mr. O proved to be highly involved in activities on behalf of “Paper Trader A.G”, and the purchase and sale of its paper. Mr. O was not employed by “Paper Trader A.G”, nor did he receive any instructions from the company. From witness statements quoted by the Court in the context of a criminal investigation, it followed that Mr. O de facto ran “Paper Trader A.G” like Paper Trading B.V. Mr. O decided on a case-by-case basis whether a specific transaction was carried out by either one of the companies. Moreover, both companies had the same suppliers of paper, paper products, logistics providers and buyers. The only difference was the method of invoicing and payment. The tax authorities issued additional corporate income tax assessments for fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998. For fiscal year 1999, the tax authorities issued a corporate income tax assessment that deviated from the corporate income tax return filed by Paper Trading B.V. These decisions were appealed at the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam (the Court). Ruling The Court considered it plausible that the attribution of profit was not based on commercial consideration, but motivated by the interest of the Mr O. The aim was to siphon a (large) part of the revenue achieved from trading activities from the tax base in the Netherlands. The Court of Appeal ruled that the income generated by Paper Trader A.G had to be accounted for at the level of the Paper Trading B.V. For administrative services, Paper Trader A.G was entitled to a cost plus remuneration of 15%. Certain expenses could not be included in the cost basis, such as factoring and insurance fees. Judgment of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court confirmed the ruling. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution (later – Société de participations et d’études des boissons sans alcool or SOPEBSA), is a French wholesaler of beverages, and was, until 1999, a fully fledged distributor on the French market of the products from the English company Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Limited (ADSW). Both companies are owned by the Allied Domecq PLC group. By a commission contract entered into 12 April 1999, Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution continued to market the products of Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines Limited in France but now as a commission agent. Following an audit for FY 1997 to 2000, the tax administration considered that Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution had, for the financial year ending in 2000, on the one hand, unduly borne an expense relating to a goods insurance contract, and on the other hand, transferred its clientele to Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Limited without consideration. The tax authorities considered that these transactions were part of an abnormal management constituting a transfer of profits by virtue of the provisions of Article 57 of the General Tax Code and consequently reintegrated into the taxable results of Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution for the said financial year, the said insurance charges as well as the indemnity to which the company had renounced at the time of the conclusion of the commissionaire contract. The tax assessment was upheld by the administrative Court and an appeal was then filed with the Administrative Court of Appeal Judgment of the Court The Administrative Court of appeal overturned the decision of the Administrative Court and set aside the assessment of additional taxes. “4. Considering that the investigation shows that Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution, acting until 1999 as a distributor-reseller of the products of the Allied Domecq group, had its own marketing department and a department specifically for the clientele of cafés, hotels and restaurants, and had developed its own strategy for the introduction of the group’s products and penetration of the French market; that, as a result, Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution must be considered to have created its own clientele, distinct from the clientele attached exclusively to the products of the brands belonging to Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Limited; 5. Considering that in order to establish that Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution could not, without receiving compensation in return, transfer its clientele to Allied Domecq Services Limited, whose dependence on the latter is not disputed since both companies are owned by the Allied Domecq PLC group the administration maintains that the contract of 12 April 1999 by which BMD became the commission agent of Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Limited as of 1 March 1999, concluded for a period of three years, provides that the supplier now assumes full responsibility for advertising and promoting the products, holds ownership of the stock until the final sale to customers, is liable for all damage relating to the products, assumes the risk of non-recovery and financing of the stocks, and sets and modifies the selling prices to customers and that, consequently, it follows from the characteristics of the contract that, as a result of its change in status, the commissionaire company no longer had any rights to its own clientele, which could not be transferred without consideration; 6. Considering, however, that in view of the nature of the commissionaire contract, which is not an autonomous contract but the prerequisite for the conclusion of other contracts that it signs in its own name on behalf of its principal, Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution cannot be considered as having transferred its local clientele and, consequently, as having carried out an abnormal act of management; that if, as the administration argues, the company’s remuneration as a commission agent was lower than that allocated to it as a buyer-reseller, it is clear from the investigation that it was proportionate to the functions and risks borne by it as a result of its new status; that it is common ground, moreover, that Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution’s results became profitable as of 2000; that, as a result, Ballantine’s Mumm Distribution is entitled to maintain that the court was wrong to consider that it had abnormally renounced a revenue and distributed profits to its principal and did not grant it a discharge from the disputed withholding tax and penalties to which it was subject for the year 2000 on account of this adjustment;” Click here for English translation Click here for translation

