At issue was whether or not a proportionate share of management and general administrative expenses incurred by the head office in Spain should be allocated to its PE in Algeria. The tax authorities (appelante) argued that, in general, these expenses cannot be individualised and, therefore, a proportional criteria should be used to determine the amount to be allocated to the Algerian PE. Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A. argued that only management and general administrative expenses related to the purposes of the Algerian PE should be attributed to it. According to the company, the tax authorities had not carried out an appropriate analysis when examining what percentage of these expenses related to the Algerian PE. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court decided in favor of Compañía Española de Petróleos S.A. Excerpts (English translation) “The tax authorities point out that in commercial groups there are activities and services that do not always generate transactions and consequent expenses in all the entities of the group, but which are useful and beneficial for them and their permanent establishments. From this perspective, certain corporate expenses are allocated to management and general administrative expenses (management of information systems, presidency, institutional relations, etc.), the costs of which should, in the Inspectorate’s opinion, be partially allocated to Algeria’s PE in a certain proportion. Once the total amount of expenditure corresponding to these cost centres has been quantified, the Inspectorate proceeds to calculate a percentage obtained by relating the net investment in Algeria to the total net tangible fixed assets recorded in the consolidated accounts of the commercial group. However, this method of allocating management and general administrative expenses has been rejected by this Court in respect of the appellant in relation to the financial years 2000 and 2004, in which the tax authorities allocated expenses for the same items using the same method as applied in the financial years in question.” “Contrary to what the appellant maintains, it does not follow from its wording that it is necessary to individualise the management and general administration expenses for each SOE, but rather that the Inspectorate will have to carry out a prior “selection” of the expenses in order to determine those which, being truly general and related to the purposes of the SOE, can be proportionally imputed to it. In other words, and in the terms used by the Court of First Instance in the judgment to which it refers, “it would be necessary to analyse these expenses more rigorously, to check which of them, because they are truly general, are suitable for being passed on and, once this need to pass them on has been determined, to then discuss the proportionality rule and on what magnitudes it would be admissible […]”. The problem, therefore, does not derive from the application of a proportionality criterion to determine the management and general administration expenses that can be charged to the PE, but rather from an earlier step, i.e. from the prior selection of the expenses, given that only those expenses which, it is reiterated, because they are truly general and related to the PE’s purposes, can be charged proportionally.” “In this regard, it should be recalled, on the one hand, that although the Commentaries to Article 7.3 (paragraph 3.27) of the OECD Model Convention and the Interpretative Commentaries thereto may be valid as interpretative criteria in relation to Article 7.3 of the Spanish-Algerian DTT, they are not valid in relation to Article 22 TRLIS, cited as being infringed, as the respondent in cassation points out. On the other hand, this Court has repeatedly stated that the OECD rules, models or comments that normally inspire the drafting of conventions – among the states whose governments belong to that organisation, presumably – are not normative sources that condition or bind our criteria, nor can they be invoked as infringed in cassation…” Click here for English translation Click here for other translation ...

Italien fashion group, Dolce & Gabbana s.r.l. (hereinafter DG s.r.l.), the licensee of the Dolce&Gabbana trademark, entered into a sub-licensing agreement with its subsidiary Dolce&Gabbana Industria (hereinafter DG Industria or Industria) whereby the former granted to the latter the right to produce, distribute and sell products bearing the well-known trademark throughout the world and undertook to carry out promotion and marketing activities in return for royalties. DG s.r.l., in order to carry out promotion and marketing activities in the U.S.A., made use of the company Dolce&Gabbana Usa Inc. (hereinafter DG Usa) with contracts in force since 2002; in particular, on March 16, 2005, it entered into a service agreement whereby DG Usa undertook to provide the aforesaid services in return for an annual fee payable by DG s.r.l.; this consideration is determined on the basis of the costs analytically attributable to the provision of the agreed services in addition to a mark up, i.e. a mark-up, determined in a variable percentage based on the amount of the cost. In order to verify the fairness of the consideration, the parties have provided for the obligation of analytical reporting as well as an amicable settlement procedure through an auditing company. Lastly, DG s.r.l., DG Usa and DG Industria entered into another agreement, supply agreement, whereby DG Industria appointed DG Usa as its distributor for the USA in mono-brand shops, DG Usa committed to DG s.r.l. to adapt the shops to its high quality standards functional to increasing brand awareness, and DG s.r.l. committed to pay a service fee. The service contribution was recognised in relation to the costs exceeding a percentage of the turnover realised through the mono-brand sales outlets. In the course of an audit, the Italian Revenue Agency made the following findings in relation to the tax year 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005: first, it denied the deductibility from the taxable income for IRES and IRAP purposes of part of the fees paid by DG s.r.l. to DG USA under the service contract and precisely: a) of the costs of certain services (in particular, it recognised the costs for commercial sales, executive consultant, advertising Madison sales, advertising all others and not the others), because, provided that these were generic services, falling within the normal activity of the reseller of goods, remunerated by the resale margin, and that the reimbursable costs were defined generically, without provision of a ceiling, a reporting method and prior approval by DG s.r.l., it pointed out that it could only recognise the costs rendered in the interest >>also of the parent company<<; b) the portion corresponding to the chargeback of the mark-up, referring to Revenue Agency Circular No. 32/80 on intra-group services, where it provides that the mark-up in favour of the service provider is recognisable only where the services constitute the typical activity of the service provider and not for those services rendered by the parent company that have no market value or are attributable to the general management or administrative activity of the parent company; secondly, it denied the deductibility of the consideration paid by DG s.r.l. to DG Usa under the supply agreement, pointing out that the costs to be considered for the purposes of the contribution would be generically identified, there would be no obligation of adequate reporting or prior approval, which would in fact transfer to DG s.r.l. the risk of substantial inefficiencies of DG Usa, a risk that no independent third party would have assumed, and that the party had not adequately demonstrated that the costs corresponded to the normal value of the costs inasmuch as the documentation produced, relating to other fashion groups, concerned persons who were also owners of the mark, directly interested in its development and promotion. DG s.r.l. brought an appeal before the Provincial Tax Commission of Milan, which rejected it. An appeal was then brought before the Regional Tax Commission of Lombardy which was likewise rejected. In particular, the Regional Tax Commission, for what is relevant herein rejected the preliminary objections (failure to contest the recovery by means of a report; insufficiency and contradictory motivation); reconstructed the subject matter of the dispute, pointing out that the Agency had contested some costs of the service agreement, excluding their inherent nature; for the costs deemed inherent, it had recalculated the amount, excluding the mark-up; for the supply agreement, it had re-taxed the costs, excluding their deductibility due to lack of inherent nature in relation to the service agreement, it confirmed that the costs for the excluded services were not inherent, because: a) DG Usa also carried out activities pertaining to the retailer DG Industria, distributor of Dolce&Gabbana branded products in the U.S. and the costs were connected to this marketing activity; b) the correlation deducted by the company between the costs recharged to DG s.r.l. and the revenues that the latter obtains as a result of the royalties paid by DG Industria, because the costs connected to services intended to increase sales are those of the retailer and not of the licensee of the trademark, to which are inherent only the costs intended to increase the prestige of the trademark itself; c) the costs incurred in the interest of both DG s.r.l. and DG Usa is not relevant and the only cost items recognisable in favour of the former are those pertaining exclusively to its relevance; d) for the purpose of proving congruity, the expert’s report by Prof. Lorenzo Pozza and the certification by Mahoney Cohen & company were irrelevant, since they were mere opinions that were not binding on the administration; (e) the mark up was not deductible since the services rendered by DG USA were rendered in the interest of both DG s.r.l., licensee of the mark, and DG Industria, reseller, and it was not possible to take into consideration the actions of the latter in favour of Itierre s.p.a., reseller and therefore different from DG s.r.l.; (f) the recharging of costs to DG s.r.l. was formally obligatory in the antero but largely ...

(i) Company A is a consumer products company located in the United States. Companies B and C are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Company A and are located in Countries B and C, respectively. Company A and its subsidiaries manufacture products for sale in their respective markets. Company A hires a consultant who has expertise regarding a manufacturing process used by Company A and its subsidiary, Company B. Company C, the Country C subsidiary, uses a different manufacturing process, and accordingly will not receive any benefit from the outside consultant hired by Company A. In allocating and apportioning the cost of hiring the outside consultant (100), Company A determines that sales constitute the most appropriate allocation key. (ii) Company A and its subsidiaries have the following sales: Company A B C Total Sales 400 100 200 700 (iii) Because Company C does not obtain any benefit from the consultant, none of the costs are allocated to it. Rather, the costs of 100 are allocated and apportioned ratably to Company A and Company B as the entities that obtain a benefit from the campaign, based on the total sales of those entities (500). An appropriate allocation of the costs of the consultant is as follows: Company A B Total Allocation 400/500 100/500 Amount 80 20 100 ...

Company A pays an annual license fee of 500x to an uncontrolled taxpayer for unlimited use of a database within the corporate group. Under the terms of the license with the uncontrolled taxpayer, Company A is permitted to use the database for its own use and in rendering research services to its subsidiary, Company B. Company B obtains benefits from the database that are similar to those that it would obtain if it had independently licensed the database from the uncontrolled taxpayer. Evaluation of the arm’s length charge (under a method in which costs are relevant) to Company B for the controlled services that incorporate use of the database must take into account the full amount of the license fee of 500x paid by Company A, as reasonably allocated and apportioned to the relevant benefits, although the incremental use of the database for the benefit of Company B did not result in an increase in the license fee paid by Company A ...

The principles of this paragraph (k) are illustrated by the following examples: ...

The practices used by the taxpayer to apportion costs in connection with preparation of statements and analyses for the use of management, creditors, minority shareholders, joint venturers, clients, customers, potential investors, or other parties or agencies in interest will be considered as potential indicators of reliable allocation methods, but need not be accorded conclusive weight by the Commissioner. In determining the extent to which allocations are to be made to or from foreign members of a controlled group, practices employed by the domestic members in apportioning costs among themselves will also be considered if the relationships with the foreign members are comparable to the relationships among the domestic members of the controlled group. For example, if for purposes of reporting to public stockholders or to a governmental agency, a corporation apportions the costs attributable to its executive officers among the domestic members of a controlled group on a reasonable and consistent basis, and such officers exercise comparable control over foreign members of the controlled group, such domestic apportionment practice will be considered in determining the allocations to be made to the foreign members ...

Any reasonable method may be used to allocate and apportion costs under this section. In establishing the appropriate method of allocation and apportionment, consideration should be given to all bases and factors, including, for example, total services costs, total costs for a relevant activity, assets, sales, compensation, space utilized, and time spent. The costs incurred by supporting departments may be apportioned to other departments on the basis of reasonable overall estimates, or such costs may be reflected in the other departments’ costs by applying reasonable departmental overhead rates. Allocations and apportionments of costs must be made on the basis of the full cost, as opposed to the incremental cost ...

...

In any case where the renderer’s activity that results in a benefit (within the meaning of paragraph (l)(3) of this section) for one recipient in a controlled services transaction also generates a benefit for one or more other members of a controlled group (including the benefit, if any, to the renderer), and the amount charged under this section in the controlled services transaction is determined under a method that makes reference to costs, costs must be allocated among the portions of the activity performed for the benefit of the first mentioned recipient and such other members of the controlled group under this paragraph (k). The principles of this paragraph (k) must also be used whenever it is appropriate to allocate and apportion any class of costs (for example, overhead costs) in order to determine the total services costs of rendering the services. In no event will an allocation of costs based on a generalized or non-specific benefit be appropriate ...

...

The reliability of the results derived from the residual profit split is affected by the quality of the data and assumptions used to apply this method. In particular, the following factors must be considered – (1) The reliability of the allocation of costs, income, and assets as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) of this section; (2) Accounting consistency as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C)(2) of this section; (3) The reliability of the data used and the assumptions made in valuing the intangible property contributed by the participants. In particular, if capitalized costs of development are used to estimate the value of intangible property, the reliability of the results is reduced relative to the reliability of other methods that do not require such an estimate, for the following reasons. First, in any given case, the costs of developing the intangible may not be related to its market value. Second, the calculation of the capitalized costs of development may require the allocation of indirect costs between the relevant business activity and the controlled taxpayer’s other activities, which may affect the reliability of the analysis. Finally, the calculation of costs may require assumptions regarding the useful life of the intangible property ...

Allocation of operating or exceptional costs would follow risk assumption and how third parties would treat such costs. Thus in order to determine which associated enterprise should bear exceptional costs, it would be first necessary to accurately delineate the controlled transaction, which would indicate who has the responsibility for performing activities related to the relevant costs and who assumes risks related to these activities. For example, if a cost directly relates to a particular risk, then the party assuming that risk would typically bear the costs associated with that risk. Furthermore, the party initially incurring an exceptional cost may not be the party assuming risks associated to that cost at arm’s length, and consequently such costs may need to be passed on to parties that do assume such risks. Thus a thorough analysis should be performed before concluding whether all or part of the operating or exceptional costs should be allocated between related parties ...

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many enterprises have incurred exceptional, non-recurring operating costs relevant to differing operating conditions for the pandemic period. These include expenditure on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), reconfiguration of workspaces to enable physical distancing, IT infrastructure expenses relating to test, track and trace obligations and to implement teleworking arrangements. In determining how these costs should be allocated between related parties, it will be important to consider how these costs would be allocated between independent parties operating in comparable circumstances ...

Acer Computer Ibérica S.A. (ACI) is part of the multinational ACER group, which manufactures and distributes personal computers and other electronic devices. Acer Europe AG (AEAG), a group entity in Switzerland, centralises the procurement of the subsidiaries established in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and acts as the regional management centre for that geographical area. ACI is responsible for the wholesale marketing of electronic equipment and material, as well as in the provision of technical service related to these products in Spain and Portugal. ACI is characterized as a limited risk distributor by the group. At issue was deductibility of payments resulting from factoring agreements undertaken ACI with unrelated banks, adopted to manage liquidity risks arising from timing mismatches between its accounts payable and accounts receivable. Based on an interpretation of the limited risk agreement signed between ACI and its principal AEAG, the tax authorities disregarded the allocation of the risk – and hence allocation of the relevant costs – to ACI. The tax authorities considered that the financial costs arising from the relocation of cancelled orders, those arising from differences in the criteria for calculating collection and payment deadlines and those arising from delays in shipments are due to the application of incorrect criteria for the accounting and invoicing of certain transactions. It also considers that the assumption of those costs by ACI is in contradiction with its classification as a low-risk distributor and does not comply with the distribution of functions and risks between ACI and AEAG, which results from the distribution contract and the transfer pricing report. An assessment for FY 2006 – 2008 where the costs were added back to the taxable income of Acer Computer Ibérica S.A. was issued. Judgement of the Federal Court The court dismissed the appeal of Acer and upheld the tax assessment in which deductions for the costs in question had been disallowed. Excerpts “The interpretation of the contract terms which we uphold follows the above mentioned OECD Guidelines: In arm’s length transactions, the contract terms generally define, expressly or implicitly, how responsibilities, risks and results are allocated between the parties.” “However, it is irrelevant, in view of the foregoing on the assumption of risk, that ACI’s financing costs are higher than those of comparable undertakings (as the tax authorities maintain), since the refusal of deductibility is based on the fact that the costs claimed to be deductible are not borne by the appellant in accordance with the terms of the contract.” Click here for English Translation Click here for other translation ...