In this ruling, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court comments on the application of the arm’s length principel and the burden of proff in Switzerland.
“Services, which have their legal basis in the investment relationship, are to be offset against the taxable income of the company to the extent that they would otherwise not be granted to a third party under the same circumstances or not to the same extent and would not constitute a capital repayment. This rule of the so-called third-party comparison (or the principle of “dealing at arm’s length”) therefore requires that even legal transactions with equity holders or between Group companies be conducted on the same terms as would be agreed with external third parties on competitive and market conditions.”
“Swiss Law – with the exception of individual provisions – does not have any actual group law and treats each company as a legally independent entity with its own bodies which have to transact the business in the interest of the company and not in that of the group, other companies or the controlling shareholder. Legal transactions between such companies are therefore to be conducted on the same terms as they would be agreed with external third parties. In particular, the Executive Committee (or the controlling shareholder) is not allowed to distribute the profits made by the various companies freely to these companies>… ”
“In the area of non-cash benefits, the basic rule is that the tax authority bears the burden of proof of tax-increasing and increasing facts, whereas the taxable company bears the burden of all that the tax abolishes or reduces. In particular, the authority is responsible for proving that the company has rendered a service and that it has no or on reasonable consideration in return. If the authority has demonstrated such a mismatch between performance and consideration, it is for the taxable company to rebut the presumption. If the company can not do that, it bears the consequences of the lack of evidence. This applies in particular if it makes payments that are neither accounted for nor documented…”
Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court disallows transfer of tax losses where the absorbed subsidiary is an empty shell. The question addressed is whether the subsidiary, at the time of its absorption, was still engaged in active contract R&D. Only if this this was the case, the deduction of losses at the level of the absorbing parent company was permissible.
Swiss case law 2C_834-2011, 2C_836-2011