As part of a restructuring of the B Group, AQQ had been incorporated to acquire several Singapore subsidiaries using funds raised from issuing convertible notes to a bank. Interest on those notes was then claimed as a deduction against franked dividends paid by the subsidiaries. The tax authorities issued an assessment based on anti-avoidance provisions, asserting that AQQ had entered into an arrangement designed mainly to obtain a tax advantage. AQQ appealed against the assessment but the Income Tax Board of Review dismissed the appeal. AQQ then appealed to the High Court. Judgment of the Court The High Court agreed with the tax authorities that the arrangement was caught by anti-avoidance provisions because its main effect was to generate artificially high interest deductions while passing on section 44 tax credits, even though the broader group restructuring itself had legitimate commercial rationales. It held that AQQ could not rely on the exception in the anti-avoidance provision, section 33(3)(b) because the financing was contrived and lacked bona fide commercial reasons. However, the tax authorities in exercising their powers had acted unreasonably by disregarding both the dividend income and the interest expenses in their entirety. Only the artificial interest deductions should have been disregarded; the legitimate portion of the deductions as well as the dividend income ought to remain intact. The Court further found that the tax authorities could not raise additional assessments and set aside that part of the assessment and indicated the steps they ought instead to have taken. Click here for translation SGHC 249″]

“H-trademark S.A.” applied for a ruling on the tax rules governing a business restructuring where trademarks were transferred to another group company and licensed back – whether Polish arm’s length provisions would apply to the transaction. The company was of the opinion that Polish arm’s length provision (article 11) would not apply, since the arrangement was covered by special Polish provisions related to financial leasing (article 17b-g). Judgment of the Court The Court found that the Polish arm’s length provisions applied to the transaction. Excerpts “In the present case, the legal problem boils down to the correct identification of the nature of the norms arising from Article 11 of the A.p.d.o.p. and its relationship with the provisions on leasing raised by the applicant (Articles 17b – 17g of the A.p.d.o.p.). Indeed, the applicant takes the view that the leasing provisions themselves introduce derogations from market conditions and that, consequently, it is not possible to examine certain activities governed by the leasing provisions on the basis of the criteria provided for in Article 11 of the A.p.d.o.p.” “Therefore, it should be stated that the norm of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. constitutes lex specialis in relation to the norms concerning taxation of leasing agreements (Article 17a et seq. of the A.l.d.o.p.). It may therefore also be applied in the case concerning taxation of such agreements. Thus, the Court does not share the view of the Appellant Company that it is the provisions concerning the leasing agreement that constitute lex specialis in relation to Article 11 of the discussed Act. It is also of no significance for the position of the Court that the agreement presented in the description of the future event is not a commonly occurring agreement, and therefore, as the appellant claims, it will not be possible to make determinations on the basis of Article 11 of the A.l.t.d.o.p. This is because the very demonstration that the price would have been different if certain connections on the basis of the aforementioned provision had not occurred is already an element of establishing the facts and conducting tax proceedings in a specific case. Meanwhile, the subject of the present proceedings, was the answer to the question whether the aforementioned provision is excluded in the case of taxation of leasing agreements. In addition, it should be noted that, contrary to the assertions in the application, it was not in the description of the future event, but in the position presented by the party that it stated that: “(…) the initial value of the rights to be used will be determined on the basis of a valuation prepared by an independent entity and will therefore correspond to their market value”.” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

