Switzerland vs “Trust Administrator A. SA”, September 2019, Federal Supreme Court, Case No 2C_343/2019

Category: Losses that continue indefinitely, Services and Fees | Tag: , , , , , , , , , ,
« | »

A Swiss company provided administration and other services to trusts. According to the company a related party in the Seychelles handled the daily business and received remuneration in accordance with an intra-group service agreement.

Due to the service fees paid the Swiss company reported losses. Following an audit the tax administration issued an assessment where the fees paid to the related company in the Seychelles had been determined using the cost plus (5%) method.

Judgement of the Supreme Court
The court dismissed the appeal of A. SA and upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. The Court confirmed that the Seychelles company only performed routine functions without assumption of any significant risk. The cost plus 5% remuneration was therefore confirmed.

Excerpts
“4.6. According to the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs, by referring to the conditions that would prevail between independent enterprises for comparable transactions (i.e. for “comparable open market transactions”) in making the profit adjustment, the arm’s length principle takes the approach of treating the members of a multinational group as separate entities. In doing so, the focus is on the nature of the transactions between the members of the multinational group and whether the terms and conditions of those controlled transactions differ from those that would be obtained for comparable transactions in the open market. This analysis is referred to as “comparability analysis” (OECD Guidelines 2010, § 1.6).

The OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs clarifies that the application of the arm’s length principle is generally based on a comparison of the terms of a transaction between associated enterprises and those of a transaction between independent enterprises. For such a comparison to be meaningful, the economic characteristics of the situations considered must be sufficiently comparable (OECD Guidelines 2010, § 1.33). Five characteristics or “comparability factors” may be important in assessing comparability: the characteristics of the goods or services transferred, the functions performed by the parties (taking into account the assets deployed and the risks assumed), the contractual terms, the economic circumstances of the parties, and the industrial and business strategies pursued by the parties (OECD Guidelines 2010, § 1.36). In the context of a benchmarking exercise, the examination of these five factors is inherently twofold, as it involves analysing the factors that affect the taxpayer’s controlled transactions and those that affect comparable transactions in the open market (OECD Guidelines 2010, § 1.38).

In the absence of comparable transactions, the arm’s length price is determined by other methods, such as the cost plus method. This method consists in particular in determining the costs incurred by the company providing the service, to which an appropriate margin is added so as to obtain an appropriate profit taking into account the functions performed and the market conditions (judgment 2C_11/2018 of 10 December 2018, para. 7.4). ”

“The appellant does not dispute that, with the exception of the 2011 business year, which showed an accounting profit of CHF 155,319, it made losses during the years 2008 to 2012 and declared zero taxable profits, taking into account the losses carried forward, for all tax periods. It also did not dispute that the customers had no contact with the subsidiary, which had only one customer, the parent company, that the parent company bore all the marketing and canvassing costs, as well as the entire salary of the director, that the contracts were concluded solely between the parent company and the customer, that the people working for the subsidiary were less qualified than those working for the parent company, that the staff of the subsidiary performed purely executory tasks ordered by the parent company, and finally that the risks with regard to the customer were borne by the parent company. The asymmetry between the appellant’s successive losses and the totality of its tasks and expenses, while the subsidiary provided only low-value-added services, was a sufficient indication that the price of the services provided by the subsidiary was disproportionate (see OECD Principles 2010, § 1.70). In these circumstances, the previous court could rightly consider that the burden of proof was reversed and that it was up to the appellant to show that the cost of the services in question was commercially justified. The claim that the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof had been violated was rejected.

6.2. The appellant complains in vain that the previous instance confirmed the application of the cost-plus method instead of the comparable market transaction method. It fails to see that the latter method, as explained above (see recital 4.6), requires a twofold examination, since it involves analysing the five comparability factors, including the functions performed by the parties (taking into account the assets used and the risks assumed), which have an impact both on the taxpayer’s controlled transactions and on comparable transactions on the open market.

