Indonesia vs Cussons Indonesia, June 2017, Supreme Court, Nomor 907/B/PK/PJK/2017

Category: Benchmark, Range and Median, Royalty and License Payments | Tag: , , , ,
« | »

The tax authorities had disallowed royalty payments of 3% of net sales from Cussons Indonesia to its parent company in the UK, PZ Cussons International Ltd.

According to the tax authorities Cussons had been unable to prove that the transaction was at arm’s-length, as well as unable to provide transfer pricing documentation.

Cussons claimed that the royalty payments was supported with documents such as royalty agreement, VAT payment, and withholding tax on royalty. Cussons further argued that sales in Indonesia were positively influenced by Cusson’s trademark.

Following a tax court decision (Put.53966/2014) in favour of Cussons, the tax authorities brought an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision in favour of Cussons.

Click here for translation

 






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.57It may also be the case that, while every effort has been made to exclude points that have a lesser degree of comparability, what is arrived at is a range of figures for which it is considered, given the process used for selecting...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.79The use of multiple year data does not necessarily imply the use of multiple year averages. Multiple year data and averages can however be used in some circumstances to improve reliability of the range. See paragraphs 3.57-3.62 for a discussion of statistical tools....
  3. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.66A similar investigation should be undertaken for potential comparables returning abnormally large profits relative to other potential comparables....
  4. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.65Generally speaking, a loss-making uncontrolled transaction should trigger further investigation in order to establish whether or not it can be a comparable. Circumstances in which loss-making transactions/ enterprises should be excluded from the list of comparables include cases where losses do not reflect...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.64An independent enterprise would not continue loss-generating activities unless it had reasonable expectations of future profits. See paragraphs 1.149-1.151. Simple or low risk functions in particular are not expected to generate losses for a long period of time. This does not mean however...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter III paragraph 3.63Extreme results might consist of losses or unusually high profits. Extreme results can affect the financial indicators that are looked at in the chosen method (e.g. the gross margin when applying a resale price, or a net profit indicator when applying a transactional...
  1. Spain releases note on arm’s length range and benchmarking.On 25 February 2021, a note was released by the Spanish Tax Agency on number of practical issues relating to application of the arm’s-length range. The note – which is based on the OECD transfer Pricing Guidelines, guidance on benchmark studies issued by...
  2. Italy releases operational instructions on arm’s length range and benchmarking.On 24 May 2022, the Italian Tax Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) released CIRCULAR NO. 16/E containing operational instructions on issues relating to application of the arm’s length range. The circular – which is based on the OECD transfer Pricing Guidelines, guidance on benchmark...

Related Case Law

  1. Indonesia vs Cussons Indonesia, July 2014, Tax Court, Put.53966/2014The tax authorities had disallowed royalty payments of 3% of net sales from Cussons Indonesia to its parent company in the UK, PZ Cussons International Ltd. According to the tax authorities Cussons had been unable to prove that the payment was at arm’s-length,...
  2. Panama vs “AC S.A.”, January 2020, Administrative Tribunal, Case No TAT-RF-002“AC S.A” is engaged in sale of ventilation, heating and cooling equipment in Panama. AC S.A pays royalties for use of IP owned by the parent company of the AC Group. Following a audit carried out by the Tax Administration in Panama it...
  3. Spain vs “Benchmark SA”, November 2021, TEAC, Case No Rec. 4881/2019The tax authorities excluded some of the entities selected by the taxpayer in a benchmark study, as it considered that they did not meet the necessary comparability requirements, and also included some of the excluded entities, as it considered that they were comparable....
  4. Spain vs XZ SA, May 2021, TEAC, Case No Rec. 2545/2019Following an audit the tax administration had adjusted the margin obtained by the taxpayer to the median, as it was below the interquartile range of the benchmark analysis. An appeal was filed by the taxpayer with the TEAC. Judgement of the TEAC The...
  5. El Salvador vs “E-S. Sales Corp”, December 2020, Tax Court, Case No R1705038.TMFollowing an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment regarding various intra group costs of sales deducted for tax purposes by “E-S. Sales Corp”. An appeal was filed by the company. Judgement of the Tax Court The court partially upheld the assessment. Click...