Prior to a business restructuring in 1999, the Spanish subsidiary, Roche Vitaminas S.A., was a full-fledged distributor, involved in manufacturing, importing, and selling the pharmaceutical products in the Spanish and Portuguese markets. In 1999 the Spanish subsidiary and the Swiss parent, Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd., entered into a manufacturing agreement and a distribution agreement. Under the manufacturing agreement, the Spanish subsidiary manufactured products  according to directions and using formulas, know-how, patents, and trademarks from the Swiss parent. These manufacturing activities were remunerated at cost plus 3.3 percent. Under the distribution (agency) agreement, the Spanish subsidiary would “represent, protect and promote” the products. These activities were remunerated at 2 percent of sales. The Spanish subsidiary was now characterized as a contract manufacturer and commission agent and the taxable profits in Spain were much lower than before the business restructuring. The Spanish tax authorities argued that the activities constituted a PE in Spain according to article 5 of DTT between Spain and Switzerland. Therefore, part of the profits should be allocated to the Spanish subsidiary in accordance with article 7 of the DTT. Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court held that the restructured Spanish entity created a PE of Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd. in Switzerland. The profits attributed to the PE included not only the manufacturing profits but also profits from the distribution activity performed on behalf of Roche Vitamins Europe Ltd. in Switzerland. Excerpts “The administration is therefore correct in stating that the applicant company operated in Spain by means of a permanent establishment…” “In short, what is laid down in these two paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 of the Spanish-Swiss Convention (in summary form) is that: (a) If a taxpayer acts in a State, of which he is not a resident, through a permanent establishment, then the profits of that taxpayer may be taxed in that State, but only to the extent that such profits are attributable to the said re-establishment. (b) This means that only the profit that the non-resident would have made in that State if he had had a full presence (as a resident), through a separate and distinct company, will be taxable in that State; but, of course, only in respect of the activity carried out by that establishment. The Audiencia Nacional, contrary to this reading of Article 7, establishes that if a non-resident company has a permanent establishment, then it must be taxed in the State in which that establishment is located for all the activities carried out in the territory of that State, even if they are not carried out through the permanent establishment. Contrary to this, and by application of the only possible interpretation of Article 7(1) and (2) (already explained and in accordance with the criteria of the OECD Tax Committee, as we shall see below), a permanent establishment should only be taxed in the State in which it is located on the profit derived from the activity carried out through the permanent establishment.” “…the sales figure must include all sales made by the permanent establishment. We consider that it is established in the file, contrary to the appellant’s submissions, that those sales must include those made to Portuguese customers, since they were made as a result of the promotional and marketing activities of Roche Vitaminas SA and are therefore attributable to it. It is also common ground that the expenses referred to by the appellant have been taken into account, as is stated in the official document dated 12 July 2002. For the rest, we refer to what was established in the settlement agreement dated 23 April 2003, as well as to the full arguments contained in the judgment under appeal.” Click here for english translation Click here for other translation

The deduction of losses resulting from a reorganisation involving a merger with a company in liquidation is not allowed if the sole reason for the merger was the deduction of such losses. In the present case, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court allowed the deduction of losses resulting from a merger with a company in liquidation after finding that the main reason for the merger was the acquisition of intellectual property owned by the company in liquidation. Excerpts from the Judgment “3.4 Furthermore, the offsetting of losses according to Art. 67 of the Federal Tax Act is – as is generally the case with any exercise of rights – subject to the prohibition of abuse (cf . Art. 2 para. 2 of the Civil Code). Thus, it is excluded in particular where there is tax avoidance or so-called shell company trading (cf. Brülisauer/Helbing, in: Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Steuerrecht, Bundesgesetz über die direkte Bundessteuer, 2nd ed. 2008, n. 15 on art. 67 DBG). According to the circular no. 5 “Restructuring” of the Federal Tax Administration of 1 June 2004 (no. 4.1.2.2.4), a tax avoidance exists in particular if the company to be transferred has been economically liquidated or put into liquid form (shell merger). According to some doctrine, however, there must always be tax avoidance for the refusal to offset losses (Höhn/Waldburger, loc. cit., § 48 para. 193 p. 544 f.; Glauser/Oberson, loc. cit., n. 20 i.f. on Art. 61 DBG; Spori/Gerber, loc. cit., ASA 71 p. 699). However, the question of tax avoidance only arises when the scope of application of the tax norm interpreted lege artis has been defined. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, tax norms with economic connecting factors must be interpreted according to economic criteria. Only if the correct interpretation and application of the norm cannot prevent an abusive legal arrangement or an abusive use of rights does the question of tax avoidance arise…” (…) “4.4 The conclusion of the lower court that no economic continuity of the former Z.________ AG could be discerned in the appellant cannot therefore be upheld. The further factual findings of the lower court do not lead to a different result. The fact that the complainant did not show in detail how the expertise in the D.________factory and the remaining know-how in production had been transferred to the complainant does not invalidate the fact that a considerable increase in turnover had taken place. The argument also proves to be groundless in view of the complainant’s very detailed factual presentation in the proceedings before the court. The complainant has also comprehensibly explained why there were delays between the merger decision in 2002 and the merger (including legal disputes with third parties). This explains why Z.________ AG made its intangible assets available to the complainant free of charge as early as 2003. The aim of the merger was to combine the legal predecessor of the complainant, which was active in the field of F.________technik (construction sector), with Z.________ AG, which was also active in this field after the structural adjustment and sale of the non-profitable areas. This bundling of forces made perfect sense from an economic point of view. The various measures in the group are based on objective considerations to maintain the strengthening of the Y.________ group. The fact that tax planning aspects also played a role is legitimate and does not make the restructuring appear to be an abuse of rights. 4.5 The loss offset must therefore be recognised.”  Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