In the present case, the previous instance rightly found that the respondent authority had analysed the relationship between the appellant and the subsidiary, the content of the service contract of 6 February 2009, the functions performed by the appellant, in particular marketing and prospecting, and the allocation of commercial risks, whereas the appellant, wrongly arguing that the comparability analysis had been wrongly defined, in particular with regard to the company’s cost structure (see The appellant, wrongly arguing that the comparability analysis was incorrectly defined, in particular with regard to the company’s cost structure (cf. appeal memorandum, p. 5), confined itself to providing extracts from pages found on the internet setting out the prices charged by its competitors. However, it appears, as the previous court rightly held, that these documents do not make it possible to ascertain that the transactions in question are indeed free market transactions comparable to those carried out between the appellant and its subsidiary as described by the respondent authority. The appellant, who bears the burden of proof (see recital 6.1 above), has therefore failed to demonstrate that the prices charged by its subsidiary were commercially justified, having regard to comparable transactions on the free market. It follows that the previous court did not violate Art. 58 para. 1 let. b LIFD by confirming the respondent’s choice of the cost-plus method, which is, moreover, recommended by the 2010 OECD Guidelines for intra-group services (§ 7.31). The appellant did not criticise the finding by the previous court that the unusual nature of the services in question was recognisable by its administrator, nor the amount of the services taken back. The appeal is dismissed.”

Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation

Swi Decision 2C_343-2019





Related Guidelines

  1. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.32It may be necessary to perform a functional analysis of the various members of the group to establish the relationship between the relevant services and the members’ activities and performance. In addition, it may be necessary to consider not only the immediate impact...
  2. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.48For example, assume that Company A manufactures and sells toasters to a distributor that is an associated enterprise, that Company B manufactures and sells irons to a distributor that is an independent enterprise, and that the profit margins on the manufacture of basic...
  3. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.57In some cases, there may be a basis for using only variable or incremental (e.g. marginal) costs, because the transactions represent a disposal of marginal production. Such a claim could be justified if the goods could not be sold at a higher price...
  4. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.46The cost plus mark-up of the supplier in the controlled transaction should ideally be established by reference to the cost plus mark-up that the same supplier earns in comparable uncontrolled transactions (“internal comparableâ€). In addition, the cost plus mark-up that would have been...
  5. TPG2022 Chapter VI Annex I example 1135. The facts in this example are the same as in Example 9, except that Company S now enters into a three-year royalty-free agreement to market and distribute the watches in the country Y market, with no option to renew. At the end...
  6. TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.12There are some cases where an intra-group service performed by a group member such as a shareholder or coordinating centre relates only to some group members but incidentally provides benefits to other group members. Examples could be analysing the question whether to reorganise...
  7. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.45The cost plus method begins with the costs incurred by the supplier of property (or services) in a controlled transaction for property transferred or services provided to an associated purchaser. An appropriate cost plus mark-up is then added to this cost, to make...
  8. TPG2022 Chapter II paragraph 2.51For this purpose, it is particularly important to consider differences in the level and types of expenses – operating expenses and non- operating expenses including financing expenditures – associated with functions performed and risks assumed by the parties or transactions being compared. Consideration...
  1. Additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishmentsThe OECD has released additional guidance on the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. This additional guidance sets out high-level general principles for the attribution of profits to permanent establishments arising under Article 5(5), in accordance with applicable treaty provisions, and includes examples...
  2. EU JTPF, March 2017, Report on the Use of Comparables in the EUIn March 2017 the JTPF agreed the Report on the Use of Comparables in the EU. The report establishes best practices and pragmatic solutions by issuing various recommendations for both taxpayers and tax administrations in the EU and aims at increasing in practice...

Related Case Law

  1. Romania vs “Stone” A SRL, July 2020, Supreme Court, Case No 3217/2020“Stone” A SRL had bought stones/minerals from related parties and paid for certain services. Following an audit the tax authorities had issued an assessment, where the price paid for stones had been adjusted based on cost plus method and deductions for costs of...
  2. Denmark vs. “H Borrower and Lender A/S”, January 2021, Tax Tribunal, Case no SKM2021.33.LSR“H Borrower and Lender A/S”, a Danish subsidiary in the H Group, had placed deposits at and received loans from a group treasury company, H4, where the interest rate paid on the loans was substantially higher than the interest rate received on the...
  3. Indonesia vs SK Group Indonesia, October 2014, Tax Court, Put.56237/2014At issue in the case of SK Group Indonesia was sale of lube base oil to SK Energy International (Singapore). The transfer price had been determined by the group using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). An adjustment was issued by tax authorities...
  4. Panama vs “Pharma Distributor S.A.”, July 2021, Administrative Tax Court, Case No TAT-RF-066An adjustment for FY 2013 and 2014 had been issued to a pharmaceutical company in Panama “Pharma Distributor S.A” that resulted in an income adjustment of 19.5 million dollars, which in turn resulted in additional taxes of 2.4 million dollars. The resale price...