Norway vs Accenture, May 2013, Borgarting lagmannsrett, Case No 11-190854ASD-BORG/01

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

In this case, the royalty payments of Accenture Norway was at issue. The Norwegian tax authorities held that the royalty payments to Accenture Global Services in Switzerland had been excessive.

The Court disagreed and found in favor of Accenture.

 

Click here for translation

Accenture Norway p





Related Guidelines

  1. German royalty barrier to counter IP box-regimesSome countries in Europe offer so-called IP or Patent boxes. To counter such tax practices, effective from 31 December 2017, Germany has introduced a new royalty barrier in ‘Law against Harmful Tax Practices in Connection with the Assignment of Rights. The law limits...
  2. New Zealand introduces Group Rating Approach for certain Cross-Border relatet party Borrowing and Debt ArrangementsThe OECD’s final report on interest limitation rules notes that thin capitalisation rules are vulnerable to loans with excessive interest rates and many transfer pricing practitioners finds that transfer pricing may not the most effective way to prevent profit-shifting using high-priced related party...

Related Case Law

  1. Spain vs COLGATE PALMOLIVE ESPAÑA, S.A., September 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 1996/2019 ECLI:ES:TS:2020:3062The tax authorities had issued an assessment according to which royalty payments from Colgate Palmolive España S.A (CP España) to Switzerland were not considered exempt from withholding taxes under the Spanish-Swiss DTA since the company in Switzerland was not the Beneficial Owner of...
  2. India vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, December 2014, ITALG India is a wholly owned subsidiary of LG Korea, a multinational manufacturer of electronic products and electrical appliances. LG Korea and LG India entered into a technical assistance and royalty agreement in 2001 where LG India, as a licensed manufacturer, would pay a...
  3. US vs Whirlpool, May 2020, US tax court, Case No. 13986-17The US tax authorities had increased Whirlpool US’s taxable because income allocated to Whirlpool Luxembourg for selling appliances was considered taxable foreign base company sales income/CFC income to the parent company in the U.S. under “the manufacturing branch rule” under US tax code...
  4. Spain vs “Lux Hold S.A.”, October 2019, TEAC, Case No 00/02188/2017/00/00There is an obligation to withhold tax on dividends paid to a holding company resident in an EU Member State, if the beneficial owner is resident abroad. Although the Parent-Subsidiary Directive 90/435 does not contain a beneficial owner clause, the exemption clause contained...