Indonesia vs ARPTe Ltd, January 2019, Tax Court, Case No. PUT-108755.15/2013/PP/M.XVIIIA

Category: Royalty and License Payments, Services and Fees | Tag: , , , , ,
« | »

ARPTe Ltd had paid a subsidiary for management services and use of intangibles.

The benefit of those payments were challenged by the tax authorities and an assessment was issued where these deductions had been denied.

An appeal was filed with the tax court

Judgement of the Tax Court

The Court set aside the assessment of the tax authorities and decided in favor of ARPTe Ltd.

According to the Court ARPTe Ltd had been able to provide sufficient evidence that the management services and intangibles provided by the subsidiary had actually benefited the company.

“
Click here for translation

 

PUT-108755-15-2013 Jan 2019





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.5There are two issues in the analysis of transfer pricing for intra¬group services. One issue is whether intra-group services have in fact been provided. The other issue is what the intra-group charge for such services for tax purposes should be in accordance with...
  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 7.56The 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...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.17These services may be available on call and they may vary in amount and importance from year to year. It is unlikely that an independent enterprise would incur stand-by charges where the potential need for the service was remote, where the advantage of...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.18The fact that a payment was made to an associated enterprise for purported services can be useful in determining whether services were in fact provided, but the mere description of a payment as, for example, “management fees†should not be expected to be...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.10The following are examples of costs associated with shareholder activities, under the standard set forth in paragraph 7.6: a) Costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.12There are some cases where an intra-group service performed by a group member such as a shareholder or coordinating centre relates only to some group members but incidentally provides benefits to other group members. Examples could be analysing the question whether to reorganise...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.4Intra-group services may vary considerably among MNE groups, as does the extent to which those services provide a benefit, or an expected benefit, to one or more group members. Each case is dependent upon its own facts and circumstances and the arrangements within...
  1. Additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishmentsThe OECD has released additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. This additional guidance sets out high-level general principles for the attribution of profits to permanent establishments arising under Article 5(5), in accordance with applicable treaty provisions, and includes examples...
  2. A Toolkit on Implementation of Effective Transfer Pricing Documentation RequirementsThe Platform for Collaboration on Tax (IMF, OECD, UN and the WBG) has published a toolkit on implementation of effective transfer pricing documentation requirements.  ...

Related Case Law

  1. The Australian Taxation Office and Mining Giant BHP have settled yet another Transfer Pricing DisputeBHP Group has agreed to pay the state of Western Australia A$250 million to end a dispute over royalties paid on iron ore shipments sold through its Singapore marketing hub. The State government found in January that the world’s biggest miner had underpaid...
  2. Bulgaria vs “B-Production”, August 2017, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No 10185“B-Production” is a subsidiary in a US multinational group and engaged in production and sales. “B-Production” pays services fees and royalties to its US parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for these costs had been reduced which...
  3. Slovenia vs “Buy/Sell Distributor”, October 2013, Administrative Court, Case No UPRS sodba I U 727/2012At issue was the existence of a basis for taking into account the deductibility of the costs of services, the costs related to the repurchase and destruction of products and the tax deductibility of royalty expenses charged between related parties. Judgment of the...
  4. Brazil vs “CCA group”, September 2019, COSIT, SC No. 276-2019In a public ruling, the General Tax Coordination Office in Brazil (COSIT) found that a transaction labled as a “cost sharing agreement” between a foreign group and its Brazilian subsidiary, was in fact a mere agreement for provision of services. COSIT pointed to...