In connection with a restructuring, Ferring Sweden (a Scandinavian pharmaceutical) had transferred intangible assets to a group company in Switzerland. Among the assets transferred was an exclusive worldwide license to manufacture and sell a drug and a number of ongoing R&D projects. The question in the case was whether the price agreed between the Group companies was consistent with the arm’s length principle. Ferring’s position was that the price was consistent with the arm’s length principle, while the Swedish Tax Agency believed that an arm’s-length price was significantly higher. In support of its pricing, the company had submitted a valuation made by the audit company A, where the value of Ferring after the transfer (the residual company) was compared with the value of the company if it had continued to operate as a full-fledged company (the original company). These values ​​were determined through a present value calculation of the future cash flows in each unit. The difference in value was considered to correspond to the value of the intangible assets transferred. The Swedish Tax Agency had made its own assessment of a market-based remuneration for the license only to manufacture and sell the drug. In this valuation, the present value of the future cash flows was calculated according to what the sale of the drug could be expected to generate, ie the income that the Swedish company would lose after the transfer of the license. The value obtained exceeded the price that the Group companies had agreed on for all intangible assets. The Swedish Tax Agency had also made a calculation regarding the ongoing R&D projects. In this calculation, the present value of the estimated costs of R&D projects was compared with the present value of the future revenues that these projects could be expected to lead to. In support of the assessment, the Swedish Tax Agency also relied on a valuation made by the audit firm B, which was made on behalf of the Swedish Tax Agency. Like the audit firm A, the accounting firm B calculated the value of the transferred assets by comparing the value of the parent company with the value of the residual company. However, Audit Company B came to a significantly higher value in its valuation than Audit Company A did. The Court of Appeal considered that clearly overwhelming reasons indicated that the audit firm B’s valuation provided a reasonable arm’s length value. This conclusion was reinforced by the Swedish Tax Agency’s evaluation of the license to manufacture and sell the drug, by the Swedish Tax Agency’s calculation of R&D projects, and by an evaluation of the outcome of the respective auditing companies’ values ​​by using multiples. The Court of Appeal also took into account the size of the amounts that the Swedish company invested in R&D in the years prior to the transfer. The Court found that in the absence of proportionality and in the absence of explanations, the relationship between the value of intangible assets and the sums invested in developing them may give an indication that the price is not market-based. The Court of Appeal also held that the information contained in the case was insufficient to explain the seemingly unreasonable relationship between what had been invested in R&D up until the transfer and the price that was then determined at the transfer of assets, which included the R&D projects. All in all, the court considered that the Swedish Tax Agency had sufficiently proved that the market price of the assets transferred between the Group companies exceeded the agreed price, at least with the increase decided by the Swedish Tax Agency. According to the court, the Swedish Tax Agency had therefore had grounds for taxing Ferring in the manner that had taken place. Click here for translation

A Spanish subsidiary of a UK Group (Borex), which imported, processed and sold the materials to third parties, was transformed into a a contract manufacturer. The Spanish subsidiary signed two separate contracts with the UK parent – one for warehousing and the provision of services and the other in respect of an sales agency. Under the first contract, the minerals purchased by the parent would be stored and processed by the subsidiary, which would also provide other relevant services. Under the second contract, the Spanish subsidiary would promote sales of the minerals in Spain, but, as the prices and conditions were fixed by the UK parent, the subsidiary would only send orders to the parent, which according to the contract was not bound to accept them. The subsidiary could not accept orders in the name of the parent or receive payment. The tax authorities argued that there was a high degree of overlapping between the activities carried out by the parent and the subsidiary. According to the tax authorities warehousing, service and promotion of sales activities could not be considered separately, and as the activities were not of a preparatory or auxiliary nature there was a PE in Spain . The National Court concluded that, article 5(3) of the Spain-UK Tax Treaty (article 5(4) of the OECD Model) did not apply, as the activities in the subsidiary could not be considered in isolation. The activities were to be considered part of a chain that completed an economic cycle in Spain. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation

The French company, Zimmer SAS, distributed products for Zimmer Limited. In 1995 the company was converted into a commissionaire (acting in its own name but on behalf of Zimmer Ltd.). The French tax authorities argued that the commissionaire was taxable as a permanent establishment of the principal, because the commissionaire could bind the principal. The Court ruled that the commissionaire could not bind the principal. Therefore, the French commissionaire could not be a permanent establishment of the principal. Click here for English translation

Refrescos Envasados, S.A. – a Coca-Cola subsidiary in Spain – bought soft drink concentrate manufactured by Coca-Cola companies in Ireland and France. According to the tax authorities the prices paid for the concentrate were above market prices. Hence, an assessment was issued where the prices for the concentrate had been lowered resulting in additional taxable profits. In regards to the tax assessment, the tax authorities argued that they were not bound by the valuation carried out for customs purposes. Judgment of the Supreme Court According to the Supreme Court, the pricing applied for the purpose of calculating the customs is linked to the pricing applied for transfer prices purposes. The tax authorities can choose a transfer pricing method, but the method chosen must be used for both CIT and customs purposes. Click here for english translation Click here for other translation

This case is about business restructuring and transfer of intangibles – customer list, technology, trademarks and goodwill. Cytec Norge was originally a full-fledged manufacturer that was changed into a toll manufacturer. The customer portfolio, technology, trademarks and goodwill were transferred to the related entity, Cytec Netherlands, free of charge. The court found that Cytec Norge AS had held intangibles of considerable value prior to the business restructuring in 1999, and that the Norwegian entity should have received an arm’s-length remuneration for the transfer of these rights to the related Dutch entity. The court ruled that the Norwegian tax authorities’ calculation of such remuneration and the increased income was correct. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in 2008. Click here for translation

This case is about a IP sale-and-license-back arrangement. The taxpayer acquired the shares in BV Z (holding). BV Z owns the shares in BV A and BV B (the three BVs form a fiscal unity under the CITA). BV A produces and sells shoes. In 1993, under a self-proclaimed protection clause, BV A sells the trademark of the shoes to BV C, which is also part of the fiscal unity. The protection clause was supposedly intended to protect the trademark in case of default of BV A. Taxpayer had created BV C prior to the sale of the trademark. In 1994, the taxpayer entered into a licensing agreement with BV C: the taxpayer pays NLG 2 to BV C per pair of shoes sold. Next, BV C is then moved to the Netherlands Antilles, which results in the end of the fiscal unity as of January 1, 1994. The roundtrip arrangement, the sale of an intangible and the subsequent payment of licensing fees, is now complete. In 1999 the royalty for use of the trademark was increased from fl. 2 per pair of shoes to fl. 2.50 per pair, resulting in annual royalty payments of fl. 300.000 from A BV to B BV. The Court disallowed tax deductions for the royalty payments. The payments were not proven to be at arm’s length. B BV had no employees to manage the trademarks. There were no business reasons for the transactions, only a tax motive. Hence the sale-and-license back arrangement was disregarded for tax purposes. Also, the licensing agreement were not found to produce effective protection of the brand and was therefore also considered part of a tax planning plan. Taxpayers often seek to maximise differences in tax rates through selling intangibles to a low- tax country and subsequently paying royalties to this country for the use of these intangibles, thereby decreasing the tax-base in the high-tax country. The arm’s length principle requires taxpayers to have valid business purposes for such transactions and requires them to make sure that the royalties are justified – why would an independent company pay royalties to a foreign company for an intangible it previously owned?’ To adress such situations a decree was issued in the Netherlands on August 11, 2004. The decree provided additional rules for transfers of intangibles when the value is uncertain at the time of the transaction (HTVI). It refers to situations in which an intangible is being transferred to a foreign group company and where this company furthermore licenses the intangible back to the transferor and/or related Dutch companies of this company. In these situations a price adjustment clause is deemed to have been entered. The deemed price adjustment clause prevents a sale at a very low price with a consequent high royalty fee to drain the Dutch tax base. Through the price adjustment clause the Dutch tax authorities are guaranteed a fair price for the sale of the intangible. Click here for translation

In a situation where a new intangible asset has been developed and is transferred to an affiliate at a time when its success is not yet sufficiently apparent, for example, because the intangible asset has not yet generated revenues and there are significant uncertainties in estimating future revenues, the valuation at the time of the transaction is highly uncertain and the inclusion of a price adjustment clause makes sense. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation