South Africa vs. Kumba Iron Ore, 2017, Settlement 2.5bn

Category: Commodity Transactions, Disputes and Settlements, Sales and Marketing Hubs | Tag: , , , , , ,
« | »

A transfer pricing dispute between South African Revenue Service and Sishen Iron Ore, a subsidiary of Kumba Iron Ore, has now been resolved in a settlement of ZAR 2.5bn.

The case concerned disallowance of sales commissions paid to offshore sales and marketing subsidiaries in Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Hong Kong.

Since 2012, Kumba Iron Ore’s international marketing has been integrated with the larger Anglo American group’s Singapore-based marketing hub.

The settlement follows a similar investigations into the transfer pricing activities of Evraz Highveld Steel, which resulted in a R685 million tax claim against the now-bankrupt company related to apparent tax evasion using an Austrian shell company between 2007 and 2009.






Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 2278. Company A owns a government licence for a mining activity and a government licence for the exploitation of a railway. The mining licence has a standalone market value of 20. The railway licence has a standalone market value of 10. Company A...
  1. UN Manual on Transfer Pricing – draft update on Financial Transactions and Profit SplitsA new version of the UN Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries is due by 2021. According to the mandate the new manual will make further improvements in usability and practical relevance, updates and improvements to existing text, including on Country...
  2. 2017: ATO transfer pricing issues related to centralised operating modelsThe Practical Compliance Guideline (Guideline) sets out the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) compliance approach to transfer pricing issues related to the location and relocation of certain business activities and operating risks into a centralised operating model. The type of activities commonly centralised include...

Related Case Law

  1. US vs. Cameco, July 2017, Settlement of $122th.Canadian mining company, Cameco Corp, has settled a tax dispute and will pay the IRS $122,000 for income years 2009-2012. Cameco’s dispute with tax authorities relates to its offshore marketing structure and transfer pricing. Cameco sells uranium to its marketing subsidiary in Switzerland,...
  2. France vs Ferragamo France, June 2022, Administrative Court of Appeal (CAA), Case No 20PA03601Ferragamo France, which was set up in 1992 and is wholly owned by the Dutch company Ferragamo International BV, which in turn is owned by the Italian company Salvatore Ferragamo Spa, carries on the business of retailing shoes, leather goods and luxury accessories...
  3. South Africa vs Sasol, 30 June 2017, Tax Court, Case No. TC-2017-06 – TCIT 13065The taxpayer is registered and incorporated in the Republic of South Africa and carries on business in the petrochemical industry. It has some of its subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions. Business activities include the importation and refinement of crude oil. This matter concerns the...
  4. Tanzania vs. Acacia Mining Plc, July 2017, $150 billion tax billThe London-based gold mining firm, Acacia Mining Plc, the largest mining company operating in Tanzania, was in July 2017 issued a $190 billion tax bill. The bill is split into $40 billion in unpaid taxes and an additional $150 billion in interest and penalties....