Kamenitza AD had acquired the Kamenitza trademark from a related party, StarBev Netherlands B.V., in 2014 for €40.1 million. The tax authorities challenged the pricing of the transaction, arguing that the trademark’s market value was significantly lower. Relying on a 2009 sale price of €12.75 million, the the tax authorities priced the transaction using the CUP method and concluded that Kamenitza AD had overvalued the trademark. This reassessment resulted in additional corporate tax liabilities for the years 2014-2016, along with interest charges. Kamenitza AD filed an appeal with the administrative court, asserting that the 2014 purchase price was based on an Ernst & Young valuation using the relief-from-royalty method, a widely accepted approach in transfer pricing. The company further argued that the 2009 sale price was not a valid comparable due to changes in economic conditions. It also objected to the tax authorities application of the 2017 OECD Guidelines, specifically the guidance on DEMPE functions for intangibles, which were introduced after the transaction took place. The company maintained that these guidelines should not be retroactively applied to assess a 2014 transaction. The administrative court upheld the tax authorities’ decision, largely reproducing the reasoning provided by the tax authorities. Kamenitza AD appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, arguing that the lower court had failed to conduct its own independent assessment. Judgment The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision of the administrative court and ruled parcially in favour of Kamenitza AD and remanded the case. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the administrative court had not justified its reliance on the 2009 valuation over a 2012 valuation of the same trademark. It also ruled that the administrative court had failed to address the applicability of the 2017 OECD Guidelines and had disregarded expert reports that contradicted the tax authorities conclusions. Due to these procedural violations, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the corporate tax reassessment and remanded the case for reconsideration by a different panel of the Administrative Court. However, it upheld the tax authorities’ decision regarding withholding tax liabilities on payments made to foreign service providers, confirming that the company had failed to apply the correct withholding tax rules. The ruling is final and not subject to further appeal. Excerpts in English “First of all, it is rightly pointed out by the appellant that the court did not set out its own reasoning, but reproduced in full the reasoning and legal conclusions set out by the Director of the Directorate of the ETRS Sofia in the decision confirming the RA. In the contested judgment there is no ruling on issues of substance, as the administrative court referred to the ruling of the decision-making body on the appellant’s objections, which, however, cannot properly replace the need for the court to set out its own reasons and legal conclusions. The failure to state reasons constitutes an infringement of the procedural rules of the substantive kind, since, in addition to constituting a failure by the judge to fulfil the imperative duty imposed on him to state reasons for his decision, it infringes the rights and the opportunity of the parties to defend themselves, precludes the possibility of cassation review and infringes the principle of the two-instance nature of judicial review. In addition, the judgment does not rule at all on the objection of Kamenitza AD in relation to the valuation of the trademark used by the revenue administration as a market analogue in 2009 instead of the valuation of the same asset in 2012. Since it has been categorically established in the case that the conclusion of the auditing authorities on the non-market nature of the price of the 2014 transaction was formed after comparison with the valuation of the 2012 transaction, the question why the latter was not used as a comparable uncontrolled transaction in this case, but the 2009 one, is essential for the proper resolution of the dispute. In this regard, the court did not provide any reasoning, i.e. it did not decide whether the 2012 valuation of the intangible asset, prepared by the same valuer as that of the 2014 transaction at issue, should be taken into account in determining the market value under the comparable uncontrolled price method applied by the revenue authorities. As the sole ground for not applying the 2012 valuation, the court referred to the absence of a forensic accounting expert engaged by the appellant, for which, however, no instructions were given to the party in accordance with the requirement of Article 171(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 171(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. § 2 of the RPC and in violation of the principle of enhanced ex officio principle in the administrative process (Article 9(3) of the APC in conjunction with § 2 of the RPC). In its ruling on the merits, the court was first of all obliged to answer the disputed question referred to above – whether there are grounds for applying the 2012 valuation of the asset in the transaction between independent traders when determining the market value of the asset in the 2014 transaction. Instead, the administrative court only discussed the legality and reasonableness of the market value determined on the basis of the 2009 valuation of the mark, without providing its own reasoning on another of the company’s main complaints – the application of the OECD Guide, as revised in 2017, in assessing the terms of the 2014 transaction at issue. In this respect, the general reasoning of the tax director is reproduced in full, but no definitive conclusion is formed by the court as to whether the depreciation method – the DEMPE functions, which were introduced by the OECD Guide in its 2017 edition – was correctly applied by the auditing authorities in determining the market price of the asset.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...

