Poland vs R. Group, September 2018, Administrative Court, Case No III SA/Wa 263/18

Category: Business Restructuring, Disallowed Deduction, MAP - APA | Tag: , , , ,
« | »

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

Judgement 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

III SA_Wa 263_18 - Wyrok WSA w Warszawie z 2018-09-26





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.144The cooperation of the associated enterprises is vital to a successful APA negotiation. For example, the associated enterprises ordinarily would be expected to provide the tax administrations with the methodology that they consider most reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances. The associated...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.87One circumstance that deserves particular attention, is the situation where the now-terminated contract required one party to make a significant investment for which an arm’s length return might only be reasonably expected if the contract was maintained for an extended period of time....
  3. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.117A relevant question is the role if any of comparisons that can be made of the profits actually earned by a party to a controlled transaction prior to and after the restructuring. In particular, it can be asked whether it would be appropriate...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.55Transfers of intangibles or rights in intangibles raise difficult questions both as to the identification of the intangibles transferred and as to their valuation. Identification can be difficult because not all valuable intangibles are legally protected and registered and not all valuable intangibles...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.37There can be group-level business reasons for an MNE group to restructure. However, it is worth re-emphasising that the arm’s length principle treats the members of an MNE group as separate entities rather than as inseparable parts of a single unified business (see...
  6. OECD COVID-19 TPG paragraph 112A range of technological solutions are available to replace and/or complement, traditional methods of communication, such as face-to-face meetings and the exchange of physical documentation, while maintaining confidentiality and security requirements. There may be situations where flexible approaches are not readily identifiable or...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.38Under Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the fact that a business restructuring arrangement is motivated by a purpose of obtaining tax benefits does not of itself warrant a conclusion that it is a non-arm’s length arrangement. The presence of a...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter IX paragraph 9.104Some differences in the starting position of the restructured entity compared to the position of a newly set up operation can relate to the established presence of the operation. For instance, if one compares a situation where a long-established full-fledged distributor is converted...
  1. Report on the attribution of income to permanent establishments 1994The 1994 OECD report on issues related to the attribution of income to permanent establishments, was made available to the public by decision of the OECD Council on 26 November 1993. The report examines the circumstances under which income is to be attributed...
  2. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969The Vienna Convention was done at Vienna on 23 May 1969 and entered into force on 27 January 1980. It is regarded as one of the most important instruments in treaty law and remains an authoritative guide in disputes over treaty interpretation. The...

Related Case Law

  1. Poland vs R. Sp. z o. o., January 2022, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 990/19R. 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...
  2. Sweden vs Flir Commercial Systems AB, January 2022, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 2434–2436-20In 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...
  3. Poland vs R.B.P. (P.) Sp. z o.o.., August 2021, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 3830/18The company is a producer of household chemicals and belongs to the R. B. (“the Group”), which is active in the manufacture and sale of consumer products in the home, health and hygiene products industry. The Company has entered into supply agreements for...
  4. Poland vs “S.” sp. z o.o., August 2023, Supreme Administrative Court, Case No II FSK 1427/21“S.” sp. z o.o. had filed a requested a written interpretation (binding ruling) with the tax authorities. The company had asked the following question: when calculating the income ratio to which the tax rate referred to in Article 24d(1) of the A.P.C. may...