France vs. Eduard Kettner, March 2012, Administrative Court of Appeals of Paris, No. 10PA04193

Category: Services and Fees, Transfer Pricing Methods | Tag: , ,
« | »

Kettner was a French distributor of hunting products. Kettner was charged service fees by it’s German parent company for a range of services including packaging, warehouse and inventory management, IT, management fees etc.

The tax administration was of the opinion that the fees had not been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle and were able to show discrepancies in the invoicing and a lack of supporting information for expenses charged back to the French distributor.

The court considered that the tax administration did not demonstrate a “transfer of profits abroad” as no comparison with independent companies had been made in order to validate that the fees paid had not been at arm’s-length.

 

Click here for other translation

France vs kettner_no_10pa04193_administrative_court_of_appeals_of_paris_29_03_2012-pdf





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.56The initial step in applying the simplified approach to low value-adding intra-group services is for the MNE group to calculate, on an annual basis, a pool of all costs incurred by all members of the group in performing each category of low value-adding...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.19Once it is determined that an intra-group service has been rendered, it is necessary, as for other types of intra-group transfers, to determine whether the amount of the charge, if any, is in accordance with the arm’s length principle. This means that the...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.27The compensation for services rendered to an associated enterprise may be included in the price for other transfers. For instance, the price for licensing a patent or know-how may include a payment for technical assistance services or centralised services performed for the licensee...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.21In certain cases, the arrangements made for charging for intra-group services can be readily identified. These cases are where the MNE group uses a direct-charge method, i.e. where the associated enterprises are charged for specific services. In general, the direct-charge method is of...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.48The fact that an activity does not qualify for the simplified approach, as defined under paragraph 7.45, should not be interpreted to mean that that activity generates high returns. The activity could still add low value, and the determination of the arm’s length...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.33Where a cost based method is determined to be the most appropriate method to the circumstances of the case, the analysis would require examining whether the costs incurred by the group service provider need some adjustment to make the comparison of the controlled...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.54As discussed in paragraph 7.6, under the arm’s length principle an obligation to pay for an intra-group service arises only where the benefits test is satisfied, i.e. the activity must provide the group member expected to pay for the service with economic or...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.16Another issue arises with respect to services provided “on callâ€. The question is whether the availability of such services is itself a separate service for which an arm’s length charge (in addition to any charge for services actually rendered) should be determined. A...
  1. UK – Profit Diversion Compliance Facility (PDCF) Published by HMRC January 2019HMRC Profit Diversion Compliance Facility   Chapter 1 – introduction 1.1 Background Companies should recognise and pay tax on profits where the economic activities to generate those profits are carried out. HMRC has found that some Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) have adopted cross border pricing...
  2. EU: Public Country-by-Country Reporting?Proposal directive of public country-by-country reporting in the EU Ministers held an exchange of views (public session) on how to take the proposed directive forward. Tax transparency is a fundamental principle in any democratic society. It enables policy makers to take informed decisions...

Related Case Law

  1. Finland vs A Oyj, May 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. KHO:2021:66A Oyj was the parent company of the A-group, and responsible for the group’s centralised financial activities. It owned the entire share capital of D Oy and B Oy. D Oy in turn owned the entire share capital of ZAO C, a Russian...
  2. Romania vs A. Romania S.R.L., April 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 2644/2021A. Romania S.R.L. had purchased services from A. Nederland BV and A. CZ Holding sro, and the costs of the services had been deducted for tax purposes. At issue was whether these services had actually been provided to the benefit of A. Romania...
  3. Switzerland vs “Trust Administrator A. SA”, September 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_343/2019A Swiss company provided administration and other services to trusts. According to the company a related party in the Seychelles handled the daily business and received remuneration in accordance with an intra-group service agreement. Due to the service fees paid the Swiss company...
  4. Peru vs. “P Services”, July 2020, Tax Court, Case No 03052-5-2020“P Services! provided services to a Peruvian consortium. In 2014, the parties entered into an interest-free loan agreement. According to the loan agreement, payment for the services performed in 2013 was going to be offset against the funds received under the agreement. The...