In 2008 and 2009 the Medtronic group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Ventor Technologies Ltd, for a sum of $325 million. Subsequent to the acquisition various inter-company agreements were entered into between Ventor Technologies Ltd and Medtronics, but no transfer of intangible assets was recognised by the Group for tax purposes. The tax authorities found that all the intangibles previously owned by Ventor had been transferred to Medtronic and issued an assessment of additional taxable profits. An appeal was filed by Medtronic Ventor Technologies Ltd. Judgment of the District Court The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment issued by the tax authorities. Click here for English translation ...

Preference for acquisition price method. (i) USP develops, manufacturers, and distributes pharmaceutical products. USP and FS, USP’s wholly-owned subsidiary, enter into a CSA to develop a new oncological drug, Oncol. Immediately prior to entering into the CSA, USP acquires Company X, an unrelated U.S. pharmaceutical company. Company X is solely engaged in oncological pharmaceutical research, and its only significant resources and capabilities are its workforce and its sole patent, which is associated with Compound X, a promising molecular compound derived from a rare plant, which USP reasonably anticipates will contribute to developing Oncol. All of Company X researchers will be engaged solely in research that is reasonably anticipated to contribute to developing Oncol as well. The rights in the Compound X and the commitment of Company X’s researchers to the development of Oncol are platform contributions for which compensation is due from FS as part of a PCT. (ii) In this case, the acquisition price method, based on the lump sum price paid by USP for Company X, is likely to provide a more reliable measure of an arm’s length PCT Payment due to USP than the application of any other method. See §§ 1.482-4(c)(2) and 1.482-7(g)(5)(iv)(A) ...

USP, a U.S. corporation, and its newly incorporated, wholly-owned foreign subsidiary (FS) enter into a CSA at the start of Year 1 to develop Group Z products. Under the CSA, USP and FS will have the exclusive rights to exploit the Group Z products in the U.S. and the rest of the world, respectively. At the start of Year 2, USP acquires Company X for cash consideration worth $110 million. At this time USP’s RAB share is 60%, and FS’s RAB share is 40% and is not reasonably anticipated to change as a result of this acquisition. Company X joins in the filing of a U.S. consolidated income tax return with USP. Under paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this section, Company X and USP are treated as one taxpayer for purposes of this section. Accordingly, the rights in any of Company X’s resources and capabilities that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to the development activities of the CSA will be considered platform contributions furnished by USP. Company X’s resources and capabilities consist of its workforce, certain technology intangibles, $15 million of tangible property and other assets and $5 million in liabilities. The technology intangibles, as well as Company X’s workforce, are reasonably anticipated to contribute to the development of the Group Z products under the CSA and, therefore, the rights in the technology intangibles and the workforce are platform contributions for which FS must make a PCT Payment to USP. None of Company X’s existing intangible assets or any of its workforce are anticipated to contribute to activities outside the CSA. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that no additional adjustment on account of tax liabilities is needed. Applying the acquisition price method, the value of USP’s platform contributions is the adjusted acquisition price of $100 million ($110 million acquisition price plus $5 million liabilities less $15 million tangible property and other assets). FS must make a PCT Payment to USP for these platform contributions with a reasonably anticipated present value of $40 million, which is the product of $100 million (the value of the platform contributions) and 40% (FS’s RAB share) ...

The following example illustrates the principles of this paragraph (g)(5): ...

The comparability and reliability considerations stated in § 1.482-4(c)(2) apply. Consistent with those considerations, the reliability of applying the acquisition price method as a measure of the arm’s length charge for the PCT Payment normally is reduced if – (A) A substantial portion of the target’s nonroutine contributions to the PCT Payee’s business activities is not required to be covered by a PCT or group of PCTs, and that portion of the nonroutine contributions cannot reliably be valued; (B) A substantial portion of the target’s assets consists of tangible property that cannot reliably be valued; or (C) The date on which the target is acquired and the date of the PCT are not contemporaneous ...

The adjusted acquisition price is the acquisition price of the target increased by the value of the target’s liabilities on the date of the acquisition, other than liabilities not assumed in the case of an asset purchase, and decreased by the value of the target’s tangible property on that date and by the value on that date of any other resources, capabilities, and rights not covered by a PCT or group of PCTs ...

Under this method, the arm’s length charge for a PCT or group of PCTs covering resources, capabilities, and rights of the target is equal to the adjusted acquisition price, as divided among the controlled participants according to their respective RAB shares ...

The acquisition price method applies the comparable uncontrolled transaction method of § 1.482-4(c), or the comparable uncontrolled services price method described in § 1.482-9(c), to evaluate whether the amount charged in a PCT, or group of PCTs, is arm’s length by reference to the amount charged (the acquisition price) for the stock or asset purchase of an entire organization or portion thereof (the target) in an uncontrolled transaction. The acquisition price method is ordinarily used where substantially all the target’s nonroutine contributions, as such term is defined in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section, made to the PCT Payee’s business activities are covered by a PCT or group of PCTs ...

...

If the same intangible was transferred to an uncontrolled taxpayer under substantially the same circumstances as those of the controlled transaction; this transaction serves as the basis for the application of the comparable uncontrolled transaction method in the first taxable year in which substantial periodic consideration was required to be paid; and the amount paid in that year was an arm’s length amount, then no allocation in a subsequent year will be made under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this paragraph for a controlled transfer of intangible property ...

In April 2010 Roche pharmaceutical group acquired the entire share capital of the Israeli company, Medingo Ltd, for USD 160 million. About six months after the acquisition, Medingo was entered into 3 inter-group service agreements: a R&D services agreement, pursuant to which Medingo was to provide R&D services in exchange for cost + 5%. All developments under the agreement would be owned by Roche. a services agreement according to which Medingo was to provided marketing, administration, consultation and support services in exchange for cost + 5%. a manufacturing agreement, under which Medingo was to provide manufacturing and packaging services in exchange for cost + 5. A license agreement was also entered, according to which Roche could now manufacture, use, sell, exploit, continue development and sublicense to related parties the Medingo IP in exchange for 2% of the relevant net revenues. Finally, in 2013, Medingo’s operation in Israel was terminated and its IP sold to Roche for approximately USD 45 million. The tax authorities viewed the transactions as steps in a single arrangement, which – from the outset – had the purpose of transferring all the activities of Medingo to Roche. On that basis an assessment was issued according to which the intangibles had been transferred to Roche in 2010. Based on the acquisition price for the shares, the value was determined to approximately USD 160 millions. An appeal was filed by Medingo claiming that there had been no transfer in 2010. Judgment of the District Court The court decided in favor of Medingo and set aside the 2010 tax assessment – but without passing an opinion in relation to the value of the sale of the intellectual property in 2013. Excerpts “96. The guidelines indicate that in a transaction between related parties, two different issues must be examined using the arm’s length principle: transaction characterization and transaction pricing. The characterization of the transaction must first be examined and it must be examined whether it would also have been made between unrelated parties. If the examination reveals that even unrelated parties would have entered into a transaction in the same situation, then it must be further examined whether the price paid for the assets complies with market conditions. It should be noted that in accordance with the guidelines, the characterization of the transaction should not be interfered with in violation of the agreements, except in exceptional circumstances, in which the agreements are fundamentally unfounded, or in no way allow a price to be determined according to the arm’s length principle. “Tax A tax administration should not disregard part or all of the restructuring or substitute other transactions for it unless the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph 1.142 are met”. out circumstances in which the transaction between the parties as accurately delineated can be disregarded for transfer pricing purposes. Because non-recognition can be contentious and a source of double taxation, every effort should be made to determine the actual nature of the transaction and apply arm’s length pricing to the accurately delineated transaction, and to ensure that non-recognition is not used simply because determining an arm’s length price is difficult. e same transaction can be seen between independent parties in comparable circumstances… non-recognition would not apply… the transaction as accurately delineated may be disregarded, and if appropriate, replaced by an alternative transaction, where the arrangements made in relation to the transaction, viewed in their totality, differ from those which would have been adopted by independent enterprises behaving in a commercially rational manner in comparable circumstances, thereby preventing determination of a price that would be acceptable to both of the parties taking into account their respective perspective and the options realistically available to each of them at the time of entering into the transaction “. 97. Further to this, sections 1.146 – 1.148 of the Guideline, 2022, provide two examples of cases in which the characterization of the transaction must be ignored. The second example deals with a case closer to our case, where a one-time payment is paid for R&D services and their products provided – for 20 years. 98. After examining the characterization of the transaction in our case, I found no defect in it. This is a completely different case from those mentioned in the guidelines, and it has been proven to me that transactions with a similar characterization can be conducted and are also conducted between unrelated parties. Thus, throughout the proceedings, the appellant presented various examples of similar license agreements and R&D agreements signed between unrelated parties: In Phase A, the appellant presented various transactions for comparison (P / 2 (to which the respondent did not even refer), p. 332 of the minutes (and within the appeal Of EY Germany and of Gonen in which additional transactions were presented for comparison, including transactions of similar companies in the relevant market.” “104. I also believe that it makes sense to enter into such agreements, especially in the situation of the appellant at that time. Appellant faced considerable obstacles, and her chances of success were not guaranteed, to say the least….” “105. The inter-group agreements secured the appellant’s future in the near term, and gave her more chances to survive. As the appellant’s experts clarified, small companies find it difficult to survive alone in the medical device market (see for example Section 1 of the Michlin Opinion (hence, a licensing and commercialization agreement is common practice in the field and common with contractors with experience and resources); See also paragraph 41 regarding Broadcom).” “110. In conclusion, as long as the appellant and Roche acted in accordance with the inter-group agreements, which are acceptable in industry and in the circumstances of the case there is logic in concluding them, I did not find any invalidity in the characterization of the agreements (see paragraphs 85 and 87 in the Broadcom case).” “….As stated, I believe that even if there was an intention to transfer the activity, there was no final decision until the date of the announcement. Second, and this is the ...

92. Osnovni is the parent company of an MNE Group engaged in the development and sale of software products. Osnovni acquires 100% of the equity interests in Company S, a publicly traded company organised in the same country as Osnovni, for a price equal to 160. At the time of the acquisition, Company S shares had an aggregate trading value of 100. Competitive bidders for the Company S business offered amounts ranging from 120 to 130 for Company S. 93. Company S had only a nominal amount of fixed assets at the time of the acquisition. Its value consisted primarily of rights in developed and partially developed intangibles related to software products and its skilled workforce. The purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes by Osnovni allocated 10 to tangible assets, 60 to intangibles, and 90 to goodwill. Osnovni justified the 160 purchase price in presentations to its Board of Directors by reference to the complementary nature of the existing products of the Osnovni group and the products and potential products of Company S. 94. Company T is a wholly owned subsidiary of Osnovni. Osnovni has traditionally licensed exclusive rights in all of its intangibles related to the European and Asian markets to Company T. For purposes of this example it is assumed that all arrangements related to the historic licences of European and Asian rights to Company T prior to the acquisition of Company S are arm’s length. 95. Immediately following the acquisition of Company S, Osnovni liquidates Company S, and thereafter grants an exclusive and perpetual licence to Company T for intangible rights related to the Company S products in European and Asian markets. 96. In determining an arm’s length price for the Company S intangibles licensed to Company T under the foregoing arrangements, the premium over the original trading value of the Company S shares included in the acquisition price should be considered. To the extent that premium reflects the complementary nature of Osnovni group products with the acquired products in the European and Asian markets licensed to Company T, Company T should pay an amount for the transferred Company S intangibles and rights in intangibles that reflects an appropriate share of the purchase price premium. To the extent the purchase price premium is attributable exclusively to product complementarities outside of Company T’s markets, the purchase price premium should not be taken into account in determining the arm’s length price paid by Company T for Company S intangibles related to Company T’s geographic market. The value attributed to intangibles in the purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes is not determinative for transfer pricing purposes ...

83. Birincil acquires 100% of the equity interests in an independent enterprise, Company T for 100. Company T is a company that engages in research and development and has partially developed several promising technologies but has only minimal sales. The purchase price is justified primarily by the value of the promising, but only partly developed, technologies and by the potential of Company T personnel to develop further new technologies in the future. Birincil’s purchase price allocation performed for accounting purposes with respect to the acquisition attributes 20 of the purchase price to tangible property and identified intangibles, including patents, and 80 to goodwill. 84. Immediately following the acquisition, Birincil causes Company T to transfer all of its rights in developed and partially developed technologies, including patents, trade secrets and technical know-how to Company S, a subsidiary of Birincil. Company S simultaneously enters into a contract research agreement with Company T, pursuant to which the Company T workforce will continue to work exclusively on the development of the transferred technologies and on the development of new technologies on behalf of Company S. The agreement provides that Company T will be compensated for its research services by payments equal to its cost plus a mark-up, and that all rights to intangibles developed or enhanced under the research agreement will belong to Company S. As a result, Company S will fund all future research and will assume the financial risk that some or all of the future research will not lead to the development of commercially viable products. Company S has a large research staff, including management personnel responsible for technologies of the type acquired from Company T. Following the transactions in question, the Company S research and management personnel assume full management responsibility for the direction and control of the work of the Company T research staff. Company S approves new projects, develops and plans budgets and in other respects controls the ongoing research work carried on at Company T. All company T research personnel will continue to be employees of Company T and will be devoted exclusively to providing services under the research agreement with Company S. 85. In conducting a transfer pricing analysis of the arm’s length price to be paid by Company S for intangibles transferred by Company T, and of the price to be paid for ongoing R&D services to be provided by Company T, it is important to identify the specific intangibles transferred to Company S and those retained by Company T. The definitions and valuations of intangibles contained in the purchase price allocation are not determinative for transfer pricing purposes. The 100 paid by Birincil for the shares of Company T represents an arm’s length price for shares of the company and provides useful information regarding the value of the business of Company T. The full value of that business should be reflected either in the value of the tangible and intangible assets transferred to Company S or in the value of the tangible and intangible assets and workforce retained by Company T. Depending on the facts, a substantial portion of the value described in the purchase price allocation as goodwill of Company T may have been transferred to Company S together with the other Company T intangibles. Depending on the facts, some portion of the value described in the purchase price allocation as goodwill may also have been retained by Company T. Under arm’s length transfer pricing principles, Company T should be entitled to compensation for such value, either as part of the price paid by Company S for the transferred rights to technology intangibles, or through the compensation Company T is paid in years following the transaction for the R&D services of its workforce. It should generally be assumed that value does not disappear, nor is it destroyed, as part of an internal business restructuring. If the transfer of intangibles to Company S had been separated in time from the acquisition, a separate inquiry would be required regarding any intervening appreciation or depreciation in the value of the transferred intangibles ...

In some situations, intangibles acquired by an MNE group from independent enterprises are transferred to a member of the MNE group in a controlled transaction immediately following the acquisition. In such a case the price paid for the acquired intangibles will often (after any appropriate adjustments, including adjustments for acquired assets not re-transferred) represent a useful comparable for determining the arm’s length price for the controlled transaction under a CUP method. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the third party acquisition price in such situations will have relevance in determining arm’s length prices and other conditions for the controlled transaction, even where the intangibles are acquired indirectly through an acquisition of shares or where the price paid to the third party for shares or assets exceeds the book value of the acquired assets. Examples 23 and in Annex I to Chapter VI illustrate the principles of this paragraph ...

A AG, which was founded in 2000 by researchers from the University of Applied Sciences D, has as its object the development and distribution of …, in particular in the areas of ….. It had its registered office in Zurich until the transfer of its registered office to Zug in 2021. By contract dated 16 June 2011, it was taken over by Group E, Country Q, or by an acquisition company founded by it for this purpose, for a share purchase price of EUR …. On the same day, it concluded two contracts with E-Schweiz AG, which was in the process of being founded (entered in the Commercial Register on 7 September 2011), in which it undertook to provide general and administrative services on the one hand and research and development on the other. As of 30 September 2011, A AG sold all ”Intellectual Property Rights” (IPR) and ”Non-Viral Contracts” to E-Company, a company in U with tax domicile on the island of V, for a price of EUR … for the IPR and EUR … for the ”Non-Viral Contracts”. A AG had neither identifiable operating activities nor personnel substance in the financial year from 01.10.2011-30.09.2012 following the shareholding transaction. The transfer of the tangible and intangible business assets and the personnel of A AG to other companies of the E group corresponded to an integration plan that had already been set out in a draft power point presentation of the E group prior to the acquisition of the shares. Following an audit the tax authorities issued an assessment for additional taxable net profit for the tax period 01.01.-30.09.2011 for state and communal taxes and direct federal tax, as well as taxable equity of CHF … for state and communal taxes. The assessed taxable net profit included a hidden profit distribution from the sale of the IPR and customer relationships to the E-Company. The calculations of profits was made as a discretionary estimate. An appeal was filed by A AG with the tax court which was dismissed with respect to the calculations of profits due to the sale of intangible assets at a lower price, but were upheld with respect to the transfer of functions. An appeal was then filed with the administrative court by both A AG and the tax authorities. A AG requested that the assessment of the Tax Office be dismissed with costs and compensation. The Tax Office requested the dismissal of the complaints of the obligated party and the annulment of the decision of the Tax Appeal Court and confirmation of the objection decisions with costs to be borne by the obligated party. Judgment of the Administrative Court The court ruled in favour of the tax authorities and remanded the case to the court of first instance for recalculation. Excerpts “The subject matter of the proceedings are reorganisation measures carried out after the change of shareholders, which were connected with the sale of assets of the obligated party to other group companies and the abandonment of traditional operating activities. The dispute revolves around the question of whether the obligated party provided services to related companies under conditions that do not comply with the principles of tax law regarding the appropriateness of performance and consideration between related parties and whether it therefore provided non-cash benefits or hidden profit distributions that are subject to profit tax.” “According to the correct findings of the Tax Appeals Court, to which reference can be made, the large discrepancy between the values according to the transfer price study of company I and the share purchase price and the result of the PPA was suitable to cast doubt on the correctness of the transfer price study. Even if the objections to the comparability with the PPA were true, the relevance of the PPA (wrongly disputed by the obligated party) could not be verified without the data used in its preparation. The share purchase price was agreed among independent third parties and therefore corresponded to the enterprise value at the time of the acquisition of the shareholding. According to the findings of the lower court, the transfer price study was only subsequently prepared in 2012 and is incomplete in various respects, which was not refuted by the obligated party. The Tax Appeals Court therefore concluded that the requirement had not been fulfilled and that the facts of the case had remained unclear. In particular, there had been uncertainty about the actual value of the intangible rights sold after the investigation had been completed. The Cantonal Tax Office’s assertion that the agreed purchase price for the intangible rights was too low had not been refuted and, based on the comparison with the PPA and the share purchase price, this assertion appeared very likely. The Cantonal Tax Office had therefore provided the main evidence incumbent upon it. Because the cantonal tax office had not been able to carry out its own valuation due to the lack of data, it had rightly proceeded to an estimate. According to the decision of the lower court, the discretionary assessments regarding the profit from the sale of the intangible assets were rightly made.” “Moreover, the burden of proving the obvious incorrectness of the discretionary assessment is placed on the taxpayer, which is not to be equated with a “reversal of the burden of proof” (on the whole Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 44; diesel, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N. 37; Zweifel et al., Schweizerisches Steuerverfahrensrecht, § 20 Rz. 22).” “An estimate is “obviously incorrect” if it cannot be objectively justified, in particular if it is recognisably motivated by penalties or fiscal considerations, if it is based on improper bases, methods or aids for estimation or if it cannot otherwise be reasonably reconciled with the circumstances of the individual case as known from the experience of life. Obviously incorrect is therefore an estimate that is based on an abusive use of the estimation discretion, i.e. is arbitrary (Zweifel/Hunziker, Kommentar StHG, Art. 48 N. 59; dieselben, Kommentar DBG, Art. 132 N ...

The Swedish Tax Agency’s had increased G AB’s income from business activities by SEK 544 million for the 2014 tax year. The issue stemmed from an internal transfer of intellectual property (IP) rights from G AB to its U.S. subsidiary, GRP, at a price the Tax Agency deemed undervalued due to G AB not accounting for goodwill associated with the transferred assets. G AB argued that the goodwill and synergies, identified in an earlier external acquisition by parent company B, did not relate to the transferred IP and that reduced sales and an eventual goodwill write-down suggested a decline in asset value. Judgment The court found that goodwill indeed applied to the transferred assets and agreed with the Tax Agency’s use of the 2013 external acquisition price as a comparable benchmark, following OECD transfer pricing guidelines. The court also supported the Tax Agency’s estimated goodwill value of USD 82.5 million. Additionally, the court confirmed the tax surcharge, ruling that G AB’s omission of goodwill in its valuation constituted an incorrect statement, not merely a subjective valuation. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

A AB appealed a Swedish Tax Agency decision regarding the income assessment for 2012, specifically around transfer pricing for the transfer of a business segment (P business) from its Swedish subsidiary, C AB, to its U.S. parent, A INC. A AB argued that only specific intellectual property assets, such as technology, a customer list, and a trademark, were transferred, rather than an entire ongoing business. It claimed the transfer price set by the Tax Agency was too high, asserting that a significant portion of the value should be attributed to Mr. X’s know-how, who continued to develop products post-transfer on behalf of A INC. The Swedish Tax Agency contended that the entire P business, including functions, risks, and key personnel like Mr. X, had been transferred, resulting in C AB being left without any assets or business activities. Judgment The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that Mr. X’s expertise was integral to the business and constituted part of the transfer, classifying the transaction as a transfer of an “ongoing concern,” or a full business unit, rather than isolated assets. Following OECD guidelines on transfer pricing, the Court supported the Tax Agency’s position that the transaction should reflect the value of an entire ongoing business, including goodwill. The Court ruled that the company’s arguments did not substantiate a lower valuation and upheld the Tax Agency’s income adjustment. Consequently, A AB’s appeal was dismissed. Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...